Cycling of Mineral Nutrients in Agricultural Ecosystems

E II!]rn-E[nsvstems An International Journal sponsored b y the International Association for Ecology

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:

ASSOCIATE EDITOR:

J.L. Harper University College of North Wales School of Plant Biology Memorial Buildings BANGOR, Caerns N. Wales Great Britain

P. Gruys Research Group for Integrated Pest Control Experimental Orchard "De Schuilenburg" LIENDEN The Netherlands

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD:

M.R. Biswas, Ottawa, Ont., Canada H. Bouwer, Phoenix, Ariz., U.S.A. F. de Soet, Leersum, The Netherlands K.H. Domsch, Braunschwaig-V61kenrode, Federal Republic of Germany E. Frei, Z~Jrich-Reckenholz, Switzerland W.R. Gardner, Madison, Wisc., U.S.A. C.D. Green, Wellesbourne, Great Britain H. Gysin, Basel, Switzerland E.F. Henzell, St. Lucia, QId., Australia L. Hoffmann, Aries, France C.S. Holling, Vancouver, B.C., Canada C.B. Huffaker, Albany, Calif., U.S.A. p. Jacquard, Montpellier, France M. Kassas, Giza, Egypt H.H. Koepf, Dornach, Switzerland B. Lundholm, Stockholm, Sweden D.A. McQuillan, Toronto, Ont., Canada

E.G. Mahn, Halle/S, German Democratic Republic R. Misra, Varanasi, India R.K. Murton, Huntingdon, Great Britain B. Ohnesorge, Stuttgart, Federal Republic of Germany T.A. Rabotnov, Moscow, U.S.S.R. J. Sarukh~n, Mexico, Mexico L. Schmidl, Frankston, Vict., Australia K.F. Schreiber, MiJnster, Federal Republic of Germany C.R.W. Spedding, Reading, Great Britain G. Stanhill, Bet Dagan, Israel J.W. Sturrock, Christchurch, New Zealand L.M. Talbot, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. H.V. Thompson, Guildford, Great Britain B. Ulrich, G~ttingen, Federal Republic of Germany G.J. Vervelde, Wageningen, The Netherlands

V O L U M E 4 (1977/1978)

ELSEVIER S C I E N T I F I C P U B L I S H I N G C O M P A N Y -

AMSTERDAM

vii PREFACE This issue of Agro-Ecosystems contains the o u t c o m e of a symposium on the Cycling of Mineral Nutrients in Agricultural Ecosystems. It was the First International Environmental Symposium of the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Heide Maatschappij (Royal Netherlands Land Development Society), cosponsored by the International Association for Ecology and Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. The meeting was held on the Elsevier premises in Amsterdam from 31 May to 4 June 1976. An understanding of agricultural ecosystems is regarded as essential to future work in land development. A need was felt to have the subject reviewed by an interdisciplinary group of specialists, also with a view to what directions future research should take. The symposium was of an experimental nature, especially in the way in which it was organised. Background information is given in Annex 1. A number of specialists were invited to write review papers on the cycling of mineral nutrients in agricultural ecosystems, generally covering the geographical region and language area with which they were familiar. In this w a y it was h o p e d that the problem of language barriers, still such a large factor in modern-day scientific communication, might be overcome. The separate reviews were compiled into one integrated general review b y the editor. This integrated review was used as the basis for discussions at a five-day symposium to which the mentioned specialists had been invited. In addition, a number of other experts on this and related fields were asked to take part in the discussions. The integrated review together with the results of the discussions formed the basis of this final report. Certain sections or remarks are based mainly or entirely on the contribution of only one or a few specialists. The name of the specialist(s) is (are) given between brackets indicating that the text is based on his (their) ideas.

Chapter I INTRODUCTION

World population has continued to grow and although some people have been underfed for a b o u t a century now, the increase in the supply of food has managed, in general, to keep pace with this rise thanks to the application of modern agricultural technology. If the growth of the population continues, quite a number of people d o u b t whether.agriculture will be able to feed the increased number of consumers. An important part bf this technology is the use of fertilizers to provide nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium which are elements essential to the growth of living matter (plants and animals}. Fertilizers, particularly those containing nitrogen, require much fossil energy in their manufacture and this is increasingly expensive and, moreover, is a diminishing resource. The raw materials used to make phosphorus and potassium fertilizers have to be mined and although supplies are expected to last many decades the reserves in economically workable concentrations do not have an infinite life. These considerations, plus a greater awareness of the need to protect our environment from the polluting effects of excess fertilizers, and to avoid damage to the physical environment and landscape of our planet, emphasise the need to quantify the movement of nutrients from soils to plant to animals and back to soils again, throughout the world. These transfers of minerals between different types of living matter and parts of the physical environment may be described as nutrient cycles. The principles of nutrient cycling, the mechanisms which control the movement of elements, and their state of balance in parts of systems, or in complete systems, are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. Before collecting data on nutrient cycles it is necessary to define the scale, or level of organisation of the systems with which we are concerned. Such a level could vary between a distinct plant c o m m u n i t y or field, through areas devoted to a particular crop or product, to whole farm, regional or national levels of organisation. Van Dyne and Abramsky (1975) have described hierarchies of systems in which biological components are involved at all levels of organisation. With increasing complexity, physical c o m p o n e n t s enter at the ecosystem level, economic components at the business level, and social and political components at the regional level. The appropriate level often has to be decided in relation to the social complexity of the society under consideration. The solution chosen in this study, to suit agriculture in as many parts of the world as possible, was to build u p o n a relatively simple unit, the agro-ecosystem, usually represented b y a single farm. Agro-ecosystems and the scheme used to classify the 65 examples described at this symposium are discussed in Chapter 4. In brief, it was assumed that an agricultural ecosystem is an organi-

zation of resources, managed to a greater or lesser extent b y man, with production of human food as one of its main objectives. (The maximization of profit might be regarded by the operator as his main objective). This is a more specific definition than that more usually considered by the ecologist. Tansley (1935) defined an ecosystem as "an area within which the processes of primary production, consumption, decomposition and recirculation are largely self-contained". It is usually accepted that a recognisable vegetation/soil complex represents an ecosystem unit but, given the mobility of large herbivores, a grazed rangeland containing several vegetation/soil units may also be considered a basic unit. Because of the transport of nutrients b y water a defined catchment area could also be regarded as a logical unit. The nutrient cycling pools and pathways (or model) and the design and format of the tables used as the template for collecting all the data for the cycles of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in a wide range of contrasted agro-ecosystems, are described in Chapter 5. The main b o d y of the report (Chapter 6) consists of nutrient cycling data from a b o u t 65 agro-ecosystems which are described in detail b y their authors. Some of the latter have discussed the conclusions which arise from consideration of the data for all their own systems and their views are presented here. Many issues regarding the conceptual model, the method of presenting data, the methods of summarising and identifying gaps in the data, and the influence of the latter on use of fertilizer in agro-ecosystems on a worldwide basis were discussed at the seminar, and the main conclusions are summarised in Chapter 7. The means by which man can manipulate nutrient cycles through the better use of fertilizers are then described (Frissel). Many other methods of manipulation which involve changes in crop, cropping system or animal grazing systems are possible b u t time did not permit a detailed investigation of these although their possible application is briefly described at the end of Chapter 3. The discussion concludes with a consideration of what data or researches are still needed to improve the precision and value of nutrient balance sheets of the type used here. The last chapter (8) summarises some of the major findings and indicates h o w accurately the unified data support the conclusions of the discussions. It concludes by listing the data that are still required to increase the precision of nutrient balances for agricultural eco-systems. The acquisition of more precise data may eventually enable agronomists to move towards more accurate forecasting of the effects of changes in fertilizer practice on both agricultural production and on the quality of the environment on a worldwide basis.

Chapter 2 PRINCIPLES OF NUTRIENT CYCLING

Elements, compartments, pathways and transfers, time-scales, rates of transfer and nutrient balances (Newbould)

Nutrients which are essential for the growth of plants and animals are passed from soil -* plant -~ animal -~ soil again; this sequence of transfers through a series of compartments constitutes one of the simplest representations of a nutrient cycle. In most practical situations, whether concerned with natural or man-controlled systems, there are many more compartments and complex transfers involved in the cycling of nutrients than shown in this basic scheme. Many cycles are polycyclic in that an element may cycle through several processes within a compartment, e.g. soil, before being passed to the next compartment (plant). The length of time for a nutrient to complete a cycle varies from minutes in transfers involving micro-organisms, to months for uptake and growth by annual crop plants, to years for intake and growth of animals and to thousands and millions of years for transfers involving the physical environment, for example from atmosphere to land and sea and formation of rocks. Thus, the time scale of any nutrient cycle under study must be carefully defined and any measurement at an instant of time which is alone usually possible neglects some aspects of the dynamic nature of the cycling of mineral nutrients. To understand and quantify nutrient cycling of any element it is necessary to design a conceptual model to represent the main transfers and compartments. Many descriptive models with varying degrees of complexity have been described in recent reviews -- Cooke, 1967; Egunjobi, 1969; Halm et al., 1971; Till and May, 1973; Henzell and Ross, 1973; Wilkinson and Lowrey, 1973; Mort, 1974; Heady, 1975; and Svenson and SSderlund, 1976. An example of a very refined model (Van Veen, 1977) is described in Chapter 7. The scheme adopted duringthe present seminar and described in detail in Chapter 5 is similar to that described by Wilkinson and Lowrey (1973) with three main compartments or pools --- plant, animal (or livestock) and soil, the latter being divided into three sub-pools -- available, unavailable (soil minerals) and residues (soil organic matter). To quantify a nutrient cycle requires knowledge of the element under examination and its chemistry, of the nature and sizes of the compartments, the pathways between them, the quantity and rate of transfer of nutrients along them, the reference time period and definition of the area and boundaries of the system under consideration, e.g. pasture, farm, watershed, or agro-ecosystem (see Chapter 4).

ELEMENTS

The most important characteristics of elements which determine their cycling patterns are solubility in water, volatility and electrochemical potential or degree of chemical reactivity. Of the three elements studied at this symposium, nitrogen and its gaseous c o m p o u n d s are volatile and its solid compounds have high solubility in water so that nitrogen cycles are extremely dynamic and have many complicated pathways and transfers. Phosphorus compounds have low solubility in water so that only a very small proportion (1%) of the total phosphorus in soils and plants is present in the plant component (Hayman, 1975); thus, phosphorus cycles are generally less flamboyant than those with nitrogen. Potassium cycles are intermediate in complexity since potassium compounds are generally n o t volatile b u t have relatively high solubility in water. Potassium is more easily displaced from exchange sites in the soil than phosphorus and it is taken up by plants in higher amounts than phosphorus. THE PLANT COMPARTMENT

This includes all parts of the plant and it can be either the crop or that which is consumed b y livestock. In most intensively grazed or cropped systems nutrients spend only a small portion of the overall cycle time in the plant compartment. The same is n o t true for under-utilised indigenous vegetation or for forests where a portion of the nutrients may remain for long periods of time. In these cases it is often difficult to define the size of the pool. It is sometimes useful to split the plant pool into nutrients held in tops and in roots, as this is of assistance in dealing with harvested root crops and with the behaviour of roots left in the soil at the end of a growing season. THE LIVESTOCK COMPARTMENT

This consists of the nutrients held in animals consuming plant products. Retention of nutrients by the grazing animal is only a very small part of the amount consumed and most ingested nutrients are returned to the soil as excreta. Excreta become part of the soil pool the m o m e n t they reach the soil surface, b u t if they are collected from housed animals and stored they remain part of the livestock pool. Nutrients contained in living animals may increase as the latter mature and are only passed across the system boundary when livestock products are sold. T H E T O T A L SOIL C O M P A R T M E N T

(POOL)

This consists of nutrients in organic and mineral components, in the soil solution and on exchange sites; nutrients in the last two categories constitute the available soil pool. Plants are known to obtain their nutrients from the

available soil pool. Thus it is possible to consider one total soil pool or three constituent pools. It is important to consider the organic residue pool as a separate entity because of the very variable and often long residence time of nutrients in this form before becoming mineralized and transferred to the available pool. PATHWAYS AND NUTRIENT TRANSFERS In the process of nutrient cycling the three major nutrients pass between these pools along certain pathways. In theory, transfers between all pools in all directions are possible but in practice only certain of these transfers are of importance. Sometimes, e.g. mineralization and immobilization in soil, transfers in both directions occur simultaneously and it is usually only possible to measure the net result. In addition, nutrients may be transferred into and out of these pools directly by use of fertilizers or sale of agricultural products. Quantification of these transfers requires a definition of the boundaries of the system to which the nutrient cycle applies. It is also necessary to define the time period over which transfer occurs. TIME SCALES AND RATES OF TRANSFER The transfers between pools and along certain pathways consist of fixed amounts of individual plant nutrients. These can occur over short (e.g. second, minute) or long (e.g. year, decade) periods of time and may be expressed as high or low rates of transfer depending on the time scale chosen. For example, the rate per day at which a plant absorbs nitrogen from the available pool is much greater than the rate per day it is mineralized from plant residues, but because uptake often takes place over a short period in the year, whereas decomposition and mineralization of residues occur over a prolonged period, the a m o u n t per a n n u m may be equal. Indeed, in the absence of income and outflow from the system the average transfer per annum of a nutrient by these processes must be equal to maintain balance. It is impossible to choose a time base to suit the rates of all processes but it is necessary in studies of nutrient cycles to choose some arbitrary time base. Some confusion has arisen in understanding the significance of rates because of different techniques of measurement used in the hitherto separate disciplines which are now being brought together to construct nutrient cycles. For example, crop yields are traditionally measured in kg ha -~ y-~ whereas mineralization of nitrogen in laboratory studies is more usually measured as pg g-~ soil-' day -~ . The expression of all transfers as kg ha -~ y - ' obscures these inherent differences in rate.

NUTRIENT BALANCES

The state of balance of a nutrient in any pool can be deduced from knowledge of the net inflow and outflow of that nutrient. F o r any pool when inflow and outflow are equal there is a state of balance which is often referred to as equilibrium but should more correctly be called steady state. Steady state is defined as a state of no change in size of a pool where the sum of all inflows of a nutrient are equal to the sum of all outflows. Equilibrium, on the other hand, refers to a state of balance between transfers in opposite directions such as may take place between two pools. Thus, the plant pool may be in steady state when uptake of a nutrient from the soil is equal to its removal in the form of plant litter and product, whereas the relationship between immobilization and mineralization within the total soil pool may be described as an equilibrium if the amounts transferred by these opposing processes are equal. It is also possible to describe a state of balance for a whole system in which nutrients pass between several pools in a cyclic fashion. Where all transfers take place within the boundaries of this system it is described as a closed system. In an open system, on the other hand, nutrients may be transferred across the boundaries. Transfers of a nutrient into and out of the system may be in balance, in which case the system is in steady state for that nutrient. Alternatively, the transfers of that nutrient may be unequal, in which case the system may be said to be accumulating or declining in respect of that nutrient. Because nutrients behave differently the system may not necessarily be in the same state of balance for all nutrients. The principles described above were used to construct both a conceptual model and data tables (Chapters 5 and 6) appropriate to the information presented by the several authors.

Chapter 3 CONTROL OF NUTRIENT CYCLING The amounts of nutrients transferred between the pools of agro-ecosystems are influenced not only by conditions and processes within the system, but also by circumstances and controlling forces outside the system. In this chapter the relevance and importance of some of these controlling influences is considered. Kovda and La Riviere (1976) have stated that "the biological cycles of C, O, N, S and P constitute the life supporting system for our planet since their dynamics determine the composition of the atmosphere as well as the fertility of land and water". Although in this symposium it was not possible to discuss in detail the relationship between agro-ecosystems and the atmosphere, both climatic and atmospheric conditions exert a controlling influence on cycling processes. Furthermore, as Kovda and La Riviere (1976) point out . . . . . . . "Disturbances in these cycles may have global, regional and local implications which can only be assessed against the background of integrated interdisciplinary knowledge of the budgets and the flows of the cycle components and of the mechanisms mediating their conversion and transport". It is therefore necessary that consideration be given to those processes which mediate the mechanisms controlling conversion and transport of mineral nutrient elements. External control is exerted by the physical and chemical environment and is modified by the chemical nature of the element concerned, and its ability to respond to environmental influences. Internal control is exercised through the biological ability of the component parts of the system to respond to their biological, physical and chemical environment. Biological activities are necessary to complete the nutrient cycle of uptake--growth-- consumption-decomposition--release: all these biological activities are subject to their own controlling influences, detailed discussion of which is beyond the scope of this review. Agro-ecosystems, which are frequently characterised by the input of fertilizer and the output of food or fibre products, are especially subject to influence by man and his cultural operations. 3.1. EXTERNAL CONTROLS (Floate) Probably the most important external control of agro-ecosystems is exercised by energy, both through its regulation of photosynthesis and through the climatic effects of temperature on growth rate and upon the. temperaturedependent chemical and microbial processes in soils and plants. Although of great importance, further discussion of this aspect is beyond the scope of this symposium. Climate controls not only the supply of moisture to the soil but also regulates its rate of loss by evaporation and transpiration: it also governs the

seasonality of water supply which is all important for agricultural production during the growing season. Water is important as a transport medium, and because of the interactions between nutrient solubility and water supply which control nutrient availability for both plants and micro-organisms. Because of the importance of water in so many aspects of nutrient cycling the following section is devoted to a detailed consideration of transport in the water phase.

3.1.1. Transport in the water phase (Wartena) Two external features are responsible for the greater part of the water movements through the systems, namely precipitation and evaporation. This means that the weather causes a strong coupling between internal and external controls. Drainage is a third connection between the internal and external processes. Drainage is often influenced by human activities. The amount of precipitation cannot be influenced, b u t the transport velocities and pathways of the water in the ecosystem can. Evaporation and drainage can be influenced to a greater degree. The ways in which the influence can be realised are of different natures. When drainage can be modified, the total a m o u n t of drainage water does not alter in general b u t the flow velocities, the water content of the soil, the groundwater table and the pathways of water are changed considerably. Evaporation can sometimes be modified by the plant, depending on the availability of water. This is an example of an interaction between the two external factors, drainage and evaporation, via the ecosystem. Now evaporation is strongly determined by the available energy, b u t a change in the evaporation means a change of the energy flux densities on the boundary between the ecosystem and the atmosphere. This also depends on other features which are important for the ecosystem, such as the temperature. Water movement is a part of the water cycle which interacts with the availabie energy, and other meteorological factors such as wind velocity, stability, air humidity and air temperature. For a study of nutrient cycling the water movement is of more direct importance than the other factors and therefore most attention will be paid to the hydraulic cycle (Alissow et al., 1956; Domenico, 1972). A remarkable aspect of the hydraulic cycle is that continents have a positive water balance and consequently oceans have a negative water balance. Part of the precipitation on the land flows via the soil surface or via the subsoil to the oceans. From an agricultural point of view, other criteria are used. In the summer or in a dry period, the evaporation tends to be higher and sometimes much higher than the a m o u n t of available soil water plus precipitation (De Vries and Afgan, 1975); this means a water shortage during the summer. Irrespective of the surplus amounts in the wet period or in the winter, agriculturists will consider such a condition as one of water deficit. Fig.1 shows the part of the hydraulic cycle which is important for the availability of

1®

1®

?

f, 4,t l®

....

1®

1®

,£

..... ' U

Fig. 1. Pathways in a part of the hydraulic cycle.

nutrients (Dooge, 1967). The meaning of the different numbers is: 1, Precipitation; 2, Part of the precipitation which is intercepted by vegetation; 3, Ponding; 4, Surface run-off; 5, Water penetrating into the soil; 6, Water stored in the r o o t zone; 7, Water taken up by the roots; 8, Water leaving the root zone or water entering the root zone (by capillary rise); 9, Water in the unsaturated zone below the r o o t zone; 10, Water migrating directly through the unsaturated zone near surface water; 11, Water transfer via the saturated zone to surface water; 12, Exchange of groundwater and nearby surface water; 13, Long distance migration of groundwater to surface water; 14, Evaporation; 15, Dew; 16, Transpiration; 17, Groundwater from elsewhere; 18, Migration of surface water. The migration of a certain quantity of precipitation may proceed along various pathways e.g. 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, the latter t w o sometimes covering many kilometers. The pathway composed of 1, 5, 6 and 7 is almost a shortcut and only a few dm long. A general statement on the time that water remains in the soil (residence time) is therefore difficult to make. Mathematical simulation models can be a great help in evaluating the processes, although these models will be rather rough. A fact which is n o t always realized, is that travel times may be remarkably long (De Vries and Afgan, 1975). Consider a situation in which an annual rainfall of 25 cm must be transported to a creek via p a t h w a y 12 over a distance of 300 m. If a water-filled pore volume of 33% is assumed, it appears that the mean water velocity equals 25/0.3 = 75 cm per

10 year. The residence time in pathway 12 of this water is thus 300/0.75 = 400 years. Many such situations exist and many statements a b o u t the present-day contamination not influencing our surface water or (deep) drinking water may therefore be misleading. The contaminant may still be underway. This situation is still more pronounced if the contaminant is partially (reversibly) absorbed. If it is assumed that only 10% of the contaminant, whether or not it be a nutrient, remains in solution, this does not mean that only 10% will pass the soil layer. The total a m o u n t will pass the soil layer, only its velocity will be reduced by a factor of 10 (10% being in solution and 90% being absorbed reduces the mean velocity roughly to 1/10}. Another complication is the presence of so-called stagnant water or dead water in soil. There is no contact between such a stagnant phase and a moving phase (De Vries and Afgan, 1975). At higher moisture contents, this phenomenon is probably less important. At low moisture contents its effect is important, b u t it is reduced due to exchange of moisture via the gas phase. Minerals resulting from weathering or from irrigation water concentrated by evaporation are, however, locked up in the stagnant phase. They can only reach the moving-water phase if the water content in the soil becomes so high that the stagnant phase disappears. Of course they can never be exchanged via the gas phase. Residence times of water are extremely important for transport and weathering phenomena. In order to estimate these times, detailed insight into the water movement is needed. At any given pF~ pores above a certain diameter are filled with air, whilst narrower ones are filled with water. Upon arrival of precipitation which has to be discharged, a fraction of the wide air-filled pores is temporarily filled with water; temporarily because the water will infiltrate into lower layers and air will enter again behind it. The residence time in these wide pores is n o t more than some hours, even during showers with a total precipitation amount of 20--50 mm. Meanwhile, the water in the narrow pores is displaced just some centimeters or only millimeters. This water remains stagnant until discharge of a subsequent rainfall. Thus, in the unsaturated zone, wide pores with residence times of a couple of hours (intermittently filled with air and water) border on narrow, waterfilled pores with intermittent flow and residence times of years. It should be noted that these residence times, which are so important for the ion transport and for weathering phenomena have, up to now, hardly been a subject of hydrological research (Sinnaeve, 1975). Therefore, only very rough estimates can be made on the basis of non-verified models. Two important things are clear from the descriptions given above. First: residence times in different reservoirs differ b y several orders of magnitude. Second: residence times are much more dependent on the behaviour of hydrological systems than on soil types (Domenico, 1972; Dooge, 1967). Of course, for residence times in the unsaturated zone, the soil t y p e is of importance, b u t quantitative estimates are not available for these cases.

11 TABLE 1 Residence times of water in the saturated zone of the soil Discharge

System

per year

and pathways

(mm)

Estimated residence time depending on the place of infiltration and on porosity

Watershed

of the soil or rock A. 250 mm

About constant

100--5000 years

slow discharge 17

350 mm 160 mm

partly 12

slow discharge 12 fast discharge 10

1--500 years 1 day--10 years

Merkenfritzbach (Federal Republic of

Germany, Land Hessen, Main area) 1600 ha

partly 12 B. 150 mm 100 mm 50 mm

(12, 17) (12)

(4, 10)

10~1000 years 1 day--10 years 1 hour--1 day

Okkenbroek (The Netherlands, IJssel area) 443 ha

As an e x a m p l e , t h e residence times o f d i f f e r e n t p a t h w a y s f o r t w o watersheds are given in Table 1. T h e first is a w a t e r s h e d o f 1 6 0 0 h a in low m o u n t a i n s o f T e r t i a r y volcanic origin with a h e i g h t b e t w e e n 270 m and 500 m + MSL (Mean Sea Level). T h e s e c o n d w a t e r s h e d is p a r t o f a fiat area o f Pleistocene s a n d y subsoils with a c o v e r o f sand d e p o s i t e d d u r i n g the last ice-age b y the wind, with local p e a t f o r m a t i o n . T h e area o f this w a t e r s h e d is a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 4 3 ha.

Transport of dissolved compounds. Water which moves d o w n w a r d (5--8) carries n u t r i e n t s f r o m t h e topsoil vertically first into and n e x t o u t o f t h e r o o t zone. P a r t l y this is a fast t r a n s p o r t , b u t in t h e n a r r o w pores t r a n s p o r t is very slow. Up t o n o w t h e r e are h a r d l y a n y m e t h o d s o f measuring this vertical nutrient transport. One o f the difficulties is t h a t t h e b e h a v i o u r o f the u n s a t u r a t e d vertical flow is greatly d e t e r m i n e d b y the reactions o f the g r o u n d w a t e r table. As a cons e q u e n c e p e r c o l a t i o n m e a s u r e m e n t s o n soil c o l u m n s o f a smaller h e i g h t t h a n the distance b e t w e e n the surface and t h e g r o u n d w a t e r table give rise t o errors which can cause a d i f f e r e n t o r d e r o f m a g n i t u d e in l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t s t h a n o c c u r s in nature. T h e v e l o c i t y o f the vertical t r a n s p o r t decreases fast n e a r the g r o u n d w a t e r table. In several climates t h e n u t r i e n t s carried stagnate in a z o n e just a b o v e and b e l o w t h e g r o u n d w a t e r table, f r o m w h e r e t h e y rise up t o t h e r o o t z o n e in d r y periods during the growing season. In this case leaching is n o t a final loss. T h e a m o u n t s can vary with t h e actual w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s f r o m y e a r t o year. Interception. Substances f r o m the a t m o s p h e r e m a y be i n t e r c e p t e d in a solid, a dissolved, or a gaseous state b y the leaf c a n o p y o f t h e vegetation. Subs e q u e n t l y , t h e y m a y be washed d o w n b y rain, t o g e t h e r with s o m e material

12

lost by the leaf tissues themselves. Precipitation contains minerals, but only on bare soil does all the precipitation reach the soil surface immediately. On vegetation, most of the rain wets the leaves and then drops onto the soil. A part is intercepted by the vegetation and evaporates afterwards. The minerals are deposited on the leaves. With the next rain those minerals reach the soil. Meanwhile, dry deposition has also taken place on the leaves. This is sometimes called filter action, which is misleading. Such deposits are also washed down. Now, in a forest one is n o t able to investigate the composition of rainwater independently from the trunk discharge. The minerals reaching the soil are the minerals which are in the precipitation, together with the dry deposited material. On low vegetation (arable land, pastures) only the precipitation can be measured. The a m o u n t of dry deposits cannot be measured. This does n o t mean that the a m o u n t of dry deposition on low vegetation is negligible, nor that it must be lower than on a forest. Several reasons can be advanced that the dry deposit on short vegetation will be lower or higher than on a forest, but it will be of the same order of magnitude. For short vegetation one has to keep dry deposition in mind, but even a qualitative estimation of it will often be a gamble.

Run-off. Another transport mechanism involving water is the run-off. Water running over the surface of the field transports material and sometimes also deposits it. In other cases the transported material flows into ditches and rivers. This means t h a t run-off often causes a redistribution of soil material, leaching of superficial layers, infiltration of minerals on other sites and removal outside the ecosystem. Hydrological run-off studies are mostly directed to the amounts of discharged water. For nutrient transport, the composition is also of interest, but even more so is the origin of the material. The soil types, vegetation, stage of development, etc. have a radical influence on the processes of material transport. This is a very complex but important field of research. 3.2. INTERNAL CONTROLS (Floate) The external factors of energy and water supply also have important effects upon nutrient cycling through their influence upon biological processes operating in all the compartments of agro-ecosystems. In this section the importance of these biological and biochemical processes in controlling the transfers of mineral nutrients between compartments of the system is discussed. It would be impossible to describe all such processes in detail because for example, the operation of the controls in the soil c o m p a r t m e n t would involve a detailed analysis of all the processes of uptake, exchange and transfer known to soil science. Similarly a description of the processes in the plant and animal compartments would involve the detailed consideration of plant and animal physiology. Such considerations would n o t only be too detailed for the present

13 purpose b u t would necessarily involve many more sub-compartments and transfers along a number of food chains. Extreme simplification of many parts of these systems (which is necessary at the ecosystem level of analysis) might obscure many important subsidiary stages which may be critical rate-determining steps. The operation of internal controls may be illustrated b y considering some of the processes which bring about change in the a m o u n t of nutrients in the available soil nutrient pool. The supplies to this pool (which are described in detail in Chapter 5 and quantified in Chapter 6) would include nutrients conrained in manure, waste, litter, fertilizer, irrigation and flood water, the excreta of grazing animals and in the breakdown products of soil organic and mineral materials. The amounts of nutrients in these materials, and from these varied sources, depend u p o n a large number of factors and processes which include: the kind and class of livestock and their grazing behaviour; the kind, composition and physical form of fertilizer; the mineral and contaminant content of water; the kinds and numbers of micro-organisms taking part in breakdown processes; and the conditions of aeration, acidity, and temperature which determine their activity. Similarly, the removals from the available soil nutrient pool would include the nutrients lost b y volatilization and leaching, uptake by the crop, and fixation by other soil constituents. The amounts of nutrients so removed would also be controlled b y a large number of factors and processes which might include: soil moisture and organic matter content, acidity, aeration, temperature; pattern and seasonality of rainfall; permeability of the sub-soil; kind and stage of growth of crop plants; the presence or absence of mycorrhiza and other organisms; and cultural operations to the crop. It is thus evident that the state of balance of available nutrients in the soil is subject to a very large number of controlling influences -- some biological, some environmental, and some controlled b y man. It is also evident that similar considerations apply to the processes which control the amounts of nutrients transferred between other pools in the system. Furthermore, the balance is in a very dynamic state, and an annual balance of supplies and removals does n o t fully describe its changing status. In fact there is great variation in the rates at which some of these processes operate from, for example, the rapid dissolution of some forms of fertilizer to the very slow decomposition of residual soil organic matter. Dynamic aspects of agro-ecosystems will be considered more fully in a later chapter. From this discussion of system controls it may be concluded that man can have very far reaching effects on nutrient cycling in agro-ecosystems which, in turn may affect their stability. This influence is exerted primarily through management of soil, choice of crops and fertilizers, and the application of cultural practices. Because of the importance of biomass for the (temporary) storage of nutrients, the following section is devoted to the retention of nutrients b y the biomass. Section 3.3 illustrates some of the changes which the domestication of livestock and long continued arable cropping have produced in the past.

14

3. 2.1. Retention o f nutrients by biomass (Vervelde) Leaching of nutrients can be considerably retarded by retention of nutrients in the plant and animal biomass, or even be temporarily reversed by plants lifting nutrients from the deeper layers to the surface. Both the aerial and the subsurface biomass are very efficient in recovering and concentrating essential nutrients and protecting them from being carried away. The biomass tends to achieve a certain mineral composition. It is true that for plant biomass, the mineral composition is affected by the mineral status of the growth medium, but it may still be considered characteristic for a species or for a t y p e of vegetation. For vegetation in general, one might take the contents in the dry matter as a rough guideline. Note also that inactive biomass, such as wood, senescent or even dead materials, has to be included in varying proportions in the biomass weight. This explains part of the specific differences in mineral composition observed. Once stored in biomass, the nutrients are subject to very small losses due to direct leaching through the epidermis or the skin by rainwater or due to loss of b o d y fluids. By far the greater part is n o t liberated before the time the biomass is decomposed after death or consumed. Decomposition and consumption use up all biomass. The ratio of these destinations depends upon the number of consumers present in relation to the rate of primary production. Non-consumed biomass will eventually die and be decomposed. Both decomposition and consumption may lead to secondary production of biomass. The conversion rate varies. The efficiencies are between 0 and 25% roughly. They increase with the rate of growth and the rate of production (e.g. of milk and eggs) of a decomposer or a consumer. At low growth and production rates most of the food or substrate is used for maintenance, so that the conversion rate will be low. In agriculture, the conversion efficiency of the biomass eaten by the animals will seldom be below 5%. Since n o t all vegetation is eaten, a low conversion efficiency of the eaten part would make economical utilization of the area unlikely. Yet, in primitive agriculture, with animals suffering from climatic and health hazards and from temporary f o o d or water shortage, a low food conversion efficiency~is prevalent. The part of the eaten material n o t converted into secondary biomass is used for respiration or excreted as faeces. The mineral nutrients contained in this part and excreted in the faeces, together with those of decomposing faeces and uneaten dead biomass are set free during the process of decomposition. If no parallel growth of new plant biomass takes place, as will be the case in cold seasons or after dry seasons when regrowth has only just started or again with over-grazing, the nutrients are subject to leaching, run-off, denitrification and volatilization as ammonia. Leaching will only lead to permanent losses if the nutrients are carried b e y o n d the r o o t zone of the new growth. Thus the losses depend upon the length of the period with depressed or stagnant growth, in fact upon the biomass fluctuation over time.

15 3.3. LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF AGRICULTURE (Frissel} There are indications that both crop production and domestication of animals in Europe started about 5000 years ago (Louwe Kooijmans, 1976) and that activities on a larger scale date back to about 2000--3000 years ago. In 480 B.C. the Spartan Leonidas defended the pass of Thermopylae against a Persian majority. He did this with only 1000 men, indicating that the passage was very narrow indeed. At present, a coastal plain more than 5 km in width extends over the site of the former pass. This coastal plain is formed by deposits of silt resulting from land erosion. Although we cannot conclude that in 480 B.C. this deposition of silt was absent, it was certainly still at a very early stage of development, indicating limited erosion and limited agricultural influence before 480 B.C. The existence of inland harbours such as those at Ravenna in Italy and at Swammerdam in The Netherlands (which was a Roman harbour) also indicate that the rate of silting in earlier times, both in northern and southern Europe, must have been less than that during the last two millenia. Apart from the fact t h a t both places are now situated far from the sea, it is almost certain t h a t no harbour would ever have been built there if as much silt was deposited in these areas as is at present. A detailed analysis and dating of clay deposits in the delta of the river Rhine also indicates an increased sheet erosion from loess soils (grey-brown, podsolic soils) for northwestern and Central Europe in the post-Roman period (H. de Bakker, personal communication, 1975). All this may indicate the disastrous results of shifting agriculture, or the results of cutting forests for timber and firewood or for clearing areas for agricultural purposes. As has been said, agricultural activity on a larger scale began rather late in Europe. At the time t h a t Leonidas defended his pass, a few civilisations had already collapsed in the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris as a result of improper irrigation techniques, followed by salinisation of the soil; the forests of the Lebanon had vanished as a result of intensive cutting, and in Africa the Sahara was formed, perhaps as a result of domestication of h o o f e d animals followed by over-grazing. South-east Asia shows regions where people have seen more pleasing effects of their activities; sawahs to produce rice have been in production for thousands of years, and many of them are still productive. Nevertheless, the sawahs have also considerably changed the natural environment. More recent major examples of sacrificed natural areas are f o u n d in The Netherlands where parts of the sea have been reclaimed, and in the central plains of North America where m a n y areas were treated so improperly, that after the bisons and prairies had disappeared, so did the soils on which the crops were to be produced, leaving behind soilless and vegetationless 'Badlands'. The cutting of firewood by the growing population of south-east Asia for cooking purposes, and the over-cutting of tropical forests for timber are two other processes which will change the future environment drastically.

16

3.4. MANIPULATION OF SYSTEM CONTROLS

(Floate)

Not all agro-ecosystems result in such drastic changes and it could be argued that past disasters occurred as a result of man's incomplete understanding of the processes he was influencing. By contrast, it is possible that with proper comprehension of nutrient cycling in agro-ecosystems, and of the effects of control measures, in the future man may be able to maintain and improve the agro-ecosystems upon which he relies for survival. Potential control points in the cycles of mineral nutrients in pasture ecosystems have been discussed by Wilkinson and Lowrey (1973}. They conclude that improvements may be brought about in three ways: {a) increasing the available soil nutrient pool, (b) increasing the transfer rate between constituent pools, and (c) decreasing the losses of nutrients from the cycling pool of nutrients. Potential management methods for controlling nutrient cycling in agro-ecosystems include the application of manures and fertilizers, soil management, the selection of crops and crop management systems, and the manipulation of animal management systems. Some of these aspects are considered further in Chapter 8.

17

Chapter 4 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS (Frissel) 4.1. I N T R O D U C T I O N

As indicated in Chapter 1, the agro-ecosystem, normally as represented by a single farm, was chosen as the unit for study because of its easily recognisable boundaries and the probability that relevant data on the movement of nutrients within it could be collected or, at least, estimated from published information. According to a proposal by G.J. Vervelde, an agro-ecosystem may be defined as a recognisable part of the biosphere, affected or determined to a certain degree by agricultural practices, and deriving its properties and features from those of its structural components and, most typically, from interactions between those components. In more simple words, an agro-ecosystem is an ecosystem which is used for agricultural purposes. The term agro-ecosystem includes, however, something contradictory, because it has become c o m m o n practice (see Tansley's definition (1935) already given in the introduction) to define an ecosystem as a closed biological system, i.e. an ecosystem can be thought to be separated from the surroundings by boundaries through which no transport of material occurs. The main characteristic of an agro-ecosystem is that it is a system which produces food or fibre which is passed through the boundaries of the system per se, and as such conflicts with the established definition of an ecosystem. Thus, it is an open system so far as transport of nutrients across the boundaries is concerned. In particular situations it may be useful to go to a higher order system level and thus make the definition of an agro-ecosystem wider. This is, for instance, the case if all agricultural products (and only those) are consumed by the local population and all wastes (plant, animal and human) are returned to the agricultural areas. A higher order system of this type is n o w a closed system as regards nutrients. In this publication such higher order levels will be called closed agricultural systems. It is worth noting that the systems of the latter type are open for energy and water, the t w o remaining prime determinants of crop and animal production. From an agricultural point of view the t w o most important criteria upon which to base a classification of the 65 agro-ecosystems described in this report are type of farming and the yield. The yield is considered to include all harvested products -- edible crops, non-edible parts and straw (if removed from the field), milk, meat and wood. The nitrogen o u t p u t was selected as a measure for the yield, and the agro-ecosystems described in this report are listed in order of increasing yield in Table 2, and are plotted against t y p e of

18

type of agricultural system .Hdl ext.meat production T

~ ext. arable farming

~j

~

"~

forestry ~ext. dair>

farrrling

~J' : l i v e s t o c k port : :

I

mixed (selfsustainmg) • •

•

farming arable

"

'

' int. m i x e d -

i

0

20

part

40

60

•"

•

farming

int. a r a b l e f ~ r m ing

horti~:ulture ~

•

....

80 1(]0 120 140 160 180 .... 4()Q nitrogen output of agricultural systems (kg/ha)

Fig. 2. Outputs of agricultural production systems, expressed as k g nitrogen per ha per year. The black dots represent agro-ecosystems described in this publication, the lines connect similar agro-ecosystems. Details of how this figure was prepared are described in Chapter 5.

agricultural production system in Fig.2. This grouping of systems shows that the o u t p u t of nitrogen increases with the sophistication and intensity of the system and that there is a larger range of variation in o u t p u t with the most intensive systems. Relationships of this t y p e are discussed in more detail later in this report and when the data on nutrient cycling have been presented. It is instructive to examine historical transition in agricultural production systems from simple food gathering to the most modern intensive horticultural and arable farming practices. 4.2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

4. 2.1. Food gathering The oldest production system is the so-called food gathering system. People gathered their f o o d by harvesting native plants and animals, the system is a closed one and, as such, a long-lasting system. However, the productivity per ha is very low.

4. 2. 2. Extensive livestock farming The domestication of herbivorous animals in northwestern Europe started a b o u t 5000 years ago (Louwe Kooijmans, 1976). In the middle east it may be even older. Extensive livestock farming is still an important system at present. The advantage of the system is that the tedious work of searching for consumable plants is carried o u t b y animals. Besides that, the system offers a

19 possibility of converting crops (e.g. grasses) n o t suitable for human consumption into products which are consumable by man. Often the system is used in areas where crop production is impossible. Within this context it is of importance that most nitrogen-fixing plants can be consumed by livestock and n o t by man, and so it is possible to make an efficient use of the nitrogen-fixing plants in those areas. This advantage is, however, partly counterbalanced b y the nitrogen losses which occur by volatilization of ammonia from excrements. For potassium and phosphate the system is very efficient, most phosphates and potassium being returned to the soil without losses. Only the phosphate and potassium present in meat and milk are withdrawn from the system. As the non-edible parts of these products are low, the phosphate and potassium losses are also comparatively low. Often phosphate is the growth-limiting factor and in this case livestock must consume more dry matter than usual to obtain sufficient phosphate. In this contribution all livestock systems which do not apply fertilizers (or use only very small P and K dressings) and/or do not use supplemental feed are considered as extensive livestock systems. To them belong the meat or mainly meat-producing systems Husz-1, -2 and -3, Newbould + Floate-1, -2 and -3, Noy-Meir + Harpaz-1 and -4 and Williams-l, and furthermore the dairy farms Jacquard-1 and Henkens-1. (See Table 2.)

4. 2. 3. Shifting agriculture Shifting agriculture probably belongs to the oldest arable systems. It involves cutting and burning of the standing forest vegetation. Most minerals stay in the ash, b u t part of the nitrogen is lost during burning. Crops planted in the newly cleared soil do well, b u t in two to three years the mineral reservoir becomes depleted and production declines. At this time the plot is allowed to return to native vegetation and a new field has to be cleared. The productivity of this system is low, because of the high losses of nitrogen combined with soil erosion, and the system is a declining one. After repeated burnings the system is no longer able to produce w o o d y species, grasses take over and the "shifting management" becomes impossible. At present this system is still in use in large areas in South America and Africa and also, to a lesser degree, in south-east Asia. A nutrient balance of such a system is, unfortunately, missing.

4.2.4. Extensive arable farming To this system belongs the production of crops with or w i t h o u t very small amounts o f fertilizers or manure. For a part this system depends on the decomposition of the organic soil fraction which was formed before agriculture was practised. Some depletion of organic reserves may occur under agriculture but the significance of this depends upon the rate of replenishment. From the Dutch polders it is recorded that the natural fertility was drastically reduced within a b o u t 30 years of their reclamation. (The Dutch term " p o l d e r " relates

Refereoc0

Noy-Meir + Harpaz-1 Husz-2 Husz-1 Damen-1 Newbould + Floate-I Newbould + Floate-2 Newbould + Floate-4 Husz-3 Noy-Meir + Harpaz-4 Newbould + Floate-3 Williams Newbould + Floate-5 Newbould + Floate-6 Noy-Meir + Harpaz-2 Noy-Meir + Harpaz-3 Thomas + Gilliam-8 Husz-9 Thomas + Gilliam-7 Ulrich-2 Husz-6 Ulrich-3 Husz-10 Ulrich-1 Newbould + Floate-7 Damen-3

Systemdescriptio.

Wildlife on semi-arid Israelian pastures, no utilisation by man Shrub steppe (Monte), Argentina Steppe and semi-desert, Patagonia Dutch mixed livestock farm o f 1800, livestock part o f Damen-3 High elevation moorland, sheep, U.K. Traditional hill-sheep farming, U.K. Improved hill-sheep farming, hill grassland part of N. + FI-3 ~ High tableland mid-Andes, sheep, lamas, goats, 5% arable land Sheep on semi-arid Iaraelian pastures Improved hill-sheep farming, paddocks + hill grasslands, U.K. 2 Subterranean clover pastures, Australia2 Improved hill-sheep farming, paddock part o f N. + Fl.-3 ~ 2 Meathop Wood, U.K. Extensive grain, semi-asid area, Israel, grain harvested, straw returned Extensive grain, semi-asid area, Israel, grain + straw harvested Douglas fir (37 years), Washington Shrub and tree savannas, central Brazil, livestock part of Husz-7 LobloUy pine, Mississippi Coniferous forest on grey-brown podsolic soil, central Europe Shrub and tree savannas, central Brazil, livestock part o f Husz-4 Deciduous forest on grey-brown podsolic soil, central Europe Arid + mesophytic transition woods, S. America, all types of products Deciduous and coniferous forests, acid soils, northern hemisphere Intensive sheep farming, grass and clover, U.K. Dutch mixed livestock farm o f 1800 on clay, 50% arable land

Agro-ecnsystems described in this publication

TABLE 2

-~

11.6 12 12.9 13 14.8 15 17 18

11

0 0.4 0.6 1 I 1 1.3 1.9 2 3 5.8 8 9 10 10 10.3

~

i

x x x x x x x x

x x

i~

~

x x

~

~

x

x

x x

X

x

~

x

~

~

x

×

x

~

~

~

~

×

~

~

i

x

~

~

~

~

~

b~

Henkens-1 Kolek-2 Jacquard-1 Husz-4 Henkens-2 Newbould + Floate-8 Jacquard-2 Husz-11 T h o m a s + Gilliam-3 Jacquard-8 T h o m a s + Gilliam-6 Husz-13 Husz-5 Hnsz-7 Damen-2 Jacquard-4 Jacquard-3 Noy-Meir + Harpaz-5 Jacquard-5 Henkens-3 Newbould + Floate-9 T h o m a s + Giniam-5 T h o m a s + Gilliam-4 Jacquard-6 Noy-Meir + Harpaz-6 Yatazawa-4 Husz-12 T h o m a s + Gilliam-1 Yatazawa-2 T h o m a s + Gilliam-2 Yatazawa-I Kolek-1 Husz-8 Henkens-4 Henkens-5 Yatazawa-6 Yatazawa-3 Henkens-6 Yatazawa-5 Jacquard-7

19 19.3 20 20.6 24 26 30 34.1 36 36 38 39.7 43.9 45.7 49 60 63 66 70 72 77 79 80 80 81 82 84 85 88 90 96 99 113 115 126 137 162 166 175 400

' Arbitrarily derived from Newbould + Floate-3 for classification purposes by editor (assumed 3/~hill land, 1Apaddock). 2 Only small amounts of P-fertilizers (< 20 kg P h a - ' y-~), neglected for classification purposes.

•Dutch dairy farm, clay of 1937 Slovakian m o u n t a i n farm, mixed system, use of supplementary feed French dairy a n d / o r m e a t farm, grazing, no fertilizers Shrub and tree savannas, central Brazil, 25% arable land Dutch dairy f a r m of 1937 clay, use of supplementary feed Intensive sheep farming on grass only, U.K. French intensive mixed farm, 7595 of leys used for grazing Tropical and subtropical arable farming, small f a r m s y s t e m Wheat, central Kanzas French intensive arable farm, irrigated beans Grazed bluegrass, western North Carolina Arable farming, temperate zones S. America, mixed f a r m i n g Shrub and tree savannas, central Brazil,arable part of Husz-4 Shrub and tree savannas, central Brazil,5 0 % arable land Dutch mixed livestock farm o f 1800, arable part o f Damen-3 French intensivemixed farm, 5 0 % of leys used for grazing French intensive mixed farm, pure legumes, 50% used for grazing Intensive grain farming, semi-arid area, Israel, low utilisation French intensive mixed farm, 25% o f leys used for grazing Dutch dairy farm, clay soil, 1972, with fert. + supplem, feed Winter wheat, U.K. Cotton, California Irish potatoes, Maine French intensive mixed farm, without grazing Intensive grain farm, semi-arid area, Israel, high utilisation Citrus, apple, pear, peach, grape, persimon, Japan Tropical and sub-tropical arable farming, plantation system, S. Am. Corn for grain, northern Indiana Upland rice, wheat, barley, sweet potatoes, Japan Soy bean for grain, N.E. Arkansas Paddy rice,Japan Slovakian lowland farm, arable land, livestock w i t h o u t grazing Shrub and tree savannas, central Brazil, arable part of Husz-7 Dutch dairy farm, clay, use o f fertilizers and m u c h suppl, feed Dutch arable farm, crop rotation, beet tops ploughed in Tea plants, Japan Vegetables, mean o f ten leading types, Japan Dutch arable farm, clay, crop rotation, beet tops r e m o v e d Forage crop, grass--legume mixture, Japan French intensive grass production, without animals x

×

x

x

x

x

x

x

×

X

x

x

x

×

x

× x

x

x

x

x x

×

×

x X X

x

x x

x x ×

X

× × x

x

× ×

to b-a

22 to an area where the water table can be regulated and controlled independently of the water level in the surrounding area. ) The reclaimed Lake Kopais in Greece had lost its natural fertility within 15 years, probably as a result of the relatively high temperatures in this area. In Saskatchewan {Canada), where the temperature is considerably lower, soils which have already been in production for about 100 years have lost only about one third of the nitrogen stored in the soil organic matter. If these soils are left fallow every second year, mineralized nitrogen accumulates and the use of nitrogen fertilizers is not necessary. If we investigate the traditional agricultural areas, it appears that before the introduction of fertilizers, most of the extensive arable areas were already depleted so that they had to rely either upon N2-fixation, and dry-wet deposition, or the use of litter. Because pea and bean plants are almost the only ones which fix nitrogen and provide a crop suitable for human consumption, the systems usually remained nitrogen deficient. In particular cases crops such as lupins, Calapogonium, Centosema and Crotolaria are used as green manure. Sometimes the straw is returned to the soil, but especially if this is n o t the case, the losses are high and the productivity low. As a result, the system is not very common; after the depletion period the soils are abandoned, or use is also made of manure or fertilizers. The agro-ecosystems Noy-Meir + Harpaz-2 and -3 refer to a pure extensive arable area which has been in production for a long time. Forestry, considered as a type of extensive arable farming, is very common. Therefore, descriptions of nutrient balances of the forestry systems Newbould + Floate-6, Thomas + Gilliam-7 and -10 and Ulrich-I, -2 and -3 are included. 4. 2. 5. Mixed farming or self-sustaining unit system Typical examples of this system are the so-called "mixed livestock farms" as they developed in Europe, and the sawah-homegarden system which developed in south-east Asia. It was, and probably still is, the most important agricultural system on earth. It is practised on comparatively small plots supporting only one family or another usually small, social group. The cultivation techniques have been evolved and improved over a long period of time and are much more sophisticated than one might think. The problem is that only some of t h e crops are able to fix nitrogen. They are mainly leguminous crops such as beans, soybeans and lucerne. None of the important crops such as grass, wheat, rye, corn or potatoes fixes nitrogen; these crops depend greatly on the management technique for their nitrogen supply. The whole cultivation method is focussed on methods of supplying the non-fixing crops with nitrogen. For a major part, this occurs by h u m a n and animal consumption of the crops containing the nitrogen, and a careful return of the animal and human wastes to the soft. In this system it is essential that each farm contains an area on which the nitrogen-fixing crops are cultivated, while another area contains the other crops. In the mixed livestock farms of northwestern Europe it was mainly the

23 pastures with clover or lucerne which served as the nitrogen catchment area. The livestock consisted of cows, horses and sheep. On the very p o o r soils, on which only sheep were kept, it was not possible to maintain permanent pastures; the development of heather plants, which are n o t consumed by sheep, was t o o strong. From time to time the heather was burned, and because grasses have a faster regrowth rate than heather, this restored the grass vegetation. The sheep were kept in stalls overnight, which gave the farmer a chance to gather the excrements and to produce manure for the arable areas. (Note: At present some of the heather fields are no longer grazed and therefore birches and other trees or sometimes grasses take over.) In the p a d d y soil-homegarden system in south-east Asia the paddy soil serves as nitrogen catchment area. The nitrogen is fixed by the blue green algae present in the water on the p a d d y soil or b y the floating azolla plants. When the soil dries up, the plant litter stays behind on the soil surface and decomposes: the nitrogen thus liberated is taken up by the rice. As usual in selfsustaining systems, the animal and human wastes are carefully collected, and are partly returned to the paddy soils and partly serve as manure for the homegarden. In the self-sustaining system the other important nutrient elements, phosphate and potassium, are almost completely recycled within the system; there is no external supply and there are no losses. The amount of phosphate and, to a lesser degree, also the a m o u n t of potassium determines the ratio between the nitrogen catchment area and the arable area. This ratio, which is almost a constant for a certain region, varies between 1 and 20. It also explains why such systems are almost always phosphate deficient. The ratio, nitrogen catchment area/arable area, is adjusted so that nitrogen no longer limits the production. But n o w the system is phosphate deficient. If, because of certain management techniques, it is difficult to keep the nutrient distribution between the livestock part and arable part in balance, sometimes alternation of livestock and arable areas is used to compensate for the unequal distribution of nutrients. This publication provides nutrient balances for three mixed (self-sustaining) farming systems which are referred to, respectively, as Husz-4 and -10 and Damen-3. The data represent mean values of arable systems and livestock systems; the separate nutrient balances of the arable systems and livestock systems are, however, also included. The reference numbers for the livestock areas are: Husz-6 and -8 and Damen-1, and for the arable areas Husz-9 and -13 and Damen-2. 4. 2. 6. Intensive agriculture

This system is mainly used in Europe, North America, parts of the U.S.S.R., Japan and on some other, smaller, areas. Its main characteristic is that it is an open system with a very high production. This production is maintained by a continuous supply of fertilizers allowing a steady export of crop products.

24 Waste and manure from an external origin are only applied if this is more economical than the application of fertilizers; this occurs only seldom. The high turnover rate of nitrogen, of course, also causes higher releases to the environment, b u t this does n o t necessarily mean that the release of nitrogen per unit crop p r o d u c t is high. The fixation of nitrogen is often completely suppressed as a result of the high nitrogen dressings. Potassium usually poses no problem, b u t phosphate does. It appears very difficult to increase the phosphate available for the plant r o o t in the same way as is done for nitrogen and potassium. This is because of the strong adsorption of phosphate. On soils with a small a m o u n t of available phosphate much more phosphate fertilizer is usually required than the plant takes. It is a reassuring fact that the strong adsorption prevents the leaching of these high quantities of phosphate. As for extensive farming systems, a separation can be made into: livestock farms (mainly meat production), livestock farms (mainly milk production), mixed farming systems, and arable farming. Besides that, "horticulture" can be added as a system type. Due to the fact that the systems do n o t depend on the efficiency with which biologically fixed nitrogen is used, the effects of nitrogen fixation on the output, if any, are much less pronounced. However, the outp u t range, mainly depending on the fertilizer dressing, varies extremely. The most remarkable systems are probably the dairy farms which use high imports of supplemental feed for cattle. Sometimes these inputs in the system are so high that phosphate and potassium fertilizers do n o t have to be applied at all. Although the outputs of potassium and phosphate belong to the highest in the world, the manure contains more than enough of these nutrients. In this publication the following agro-ecosystems are described: livestock meat system, Newbould + Floate-7 and -8; dairy farms, Henkens-2 -3 and -4; meat and milk oriented, Jacquard -2 to -6; mixed farms, Husz-5 and -13 and Kolek-1 and -2; arable farms, Henkens-5 and -6, H u s z - l l and -12, Newbould and Floate-9, Noy-Meir + Harpaz-5 and -6, Thomas and Gilliam-1, -2, -3, -4, -8 and -9, Yatazawa-1, -2 and -5, Jacquard-7; horticulture, Yatazawa-3, -4 and -6, Jacquard-8.

4.2. 7. Systems based on organized large-scale recycling structures The high fertilizer dressings, the losses of nutrients to the environment and the need for pesticides and herbicides in intensive agriculture have led to investigations of systems which are less intensified, b u t produce nevertheless a good yield. Some of the supporters of these alternative systems returned to the old mixed livestock system. Others rely on the decomposition of organic matter which was built up during the foregoing years in which fertilizers were used, or they just import manure from elsewhere. For highly developed areas, such as Europe or the U.S.A. and Canada there is, of course, no way to return to the self-sustaining unit system. With a dispersed agriculture and large urban centres, the direct return of wastes of the society is logistically complicated and, because of the dilute form of wastes

25 in domestic sewage, almost impossible. Nevertheless, it might be possible by composting the organic part of solid wastes or by converting them into methane, to develop a fertilizer recycling system, which reduces the mineral nutrient losses. Water purification plants can be installed which retain both nitrates and phosphates. Economic reasons have prohibited such a policy thus far. Social problems also exist. It will, for instance, be difficult to organise society in such a way that all types of waste, such as glassware, metals, plastics, compostable material, are kept separated. Yet such a separation is essential for economical large-scale composting or conversion of domestic waste to methane. 4. 2. 8. R e m a r k s

Tropical rainforests were not discussed, so as to limit the number of topics at the symposium. As far as they are used for regular wood production they can be easily included as a "forestry system". Furthermore, irrigated areas were n o t discussed as a separate system: such areas were classified in the same way as non-irrigated areas with similar characteristics.

27

Chapter 5 METHOD OF DATA P R E S E N T A T I O N (Frissel) A standard format for data presentation was necessary so that comparisons could be made between systems, and so that some grouping of like features could be made and that some summary and discussion of the data might be possible. The format in which authors originally submitted their data was, however, different from that finally agreed as a result of discussion during the symposium (Annex 1). It is important for the proper interpretation of what follows to understand which definitions have remained unchanged and which were modified during the symposium. In the original format the soil pool was presented as a single pool. The idea was that most systems are in a more or less steady state position with few changes in the residue pool. During the symposium it was decided to split the soil pool up, in order to be able to handle varying residue pools. The general definition of an agricultural ecosystem was given in Chapter 4 and it remained fundamental, b u t the classification of these systems was modified (Annex 1). The significance of this is that some authors described systems which were typical of the climatic regions defined in the original classification b u t which may n o t be typical of the range of agricultural production systems and yield which forms the basis of the agreed classification. To quantify nutrient cycling within an ecosystem it is necessary to define the boundaries of that system, and in the case of agricultural production systems it is also necessary to know the amounts of nutrients crossing those boundaries in the form of, for example, feed, fertilizer and product. In this presentation the boundaries are usally those of an individual farm b u t any differences are described by the authors. It was agreed that the agro-ecosystem boundaries should usually contain plants, soils and animals b u t exclude the human population; thus all nutrients in crop or animal products are defined as o u t p u t from the system. Exceptions to this or any other general assumptions are described b y the authors for individual systems. The model finally agreed for nutrient cycling in agro-ecosystems is illustrated in Fig.3. It consists of three main compartments (pools) - plant, livestock and soil, of which the latter is subdivided into available, organic and mineral pools according to the principles discussed in Chapter 2. The three major plant nutrients -- nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, are transferred between these pools by processes which are controlled as described in Chapter 3, along certain pathways which are also illustrated in Fig.3. These pathways are indicated by reference numbers which refer to the particular transfers listed in Table 3, b u t in amounts and at rates which differ by several orders of magnitude. Because of this wide range, certain compromises had to be made and it was agreed to retain the originally proposed unit (kg h a - ' y-l).

28

Nitrogen and potassium are generally recorded to the nearest 1.0 and phosphorus to the nearest 0.1 kg ha-'. The general model, which is applicable to arable, livestock and mixed farming and to forest ecosystems includes both transfers of nutrients within the system and transfers across the system boundaries. Such transfers across the boundaries consist of inputs (as feed or fertilizer for example) and outputs (as crop products or volatile and other losses). Thus three types of transfer can be identified and these are indicated by symbols in Table 3. Input into the agro-ecosystem : indicated -~ X) Output from the agro-ecosystem : indicated (Y -~ Transfer between pools within the system : indicated (X -~ Y) where X and Y refer to the appropriate nutrient pools. The data, for each agro-ecosystem which follows in Chapter 6, are arranged in t w o tables for each system -- the first summarises the data for each of the uptake from atmosphere s e e a ~ consumption harvested crops

ammonia from manu re / ~ ~

feed indoors

.

grazing

-/

products remaining on field

Ing

uptake from soil

litter J

volatilization

~ ~ denitrificatio_~n~dust~

dry and

.~

.

material. immobdizotion~ "

runoff

Fig.3. F l o w

leaching

wet

~dep°siti°n , tion ~ M-~mineraliza

wea

j

soil mil

pool C

available soil nutrients, pool

A

chart of the nutrient transfers for an agro-ecosystem.

N-fixation

fertilizers

29 plant, animal and total soil pools while the second gives the details for available, organic and mineral nutrient pools within the soil. Some authors have contributed data for the total soil pool only. In both sets of tables the transfers are groupedas supplies (inputs) and removals (outputs) for each pool, and are identified by the reference numbers shown in Fig.3 and Table 3. The groups of data for each pool are headed "changes in a m o u n t " and the state of balance for that pool is assessed by equating supplies and removals. In some cases a steady state has been assumed b u t in other cases calculations of gains and losses have been made. Most authors have assumed steady state for plant and livestock pools and have calculated changes in the soil pools. Assumptions are indicated by symbols in the tables, and are described by the authors in the notes which accompany their data. It should be noted that in this m e t h o d of accounting, transfers across system boundaries are listed once only for the relevant pool, while transfers between pools within the system are accounted as removal from one pool and supply to another. It should also be noted that some transfers may be split into two parts which may next appear in one or t w o pools. For example, nutrient uptake from soil (30) may be split into uptake by roots (30r) and uptake by tops (30t) and these are both accounted as supplies to the plant pool: transfer b y droppings on grazed areas (9) may be split into organic (9b) and inorganic (9a) parts which are respectively accounted as supplies in the organic and available soil nutrient pools. Difficulties arise with the definition of certain transfers, and the footnotes to Table 3 explain some of these problems. Losses of nitrogen in volatile form may occur from animal excreta and when such losses can be identified with manure in the case of housed animals they are recorded as losses from the livestock pool: when the losses take place from excreta which have been deposited on the soil (as in a grazed pasture) they are accounted as losses from the soil pool. Further difficulties can arise with the measurement and accounting of certain transfers which take place simultaneously b u t in opposite directions. For example, the exchange of nutrients between available and organic soil pools by mineralization and immobilisation can usually only be measured as a net result. In this case it is the net transfer which is recorded as supply or removal in the appropriate pools. Where the net transfer is zero this is equilibrium as defined in Chapter 2 and should be seen to be in contrast to a net change of zero in any nutrient pool when that pool is said to be in steady state. The data contributed by individual authors for some 65 agro-ecosystems are contained in Chapter 6, and are arranged in 11 sections. Each system is referred to by author name(s) and sequence number, and the data are presented in tables numbered sequentially in the text. Thus the first system described b y Newbould and Floate is referred to as Newbould and Floate-1, and the corresponding data are given in Table 4. Each section also contains brief description(s) of the agro-ecosystem(s) together with notes on assumptions made by authors in their calculations of data.

30

TABLE 3 Summary of fluxes Flux 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Input by feed for livestock Input by litter used indoors Transfer by consumption of harvested crops Transfer by grazing of forage Output of animal products Output by losses from animal and/or manure in stables and/or feed lots (Thus from any component before it reaches the soil) (can be split into: 6d, from droppings and 6 m, from manure) Output by manure (manure carried off or sold) Transfer by application of manure and/or waste (can be split into 8a and 8b) Transfer by droppings on grazed areas (can be split into 9a and 9b) Input by application of manure (can be split into 10a and 10b) Input by application of fertilizer Input by nitrogen fixation Input by application of litter, sludge and waste (can be split into 13a and 13b) Input by irrigation, sub-surface irrigation or flooding Note: capillary rise is not included Input by dry and wet deposition (rain, dust, bird droppings) Note: Nutrients taken up directly by plants from rain or atmosphere are accounted for in item 31 Transfer by weathering of soil mineral fraction Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output of primary products Output by denitrification Output by volatilization of ammonia Note: includes volatilization from manure, droppings and fertilizers (Thus from any material on or underneath the soil surface) Output by leaching Note: net effect (leaching minus capillary rise) Output of available nutrients by run-off Note: ' Surface leaching' included Output by dust Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction Transfer by immobilization in soil organic fraction Transfer by plant products (including litter) remaining on the field (can be split into 26a and 26b) Transfer by seed for sowing Output by run-off of organic matter

Symbols* -~ -* (P ~ (P -~ (L -~

L) L) L) L)

(L (L (L ~ A), (L ~ B) (L -~ A), (L ~ B) -* A), -* A) ~ A)

~ B)

~ A), ~ A)

~ B)

~ A)

(C ~ A) (B -* A) (P (A

(A (A (A -* (A-~ ( A ~ C) ( A ~ B) ( P ~ A , P -*B) (P ~ A) (B -*

31

TABLE 3 (continued)

Flux 29. Input by seed or seedlings

30. Transfer by uptake of nutrients by the plant (can be split into 30t, top and 30r, root) 31. Input by nutrients taken up directly from atmosphere by plants

Symbols* -, P) (A-* P) -~ p)

*Symbols indicate type of transfer, direction of flow and pool(s) involved.

3. W h e n a mixed farm system is considered as o n e system, the output 18 from the arable sub-system is included in the consumption (3) in the livestock sub-system: similarly, output (18) from grassland is included in grazing (4) in the livestock sub-system. 6. Losses of volatile ammonia from animals or their excreta (manure) are recorded in transfer (6) which is considered as a loss from the livestock pool. 7. The physical removal of manure from the system is also a loss from the livestock pool (7). 16, 24. Weathering (16) and fixation (24) are nutrient transfers in opposite directions which may take place simultaneously. Usually it is only possible to measure and record the net effect, although fixation of P fertilizer may be recorded independently.

17, 25. Mineralization (17) and immobilization (25) are nutrient transfers in opposite directions which may take place simultaneously. Usually it is only possible to measure and record the net effect.

20. Loss of volatile ammonia from excreta, or manure after application to the soil surface, is recorded as a loss from the soil pool (20).

26. Plant products remaining on the field (26) may.include litter, straw, haulms, etc. : the component entering the available pool is the inorganic part, the remainder enters the soil organic pool where it may become mineralized.

30. Most authors do not have data to split (30) into (30t) (30r).

31. Direct uptake of plant nutrients from the atmosphere is recorded in (31), leaching of vegetation by rain which occurs in forests is not considered, but may be used to calculate net uptake (30).

32 T h e sources o f data, as well as their accuracy, d i f f e r b e t w e e n the various transfers and b e t w e e n authors. In s o m e cases these were e x p e r i m e n t a l l y m e a s u r e d values, in o t h e r cases t h e y were m o s t likely values derived f r o m t h e literature and in still o t h e r cases, values calculated using certain assumptions which the a u t h o r s have described. Because one o f t h e objectives o f the s y m p o s i u m was t o distinguish areas o f well d e f i n e d knowledge, and areas w h e r e f u r t h e r research and d a t a collection were required, some a t t e m p t has been m a d e t o indicate the reliability o f the d a t a in the tables. T h e following s y m b o l s have been used: -: d a t a n o t relevant (transfer does n o t apply) t : trace a m o u n t o n l y : p m : significant b u t u n k n o w n a m o u n t 0 : zero w h e n used f o r n u t r i e n t t r a n s f e r 0 : s t e a d y state w h e n used for state o f balance * : e x p e r i m e n t a l l y m e a s u r e d value + : m o s t likely value derived f r o m literature or f r o m assumptions given in n o t e s ( ) : closing e n t r y derived f r o m balance calculations. Where a u t h o r s have a t t e m p t e d generalizations f r o m t h e i r data, t h e app r o p r i a t e section c o n t a i n s the a u t h o r s ' o w n discussion. General discussion follows in C h a p t e r 7. Editor's co mmen t . It s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d t h a t this final f o r m o f d a t a present a t i o n differs f r o m t h e f o r m in which a u t h o r s were invited t o p r e s e n t t h e i r data. A l t h o u g h all a u t h o r s were given the o p p o r t u n i t y t o u p d a t e t h e i r contributions, n o t all have d o n e so, and t h e r e m a y t h e r e f o r e be s o m e inconsistencies a m o n g t h e d a t a tables. In particular, n o t all a u t h o r s have indicated the reliability or source o f t h e i r d a t a or t h e y did n o t indicate w h e t h e r missing values are u n k n o w n , irrelevant or negligible: such missing values a p p e a r as dashes ( -- ) in the tables which f o l l o w in C h a p t e r 6.

33

Chapter 6

N U T R I E N T CYCLING DATA 6.1. INTRODUCTION The sections which follow are the original manuscripts from the authors. In some cases they have been shortened, transposed or adapted by the editor. A description is always included of h o w the data for the nutrient balances were derived, together with the information concerning the agro-ecosystem described. The editor has omitted descriptions of agro-ecosystems for which no data were provided, and has also omitted most sections which consider energy cycling because this was b e y o n d the scope of the symposium. The sequence of the system descriptions is more or less from west to east, and from north to south, starting at the 0-meridian. 6.2. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN THE U.K. (P. Newbould and M.J.S. Floate) Seven different agro-ecosystems are described in this section, together with the two c o m p o n e n t sub-systems of one of these. These seven systems range from very extensive livestock farming through woodland to intensive arable farming and thus provide a few examples of the wide range of farming systems in the U.K. These systems were chosen to represent the classification originally proposed by the editor, b u t this classification was subsequently changed as described in Annex 1. These systems should, therefore, in no way be considered representative of U.K. agriculture because many important systems, e.g. dairy farming, beef production, and mixed cereal and livestock, have n o t been included. Under the heading of each system is given the classification assigned by the editor (Table 2) and some basic information on climate, elevation, location, soil, vegetation, size of unit, kind of livestock or product, and the agricultural objectives of the system described.

6.2.1. Extensive sheep production on high Pennine moorland Classification. Extensive livestock system. Reference: N e w b o u l d and Floate-1; High elevation moorland, sheep, U.K., Table 4. The U.K.-IBP (Tundra Biome) site at Moor House, England, is a nature reserve grazed by about 8500 sheep between April and September over an area of approximately 5000 hectares. The reserve (54°56'N, 2°45'W) is situated near Cross Fell in the northern Pennines, close to or above the tree line (550 m) and is representative of the marginal agricultural land in one of the most isolated parts of England. The climate is cool, w e t and windy, oceanic

34

TABLE 4 System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a - '

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . N e w b o u l d a n d F l o a t e - 1

High elevation moorland, sheep, U.K.

Nutrient

N

y-1 )

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ............ by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

-42* --

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

42

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--4+ -(38) -42 0

-3.6* ---

-11" --

3.6

11

-0.4 + (3.2) -3.6

--+ 1 -(10) -11

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

----4+ 4 1' ---(3) 4 0

---0.4 + 0.4 0.1" ---(0.3) 0.4 0

----1+ 1 t* ---1) 1 0

C h a n g e s i n a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

--+ 3 ---+ 9 ---+ 8 38 + 58

-0.3 + -----0.2 + 3.2 + -3.7

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off I . . T r a n s f e r b y net' u p t a k e f r o m s o i l b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

t t 3+

---0.4 +

---9 +

15 + --42* 60

0.4 + --3.6* 4.4

2+ --11 + 22

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS See 22.

(-2)

(-0.7)

--+ 1 -----+ 2 10 + 13

(-9)

35

TABLE

4

(continued)

System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - l )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Newbould and Floate-1

High elevation moorland, sheep, U.K.

Nutrient

N

Changes in amount SUPPLIES :

REMOVALS:

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by applicatiofi of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n i n soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n i n soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e ~b yv t ht h~e. i apnl ta n t .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Transfer by net uptake SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by immobilization in soil organic fraction by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

17. 28.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVAI.~

SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

2+ ---9 + -8 + -7? --

-26 t t

3+ --

t

t~ -----0.2 + pm pm --0.2

1+ ---2+ pm -10 + -13

--0.4 + 0.4 +

---9+ 2+

-Pro_,42 -45

t pm Pro6*3. -4.4

t pm

-19

-4.2

-

--

--

?1"

-22

9

o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

K

of available soil nutrients

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

P

1 +

---

P~8 + 39 7~ 1 5 ~" 22

0.3

-+

t

--pm 3.2 + 3.5

------

pm t --

t

---

+17

+3.5

--

---

pm pm

pm pm

--

--

--

o f soil m i n e r a l s T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n i n soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ....... SUPPLY-REMOVAL

36

in type and is sub-arctic rather than temperate. The growing season is about 180 days but the highest mean m o n t h l y temperature is only 10--12°C (Heal et al., 1975). The soils are mainly organic; blanket peat 0.5--5 m deep covers more than half the area and most of the remainder consists of peaty gleys and peaty podsols while brown calcareous soils with Agrosto-Festucum cover no more than 5% of the area. Blanket bog vegetation dominated by Calluna vulgaris, Eriophorum vaginatum and Sphagnum acutifolium occurs on peat while Juncetum squarrosi subalpinum and Nardetum subalpinum are characteristic of the peaty soils. The whole area is essentially c o m m o n grazing in the summer months for some 22 flocks of sheep which are wintered and produce their lambs on lower ground. NOTES TO TABLE 4. (Reference Newbould and Floate-1) 4. Intake by grazing sheep was on average 1 kg of dry matter sheep -1 day -1 (Heal and Perkins, unpublished data, 1975), which has been calculated as 930 kg ha -~ from AgrostoFestucetum, and 300 kg ha-' from blanket bog. However, it has been stated that consumption is less than 1% of production of the bog compared with up to 40% of the grasslands (Heal et al., 1975). Mean composition data used were Agrosto-Festuceturn 2.0% N, 0.15% P and 0.7% K and for blanket bog 1.2% N, 0.1% P, 0.3% K. Quantities are in the same order of magnitude as Barrow, Alaska IBP site (Bunnell et al., 1975). 5. Rawes and Welch (1969) give a mean live-weight increase of 14.9 kg ewe -~ which is equivalent to 23.8 kg ha -1, but sheep production, measured as net increases in weight of sheep over the season, for the whole Moor House reserve was given by Heal and Perkins (unpublished data, 1975) as 0.8 g m 2 y-l, or 3.8 g m= y-I from Festuca--Agrostis grassland. We have used 23.8 kg ha -~ y-~ and mean composition data of Sykes and Field (1972). 9. Droppings have been calculated on the assumption that animal retention of ingested nutrients is accounted for in removal of animal products. Hence total excreta returns equal consumption minus production. It is estimated that of the total nutrients ingested by sheep some 35% of N, 95% P and 15% K are excreted in faeces while the remainder appears in the urine. 12. Data quoted by Heal and Perkins (unpublished data, 1975) may be compared with amounts in the range 0.05--3.8 kg ha -~ for tundra in Finland (Kallio, 1975) and between 2 and 90 kg ha -~ for tundra mire in Sweden (Rosswall et al., 1975). 15. Data of Heal and Perkins (unpublished data, 1975) using data from Crisp (1966), Gore (1968) and Martin and Holding (1976). 17. IBP publications give data on rates of decomposition of organic materials (up to 25% per annum, but only 10% per annum for Calluna) but no data on the rate of release of mineral nutrients except that Rosswall et al. (1975) state that above-ground litter decomposition releases 2 kg ha -~ N per annum, and N mineralization of peat yields about 5 kg ha -~ per annum in the top 10 cm. 21. Sources as for 15, above. The overall system balance suggests a gain in N which is due to fixation and atmospheric inputs. If these estimates are wrong (e.g. N fixation may be 0.05--90) then the balance could be tipped either way. 22. Sources as for 15, above. 26. Calculated by differences between uptake (30) and consumption by grazing (4). All nutrients in plant litter assumed organic (Pool B) until released by mineralization. 30. Uptake of plant nutrients by vegetation has been calculated from production data of Rawes and Welch (1969) using 3600 kg ha -~ for blanket bog and 2000--2600 kg ha -~ for Agrosto-Festuceturn. The latter type covers no more than 5% of the area and for simplicity it has been assumed that the remaining 95% has a production similar to blanket bog.

37

6.2.2a. Traditional hill sheep farming Classification. Extensive livestock system. Reference: Newbould and Floate-2; Traditional hill sheep farming, U.K., Table 5. Hill farming is largely confined to areas above a b o u t 300m over most of the uplands in the U.K. b u t may extend almost to sea level in the west of Scotland and Ireland. The climate is typically hemiboreal to oro-hemi-arctic (Birse, 1971) with highest mean monthly temperatures in the range 10--15°C during a growing season of 180--200 days. The best soils are acid brown earths which carry an Agrostis--Festuca dominated grassland b u t such areas seldom represent more than 10--20% of a hill farm. Peaty podsols and peaty gleys are much more c o m m o n and t h e s e may carry heath dominated b y Nardus stricta and Molinia caerulea, or a shrub heath dominated by Calluna vulgaris. At the higher elevations ( > 5 0 0 m) or at lower elevations in the wettest areas deep peat with blanket bog is widespread. A typical hill farm unit in Scotland would cover some 1000--2000 hectares carrying 0.5--1 sheep ha -1 (Eadie and Maxwell, 1975). Farm units in other parts of the U.K. m a y be rather smaller and m a y include areas of c o m m o n grazing. Sheep are the most c o m m o n class of livestock b u t the better farms also carry cattle and a few specialise in hill cattle breeding. The main enterprise is the production of store lambs for cross breeding and for fattening on lower ground b u t some of the best lambs may be produced directly from the hills for meat. Wool production is mainly a by-product. As an example of such a system nutrient cycling data are given for a hill farm unit operated by the Hill Farming Research Organisation from 1954 to 1968. The system consisted of a 280-hectare unit which contained 90 hectares of dominantly Agrostis--Festuca grassland and 190 hectares of Nardus and Molinia dominated grass heath. The unit carried 387 ewes and the production averaged 90.6 lambs per 100 ewes. After 1968 the system was intensified and a description of that system follows in the next section.

6.2.2b. Improved hill sheep farming Classification. Extensive livestock system. Reference: Newbould and Floate-3; Improved hill sheep farming (whole system) (Table 7). Newbould and Floate-4; Hill grassland part of system N + F-3 (Table 8). Newbould and Floate-5; Improved paddock part of system N + F - 3 (Table 9). Data are first presented for the whole system (Table 7) and then for its c o m p o n e n t parts --hill grasslands (Table 8) and improved paddocks (Table 9). The natural and environmental resources of intensified hill farming systems are similar to those previously described. The difference is that selected areas are improved in order to provide better grass for livestock in the year-round

38

TABLE 5 System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - I )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . N e w b o u l d a n d F l o a t e - 2

Traditional hill sheep farming, U.K.

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t of p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. O u t p u t by p r i m a r y p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

-44* --44

-3.8* --3.8

-13 + -(31)

-1.1 + -(2.7) -3.8

44

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

-25* --25 7 + -(18) 25

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3. 4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

1" --13 + 14

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

1" ---(13) 14

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

0.3 + --1.1 + 1.4 0.2* ---(1.2) 1.4

1" --7+ 8 t* ---(8) 8

0

0

Changes in amount of total soil component SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter~ s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowin .............. T~)gTAL

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... O u t p u t b y o r g a n i c m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f ~. . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

See 22.

-12 + 10 + 10 + 31 + 63 t t

-1.2 + -----0.4 + 2.7 + -4.5

14 + --

--0.4 + 0.4 + --

44* 61

3.8* 4.6

3+

+ 2

-0.3

-8+ --4+ 18 + 30 ---9+

2+ -25* 36 -

6

39

TABLE 5

(continued)

System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : kg

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. N e w b o u l d a n d F l o a t e - 2

ha -~

y-'

)

T r a d i t i o n a l hill s h e e p f a r m i n g , U.K.

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a.

14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27. REMOVALS:

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by I n p u t by Input by Input by I n p u t by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure . . . . . . . . . ... fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-fixation a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . dry and wet deposition ........... b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . by m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

Output by denitrification ................ O u t p u t by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . Output by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by d u s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e b y t h e p l a n t TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--8+

t+

--7+

---

---

---

10 + --

--

--

--

-4+

10 + -17 --29 t t

3+

-t -pro,44

0.4 + pm pm --0.4 --0.4 + 0.1 + t pm Pro8*3.

Pl+m 18 + -30 -9+ 2+ t pm

-47

-4.6

-36

-18

-4.2

-

6

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b.

13b. 25. 26b. REMOVALS:

17. 28.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by a p p l i c a t i o n a n d / o r w a s t e . . . . . . . . b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n by p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n O u t p u t by o r g a n i c m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

4+ -m P31 + 35 1? 14 15 +20

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

1+ 1.2 + --m P2.7 + 3.9 pm -0 3.9

---1 1 t 1 0

40

N O T E S T O T A B L E 5. (Reference Newbould and Floate-2) 1. Bought-in food consists of 7 kg concentrate plus 17 kg hay per ewe. 4. Plant dry matter production is assumed to be 2500 kg ha -I from Agrostis--Festuca grassland and 2000 kg ha -I from Nardus--Molinia grass heath. W e have assumed 4 0 % utilisation of Agrostis--Festuca and 2 0 % utillsation of Nardus--Molinia. S u m m e r and winter consumption are assumed to be equally divided and the following data for mineral composition (Floate, unpublished data) have been used in the calculations: Agrostis--Festuca summer winter

N = 3.0%; P = 0.30%; K = 2.2% d.m. N -- 2.0%; P = 0.15%; K = 0.7%.

Nardus--Molinia summer N = 2.0%; P = 0.20%; K -- 1.5%. winter N = 1.5%; P = 0.10%; K -- 0.5%. 5. Sales c o n s i s t of: 5 7 3 2 kg l a m b = 20 kg h a -~ at N = 2.81%; P = 0.65%; K = 0.18% ~ 69 cast ewes = 13 k g h a -~ at N 1.53%;P 0 . 5 5 % ; K = 0.14% ) 8 0 0 kg w o o l -- 2.8 kg h a -~ at N = 17.8%

S y k e s a n d Field (1972) Ryder and Stephenson (1968)

9. E x c r e t a r e t u r n s have b e e n c a l c u l a t e d as d e s c r i b e d previously. 12. N f i x a t i o n is an e s t i m a t e b a s e d o n J e n k i n s o n ( u n p u b l i s h e d data, 1975). 15. D a t a h a v e b e e n t a k e n f r o m p u b l i s h e d r e p o r t s for o t h e r u p l a n d areas in t h e U.K. (Crisp, 1 9 6 6 ; Gore, 1 9 6 8 ; a n d Allen e t al., 1 9 6 8 ) . 17. M i n e r a l i z a t i o n d a t a used refer t o release o f n u t r i e n t s f r o m freshly d e p o s i t e d faeces a n d p l a n t residues a n d as s u c h d o n o t take a c c o u n t o f release f r o m soil organic sources. F o r this r e a s o n t h e e s t i m a t e s m a y be low b u t t h e w h o l e s y s t e m is p r o b a b l y close t o s t e a d y s t a t e a n d it is d o u b t f u l if organic m a t t e r levels u n d e r very old grassland are c h a n g i n g a p p r e c i a b l y ; t h e e s t i m a t e s m a y t h e r e f o r e b e r e a s o n a b l e b u t even if o n l y 0.1% o f t h e organic N in soil is m i n e r a l i s e d this c o u l d release u p t o 10 kg h a -~ y-~ and m a t e r i a l l y c h a n g e t h e overall balance. Basic d a t a used are f r o m F l o a t e ( 1 9 7 0 ) for d e c o m p o s i t i o n o f organic materials, i n c u b a t ed for 12 w e e k s at 10°C. T h e p e r c e n t a g e s o f original c o n t e n t s released (+) o r i m m o b i l i z e d (--) are: Faeces Plant litter

Agrostis--Festuca Nardus--Molinia

+ 7.6% N + 2.2% P + 9.8% N + 2.8% P

+ 1.2% N - - 29% P + 0.6% N - - 24% P

We h a v e also a s s u m e d t h a t as K does n o t e n t e r i n t o organic c o m b i n a t i o n it is likely t o b e released a t a b o u t t h e s a m e rate as C, i.e. Agrostis--Festuca 30%; Nardus 20%;Agrostis-Festuca faeces 2%; Nardus faeces 2%. S h a w ( 1 9 5 8 ) s h o w e d t h a t s o m e 2--6% o f t h e organic N in t h e m a t layers o f hill soils c o u l d b e m i n e r a l i z e d a n d this h a s b e e n c a l c u l a t e d t o yield s o m e 3 0 - - 6 0 kg h a -1 m i n e r a l N. T h i s is o f t h e o r d e r r e q u i r e d t o s u p p l y N for p l a n t u p t a k e w h i c h does n o t s u b s e q u e n t l y f o l l o w t h e a n i m a l p a t h w a y b u t r e t u r n s t o soil as p l a n t litter. 19. D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n losses are p r o b a b l y small b e c a u s e these are a c c e l e r a t e d b y high organic m a t t e r c o n t e n t , NO3-N, pH a n d t e m p e r a t u r e , o f w h i c h t h e last t h r e e are f r e q u e n t l y low in hill soils. 20. Volatile a m m o n i a losses m a y also b e small b e c a u s e o f h i g h m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t o f t h e soil a n d l o w pH. H o w e v e r , a p p r e c i a b l e losses m a y o c c u r f r o m d e c o m p o s i n g faeces a n d f r o m u r i n e patches. 21. L e a c h i n g losses are c i t e d f r o m Crisp (1966). 22. Drainage losses (Crisp, 1 9 6 6 ) i n c l u d e e r o s i o n o f p e a t a n d this o n l y f o r m s a very small

41

TABLE 6 Management of stock in relation to improved and unimproved hill pasture Time

Production period

Improved hill

Unimproved hill

Mid-January to

Pregnancy

Rested

Lactation

Nursing ewes

Breeding sheep storm feeding -- hay, beet pulp Pre-lamb feeding of concentrates Dry sheep and hoggs

Late lactation and

Dry sheep and

mid-April March/April Mid-April to mid-July Mid-July to mid-August Mid-August to early October Early October to mid-December

early body weight recovery Body weight recovery Body weight recovery

hoggs Rested All breeding sheep

Nursing ewes to weaning All breeding sheep and stock ewe lambs Ewe hoggs

Tupping Mid-December to mid-January

Close of tupping

Rested

All breeding sheep

cycle of nutrition, but with special emphasis on the mating and post.lambing periods. Selected areas may be improved by fencing and grazing control but more commonly surface improvements including lime, phosphate and over-sowing with grass and clover would be employed. Such improved areas might extend to 20--30% of the whole unit and would be grazed to maximise utilisation during the critical nutritional periods (Table 6 shows a typical management timetable). Such systems thus contain two sul>systems, one of which consists of improved grassland while the other consists of unimproved hill land. Systems of this type are not common in farm practice except at research and development centres, but their number is rapidly increasing. It should be noted that many hill farms consist of open hill land together with small grass fields but the management of these resources differs widely from the intensified system described here. Nutrient cycling data are given for the same 280-hectare unit described under traditional management but which has been operated from 1968 to 1975 as an intensified system. In 1974/1975 the system consisted of 90 hectares enclosed paddocks (of which 36 ha had received lime and P) together part of the area in this system. These values may therefore be in excess of the true losses. 26. Calculated by difference between uptake (30) and consumption by grazing (4). All nutrients in plant litter assumed organic (Pool B) until released by mineralization. 30. Nutrient uptake calculated from yield and composition data given in note 4. No data are available for roots.

42

TABLE

7

System type: Extensive livestock

S u m m a r y of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -I y-l )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref.no. Newbould and F l o a t e - 3

Improved hillsheep farming, paddock + hill grassland, U.K.

Nutrient

N

P

K

-52*

-5.4* --5.4

-38*

-3.0 + -(2.4) -5.4

-21 +

Changes in amount of plant component SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

52

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

-31 + (21) 52

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

-38

(17) 38

0

0

Changes in amount of animal component SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p . u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

2+ --31 + 33

0.3 + --3.0 + 3.3

1+ --21 + 22

3*

0.4*

1"

t ---

----

----

(30)

(2.9)

(21)

33

3.3

22

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure ............ Input by fertilizers .................... Input by N-fixation .................... I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter~ s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . Input by imgation and flooding ........... Input by dry and wet deposition ........... Transfer by plant products remaining on field . . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... O u t p u t b y o r g a n i c m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b~" r u n - o f f . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-30 + 10 + 10 + 21 + 71 t t

-2.9 + -5.1" ---

-21 + ----4+

0.4 + 2.4 + -10.8

17 + 42

--

--

0.4 + 0.4 + --

--9 + 2 --

5.4* 6.2

38* 49

3+ 14? --52* 69

+ 2

+4.6

-

7

43

TABLE

7

(continued)

System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - ~ )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Newbould and Floate-3

I m p r o v e d hill s h e e p f a r m i n g , p a d d o c k grassland, U.K.

Nutrient

N

Changes in amount SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in s o i l m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . Transfer by immobilization in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL

Changes in amount

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b. 17. 28.

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . im'gation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t 24. 16.

-20 + --10 + -10 + -17 --41

t+ -5.1" ----

21 + -----

0.4 +

4+

pm t --5.5

pm

---9+

Pm,52

--0.4 + 0.4 + -pm Pm4*5.

-69

-6.2

38* -49

-28

-0.7

-

2.9 + --m P2.4 + 5.3

--0 + ---

t t

3+ 14 + --

17 + -42

2+ -pm

7

of soil organic matter Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by immobilization in soil organic fraction by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

K

o f a v a i l a b l e soil n u t r i e n t s

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLIES:

P

+ hill

-10 + -m P21 + 31 1+ -1 +30

of soil minerals Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction .... T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY- REMOVAL

--

t t t +5.3

-0 --0

44

TABLE 8 System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of . n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . N e w b o u l d a n d F l o a t e - 4

Improved hill sheep farming U.K. Hill grassland part of Newbouldand Floate-3

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Input by seeds or seedlings ............... Transfer by net uptake from soil ........... Transfer by net uptake from soil ........... Input byuptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

-35* --

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

20* --

35

3.0* --3.0

-18 + -(17) "-- " 35

-1.5 + -(1.5) -3.0

-10 + -(10) -20

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

20

0

0

Changes in amount of animal component SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1.

Input by feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. 3. 4.

Input by litter used indoors .............. Transfer by consumption of harvested crops Transfer by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ...... ................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

2** --18 + 20

. . .

0.3**

1.3"* t --(19) 20

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

1"*

--1.5 + 1.8

--10 + 11

0.2** ---(1.6) 1.8

0

1"* ---(10) 11

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ O u t p u t b y l e a c h i n g . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL

30.

by application of manure and/or waste . by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-19 + --

-1.6 + -----

---

10 + 17 + -51

0.4 + 1.5 -3.5

4+ 10 + -24.7

t

--

--

t

--

--9+

0.4 + 0.4 + --

--

35* 52

3* 3.8

20* 31

1

-0.3

5+

3+ 14? -. .

-10.7 + --

2+

--

-

**Arbitrarily derived from Newbould and Floate-3 (assumed 1/4 paddock, 3/4 grassland) by editor for classification purposes.

-

6.3

45

TABLE

8

(continued)

System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Newbould and Floate-4

I m p r o v e d hill s h e e p f a r m i n g U . K . Hill grassland part of Newbould and Floate-3

Nutrient

N

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n i n soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by'net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

Changes in amount SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b. 17. 28.

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t 24. 16

K

-13 + -5+ -10 + -17 --29

t+ -----0.4 + pm t --0.4

t t

11 + ---4+ pm 10 + -25

--

--

3+ 14 + --

0.4 + 0.4 + -pm

--9 + 2+ -pm

P~n5+ -52

P~.0 + -3.8

20 + -31

-23

-3.4

-

6

o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and[or waste ........ by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in s o i l o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

"Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

P

o f a v a i l a b l e soil n u t r i e n t s

--6+

SUPPLY-REMOVAL

--m Pl.5 + 3.1

---

1

t

1

t

----

--

--

+22

o f soil m i n e r a l s T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil fraction .......

0+ 1.6 +

--m P17 + 23

---

+3.1

0

0

46

TABLE 9 System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Newbould and Floate-5

I m p r o v e d hill s h e e p f a r m i n g , U . K . Paddock part of Newbould and Floate-3

Nutrient

N

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

SUPPLIES:

1. 2.

3. 4.

REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

K

of plant component Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake Irom atmosphere .......... TOTAL

-105" --

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

77* --

105

10.5" --10.5

-60 + -(45) -105

--6 + -(4.5) -10.5

44 +

0

0

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

P

77

(33) -77 0

of animal component Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

0"* --60 + 60

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application~ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

0"* --6.0 + 6.0

8** t

1.2"* --

---

(4.8)

60

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

6.0

0

4** --

-- -

(52)

0"* --44 + 44

-(40)

44

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f t o t a l s o i l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

30.

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irn'gation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS **

Arbitrarily derived from Newbould editor for classification purposes.

-52 + -15" -10 + 45 + -122 t t

-4.8 + -16" ---0.4 + 4.5 + -25.7

4 ++ 3 -77

--

--

3+

14? --

-40 + --

0.4 +

---

--9 +

0.4 +

2+

--

--

--

--

1"05 122

10.5 11.3

77 88

0

+14.4

-11

and Floate-3 (assumed 1/4 paddock, 3/4 grassland) by

47

TABLE

9

(continued)

System type: Extensive livestock

S u m m a r y of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -~ y-1 )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Newbould and Floate-5

Improved hillsheep farming, U.K. Paddock part of Newbould and Floate-3

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in amount of available soil nutrients SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t by application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t by irrigation a n d flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r by m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m m m n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL O u t p u t by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by d u s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-.

36 + . .

.

15" .

.

-10 + -2? .

.

63 t t

3*

t+ . . . 16" -. -0.4 + pm t . -16.4

40 + . --4+ pm 33 + 77

---

--

+ 5.1

-11

9+ 0.4 + 14? 0.4 + 2+ . . . . . . . . . . . . pm pm pm 105" P~n0.5* 77* . . . . . . . 122 11.3 88

- 59

Changes in amount of soil organic matter SUPPLIES:

8b. Transfer by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . . . 9b. T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . 16 + 4.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13b. I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . . . . 25. T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction p m pm 26b. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . 45 4.5 TOTAL 61 9.3

10b. I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e .

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

T r a n s f e r by m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

2 . + 59

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fr~ction . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil fraction . . . . . . . -SUPPLY- REMOVAL

. 2

t . t

--0 + . --0

.

+ 9.3

0 --

48

with the original 190 hectares of hill grass-heath. The system now carries 601 e w e s p r o d u c i n g 1 0 2 . 7 l a m b s p e r 1 0 0 e w e s . P r o d u c t i o n is a l m o s t d o u b l e t h a t from the traditional system. The system also carries a small number of cattle but these are mainly used to clean up uneaten herbage on the production paddocks and this does not materially affect the data given in the nutrient b a l a n c e t a b l e . T h i s s y s t e m h a s r e c e n t l y b e e n d e s c r i b e d b y E a d i e e t al. ( 1 9 7 7 ) .

N O T E S T O T A B L E S 7--9. (References Newbould and Floate-3 to-5) 1. Bought-in feed was increased mainly to supplement intake during pregnancy, especially of hoggs and ewes carrying twins (only applicable to whole farm systems) (for classification purpose by the editor, listed as input in Table 8). 4. Plant dry matter production from improved paddocks taken as 3500 kg ha -I and from hill grasslands as 2000 kg ha -I. Composition data from our o w n analysis: Improved paddocks, N = 3.0%; P = 0.3%; K = 2.2%. Nardus--Molinia

summer N = 2.0%; P -- 0.2%; K = 1.5%. winter N = 1.5%; P = 0.1%; K = 0.5%. Grazing utilisation percentages used for the sub-systems are 57% and 50% for the paddocks and hill grasslands, respectively. 5. Production consists of 617 lambs weaned, 461 lambs sold = 11986 kg, 107 cast ewes sold and 1535 kg wool sold.Composition data as used in previous section (for classification purposes arbitrarily split by the editor as outputs of Tables 8 and 9 ; the splitting is based on the ratio between the areas, the grazing period and fertility status of the system). 9. Excreta return has been calculated for each sub-system and combined for the whole farm system. Partitioning between faeces and urine was calculated as in the previous section. Urine components are taken as available (9a). Faeces components are considered organic (9b) until released by mineralization. 11. Lime (6000 kg ha -~) and basic slag (1250 kg ha -~, 6.5% P ) h a v e been applied to 36 ha of the enclosed paddocks, and it is assumed that maintenance dressings will be applied on a five-year cycle. Accordingly, fertilizer P has been calculated assuming that 90 ha will receive 80 kg ha -~ P once in five years or 16 kg ha -~ y-1. Over the whole system this has been expressed as 5.1 kg ha -~ y-~. 12. Estimated amounts of N fixed range from 10--20 kg ha -~ for enclosed paddocks which m a y include a small proportion of clover, to 5--10 kg ha -~ for hill areas where only nonsymbiotic fixation is considered. 15. See notes for Traditional hillsheep system. 17. See notes for Traditional hill sheep system. 19, 20. Likely to be very small for reasons discussed under Traditional hillsheep system. 21, 22. See notes for Traditional hillsheep system. Losses are assumed to be uniform over whole farm but this is unlikely to apply in practice; in particular, run-off losses (22) are probably too high. 26. Calculated by the difference between uptake (30) and consumption by grazing (4). All nutrients in the plant litterare assumed organic (pool b) until released by mineralization. 30. Plant d.m. production from enclosed paddocks has increased to about 3500 kg ha -I. Nutrient uptake is calculated using the following composition for improved pasture: N = 3.0%; P = 0.3%; K = 2.2% (Floate, unpublished data). Other data used to calculate uptake are given under note (4).

49

6.2.3. Systems with forestry Classification. Extensive forestry system. Reference: N e w b o u l d and Floate-6; Meathop Wood, U.K., Table 10. The forests managed by the Forestry Commission are predominantly coniferous and are located throughout the United Kingdom, with the largest proportion (61%) in Scotland. Of the total 1.2 X 106 ha, 25% is in England and the remaining 14% is in Wales. Most of the forests are on the poorer softs in the higher and wetter northern and western regions of the country. The predominant under-lying soils are strongly podsolized or gleyed, and most have a peaty surface horizon. In the establishment of such commercial forests (frequently on former marginal agricultural land), attention is paid to improving adverse drainage conditions and minimising plant competition b y the use of special cultivation methods. Phosphorus and potassium fertilizer is added either uniformly over the whole area to be planted or, more c o m m o n l y now, to the vicinity of each seedling tree. T o p dressing of phosphate 6--7 years after planting is often practised. It is generally accepted that the critical time nutritionally for y o u n g trees lasts until the canopies meet at 10--12 years. Provided that the trees are in nutrient balance at this time, the system is usually maintained without further additions of fertilizer b y natural cycling processes. There is a much smaller area (200 000 ha) of private mixed woodland, and the best data on nutrient cycling available to us refer to a woodland ecosystem within this group. We have taken as an example of a woodland ecosystem the main U.K. site for study in the IBP Woodland Biome. The following description has been given by Satchell (1971): "Meathop Woods, covering approximately 40 hectares, lie three kilometres from Grange-over-Sands on the sea coast of Morecambe Bay on the southern edge of the English Lake District. They are situated at an altitude of about 45 metres on an outcrop of Carboniferous limestone with terraces and small scarps. The terraces are covered with glacial drift of a mean depth in the study area of 38 cm, but varying greatly with the eroded surface of the underlying limestone pavement. The soil is predominantly brown earth with a mull humus, the pH of the A horizon in the study area ranging from 4.1 to 7.3. Meathop Wood is a mixed deciduous wood with oak, ash, birch and s y c a m o r e dominating the canopy and hazel forming a well-developed understorey. The ground layer is dominated by Rubus fruticosus agg., Endymion non-scriptus, Anemone nemorosa, Mercurialis perennis and Oxalis acetosella. There is a recorded history of woodland management, mainly for charcoal production, since 1770, and the site is thought to have carried woodland indefinitely. Rainfall is approximately 120--125 cm per annum."

The nutrient balance calculations suggest a gain in soil-N which is probably apparent rather than real because there are incomplete data for gaseous exchange. The authors state that it is n o t possible to say whether the system is in equilibrium with respect to N. Their scheme suggests that the system as a whole appears to gain 103 kg N ha -1 per year, of which 78 kg ha -1 y-~ is appar-

50

T A B L E 10 System type: Forest

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y-~ )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . N e w b o u l d a n d F l o a t e - 6

Meathop Wood, U.K. (Interpretation, Ulrich)

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r.

31. REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

--

--

97 70 9 176

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . -Transfer by grazing of forage ............. -Output by primary products .............. 9 Transfer by plant production remaining on field . ~ 97 55 Transfer by seed for sowing .... .......... TOTAL 161 (Root increment)

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

+ 15

-10.8"

-54 23 -77

---

---

7.9 2.9

0.8 7.1 2.3

6 48 16

10.2

70

+ 0.6

+ 7

Changes in amount of animal component SUPPLIES:

1. 2. 3.

4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. .

.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f t o t a l s o i l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . ~

27.

Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of amm6nia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

----100 --

-------

6 97 55

0.4 7.1 2.3

258 t t 13 ---167 180 + 78

-------

9.8

6 48 16 70

---

---

0.3 ---10.8 11.1

8 ---77 85

-

1.3

-15

51

T A B L E 10 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Forest

Summary of n t / t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 ' y - I )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. N e w b o u l d a n d F l o a t e - 6

M e a t h o p W o o d , U.K. (Interpretation, Ulrich)

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure ............ I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by N-fixation .................... I n p u t by a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . Input by irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . .... Input by dry and wet deposition ........... T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . Transfer by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL O u t p u t by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t d p t a k e b~v ~ e p l a n t ......... TOTAL

---

--------

-100 -6 -121 --

------

0.4 pm 8.2 --8.6

227 t t

6 pm 64 -70

---

---

13

0.3

8

97 70 180

-pm -7.9 2.9 11.1

-54 23

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

47

--

85

2.5

-

-15

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by a p p l i c a t i o n a n d / o r w a s t e . . . . . . b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . -application of manure ............ -application o f litter, sludge and waste . by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n . . . ~ 97 b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . ~ 1 5 5

17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n O u t p u t by organic matter, removed by r u n - o f f . . TOTAL

TOTAL REMOVALS:

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

.

.

.

.

---

. ---

7.1 2.3

48 16

152

9.4

64

121 -121

8.2 -8.2

64 -64

+ 31

+ 1.2

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . -SUPPLY-REMOVAL

pm pm 0

0

pm

52

ently accumulated in the soil. This latter figure agrees with the present interpretation of the data*. Our calculations suggest a net loss of 1.3 kg P ha -~ per year from the soil, which contrasts with an apparent net gain of 0.11 kg P ha -~ per year in the whole system (White and Harrison). The difference between these calculations is largely accounted for by incremental gain in the production compartment. A fundamental difference between agricultural production systems and woodlands is the accumulation of nutrients in the living trees. White and Harrison indicate that some 24 kg N, 1.4 kg P and 13 kg K ha -1 y-~ are incorporated into the standing crop and are lost from the soil for the lifetime of the tress. In the data in Table 10, these amounts are divided between stems (which are eventually lost from the system as product) and r o o t increment (which is accounted as a gain in the plant component). In both our calculations, and in the White and Harrison presentation, the soil appears to be in K deficit b u t this is probably made good by weathering of K from rocks (no data are available for 16). The authors concluded that " t h e only element amongst those sampled (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na) which is likely to cause stress to the system is phosphorus". NOTES TO TABLE 10. (Reference Newbould and Floate-6) The data used here have been taken from a draft manuscript of the chapters by Harrison, and by White and Harrison in a volume entitled "Studies o f an English Oak Woodland" (in preparation). 12. N-fixation estimate from Dr B.T. D'Sylva's laboratory studies. White and Harrison (loc. cit.) observe that this may be high but cite data of Jenkinson (1971) w h o showed that when arable soil was allowed to revert to deciduous woodland, 65 kg ha -1 y-I N accumulated in the soil over a period of 81 years. 15. Data from White and Harrison (loc. cit.). 17. Mineralization data from White and Harrison for N and P : K mineralized + K humified has been used here for mineralization since it is thought unrealistic to consider humification of K. 18. Primary products consist o f stems of trees only: stem increment of production from White and Harrison (loc. cit.). 21. Leaching data from White and Harrison (loc.cit.). 25. White and Harrison give data for humification but in our presentation the amounts included here are accounted as litter (26): humification appears in the balance as net gain in the soil organic pool. 26. Divided into (26t) which includes all tree and herb litter, and (26r) which is root death; data from White and Harrison (loc. cit. ). 30. Net nutrient uptake interpreted from White and Harrison's data using the followiDg assumptions: 30r = root death + root production increment. 30t = total uptake by trees and herbs less root uptake and net of loss by stem and leaf leaching. 31. Atmospheric interception by trees does not include leaching from trees or stem wash. *Newbould and Floate are greatly indebted to White and Harrison for permission to use their da'ta, and to Ulrich and to Harrison who later assisted in interpretation.

53

6.2.4. Systems with intensive grassland husbandry Such systems in the U.K. are mainly concerned with meat production, fat lamb or beef, or with dairying. The former are most frequent in areas best suited to long-term grassland in the wetter western areas and on traditional fattening pastures. The dairying enterprises tend to be concentrated near market centres. All these intensive systems are on low ground ( < 2 0 0 m) where the climate is moist temperate, and the growing season is usually in the range 200--300 days. Typical meat-producing enterprises occur in areas where rainfall is in the range 800--1200 mm and highest mean m o n t h l y temperatures are between 15 and 18°C. The soils are dominantly brown earth with varying degrees of poor drainage, to gleys, and these were formerly associated with deciduous woodland. For many centuries these soils have been in agricultural use and many have been in permanent or semi-permanent grassland for the past 100 years. In the U.K. there are currently 2.3 X 106 and 4.9 X 106 ha of temporary and permanent grassland, respectively. N o t all of this land is devoted to the 28.5 X 106 sheep which produce 240 000 tonnes of m u t t o n and lamb annually. Some 200 000 ha are classified as mainly sheep farms b u t a further 300 000 ha are classified as cattle and sheep enterprises. The average size of a farm unit in the U.K. is 45 ha, and the average breeding flock consists of 162 sheep (Annual Review of Agriculture, 1975). To illustrate the principles involved in the operation of grassland sheep systems, data have been calculated for a hypothetical intensive lamb production system based on either pure grass (plus a large amount of fertilizer N) or mixed grass/clover (plus a small a m o u n t of fertilizer N) swards.

6.2. 4a~ Intensive sheep system using mixed pastures o f grass and clover with little use o f nitrogen fertilizer Classification. Intensive livestock system. Reference: Newbould and Floate-7; U.K. Intensive sheep farming on grass and clover, Table 12. Assumptions used to calculate nutrient balances: (1) Stocking rate, 7.25 ewes ha-'. (2) Weaning percentage, 160%. (3) 120 kg ha- 1 nitrogen fertilizer used each year. (4) All lambs sold at 45 kg live weight. (5) Bought-in replacement y o u n g stock contain equivalent amounts of nutrients to the cast ewes and deaths. (6) The approximate timetable of the system is shown in Table 11.

54

T A B L E ii

Management of stock in an intensive sheep system Time

Production period

Fields Grazing

JanumT--April

Pregnancy

April April--July

Lambing Lactation

May--June July--August

September

E w e recovery L a m b growth L a m b finishing

October November November--December

Lambs sold Mating Early pregnancy

House Conservation

Unused

Breeding sheep Silage and prelambing concentrates fed to stock

Unused Grazing Rest Silage made Silage made Grazing Rest Grazing (ewes)

Grazing (lambs) + concentrates

Grazing Unused

Breeding sheep Silage fed to stoc]

6.2.4b. Intensive sheep system using pure grass swards with heavy applications of nitrogen fertilizer Classification. Intensive livestock system. Reference: Newbould and Floate-8; U.K. Intensive sheep farming on grass only, Table 13. Assumptions used to calculate nutrient balances: (1) Stocking rate, 12 ewes ha -1. (2) Weaning percentage, 160%. (3) 300 kg ha -~ nitrogen fertilizer used each year. (4) All lambs sold at 40 kg live weight. (5) BoughtAn replacement young stock contain equivalent amounts of nutrients to the cast ewes and deaths. (6) The timetable of the system is shown in Table 11.

6. 2. 5. Systems with intensive arable f a r m i n g - winter wheat continuously Classification. Intensive arable farming. Reference: Newbould and Floate-9, Winter wheat, U.K., Table 14. About one-third of the U.K. cereal crop and nearly one-half of the wheat crop is grown in eastern England; 3.7 × 104 ha are devoted to cereal

55 production in the U.K. and of this total, 1.2 X 106 ha give an average yield of 7360 kg ha -1. Although the average farm size in the U.K. is only 45 ha, many cereal-producing farms are larger than this overall average. The annual average rainfall is less than 650 mm, of which one-half falls in the summer months (April--September, inclusive). The yields of wheat in eastern England tend, on average, to vary inversely with the total rainfall from June to August. The softs in this area are extremely variable, ranging from the Fen peat, to silts, breckland, and to heavy stiff clays. In the absence of complete data from one environment, the principles of mineral nutrient cycling in such a system are illustrated by the growing of winter wheat in monoculture using the national averages for yield of grain and quantities of fertilizer used.

Timetable for system Sow in O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r adding a small part of the nitrogen fertilizer and most or all of the P and K; roll and top dress with furt.her nitrogen in the spring; harvest in August; burn stubble and prepare seed bed using minimum cultivation or direct drilling. 6.2.6. Nutrient balances in contrasted U.K. systems In all our systems we have assumed that plant and animal compartments (pools) are in a steady state, and we have used this assumption to calculate one closing (or balancing) entry in each section. It has been further assumed that both the total soil c o m p a r t m e n t and its constituent pools (A, B, C) are n o t necessarily in a steady state, and gains or losses have been calculated from the available d a t a These are at best only rough estimates because they represent the accumulated errors arising from assumptions and calculations made in deriving values for all the fluxes. Where u n k n o w n (pm) quantities are i n v o l v e d - particularly regarding mineralization <> immobilization of organic matter, and weathering <> fixation by soil minerals -- the calculated gains or losses are particularly doubtful. Bearing these qualifications in mind, we have attempted to draw some conclusions regarding the possible changes in the soil pools of the systems we have described.

High elevation moorland The total soft c o m p o n e n t appears to be close to steady state with respect to N and P, and the apparent loss of K m a y be made good by the release from weathering. The soil organic pool appears to be gaining N, P and K at the .expense of the available soil nutrient pool. While the steady accumulation of organic matter in litter layers and peat in such soils is possible, it cannot proceed indefinitely. It is probable that net mineralization is greater than indicated in

56

T A B L E 12 System type: Intensive livestock

Summary of . nutrient flows (units: kg ha -I y-i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . N e w b o u l d a n d F l o a t e - 7

U.K. Intensive sheep farming on grass a n d c l o v e r

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

29. 30t. 30r.

31. REMOVALS:

3. 4.

18. 26. 27.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

-184 + --184

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on feld . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

56 + 98 + 50) -184

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

(0)

-20.1 --20.1

-144 + --144

6.4 + 10.8 +

45 + 77 + -(22) -144

~.9) -20.1 (0)

(0)

Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1. 2. 3. 4.

REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

16 +

2.9 +

5+

56 + 98 + 170

6.4 + 10.8 + 20.1

45 + 77 + 127

17 +

3.4 +

1+

12" -52 + 89 + 170

--6.2 + 10.5 + 20.1

--46 + 80 + 127

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

(0)

(0)

(0)

Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia Output by leaching ............ iiiiiiii Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

52 + 89 + -120" 150 + --17" 30 + -458 pm Pm30* ---

. .

6.2 + 10.5 + -30* ---0.3*

2.9 + -49.9

22 + -191

---0"

--

---

---144 + 145

--

--

184 + 214

20.1 + 20.1

(+244)

46 + 80 + -40* ---- 3*

(+29.8)

1"

(+ 4 6 )

57

T A B L E 12 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : I n t e n s i v e livestock

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a - I y - i )

fType o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. N e w b o u l d and Floate-7

U.K. Intensive s h e e p f a r m i n g on grass a n d clover

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer by application of m a n u r e and/or waste . ~ T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . J I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation a n d flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g o n field . T r a n s f e r b y seed f o r s o w ~ F . ~ ............ Output by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . i iiii~i~ O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i t n m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

92 + -120" 150 + --

0.8 +

107 +

17"

30* ---0.3*

40*

69 + 0

Pm7.6+ 0

--

448

387

2O8

pm

---

---

---

--

Pm30* --

22 +

0*

m P184 + -214

--21.3" m P20.1 + -41.4

+234

- 2.7

3* 36 +

1"

-18" 144 + -163 +

45

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

Transfer by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . ) 49 + T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . -I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . P 3 n 0 + TOTAL 79 T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

15.9 + ---

19 + ---

Pro2.9+ 18.8

69 + -69

--

7.6 +

+10

+11.2

---

21.3 pm

7.6

0+ 19 ---+

19

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil fraction . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

(21.3)

18 36 (-

18)

58

T A B L E 13 S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive livestock

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -1 y - ' )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. N e w b o u l d a n d Floate-8

Intensive s h e e p f a r m i n g o n grass o n l y , U.K.

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t.

30r.

31. REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

I n p u t b y seeds o r seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . 200 + T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . TOTAL 200 T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . TranSfer b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

_ 30.4 + . . . . . . 30.4

74 + 107 + (19) -200

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

_ 219 +

. .

219

12.6: 16.3

72 + 118 +

-(1.5) -30.4

(0)

"(29) -219

(0)

(0)

Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed f o r livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . litter used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . by consumption of harvested crops . . . b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

.

26 + . . . 74 + 107 + 207 +

.

4.8 + . . . 12.6 + 16.3 + 33.7

26 + 14" 0 62 + 105 + 207

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

(0)

9+ . 72 .+ 118 + 199

5.0 + -0 11.0 + 17.7 + 33.7

2+ -0+ 73 124 + 199

(0)

(0)

Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . • T r a n s f e r by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f litter sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

62 + 105 + -300* 10 + --

11.0 + 17.7 + -50* ---

17" (19)

0.3* (1.5)

(29)

513

80.5

309

O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

pm p m 5*

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

73 + 124 + -80* -3*

-200 + 205 +308

--

-1"

--0" ---30.4 + 30.4

-219 + • 220

+50.1

+ 89

--

59

TABLE

13 (continued)

System type: Intensive livestock

S u m m a r y of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -i y-i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Newbould and Floate-8

Intensive sheep farming on grass only, U.K.

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in amount of available soil nutrients SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste 104 + T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . :} Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . ... -I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300* Input by N-fixation .................... 10 + I n p u t by application o f litter, sludge and waste . . I n p u t by irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by dry and wet deposition ........... 17" T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . -T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n 69* T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . 0 T r a n s f e r b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -TOTAL 500

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification ................ O u t p u t by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e b y t h e p l a n t . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e b y t h e p l a n t TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

1.4 + -50* -.

.

167 + -80*

0.3*

3* 36 ~

Pro7.6* 0 -59.3

29* -315

pm p m 5*

--

--

--

--

--

35.5" P~m^.4+~u

--37*

Pm^0+zu -205

-65.9

219 + -257

+295

-

+ 58

0*

6.6

1"

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer I n p u t by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ ~ 63 + b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ -a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . -b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . PZ9 + TOTAL 82

17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n O u t p u t b y o r g a n i c m a t t e r , r e m o v e d by r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

27.3 + --Pml.5 + 28.8

69 + --

30 + ---

7.6 +

0+ 30 --

-69

7.6

0

+ 13

+21.2

+ 30

---

35.5 + pm

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

+35.5

37 + 36 +

1

60

T A B L E 14 System type: Intensive arable

S u m m a r y of' n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Newbould and Floate-9

Winter wheat, U.K.

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

-(95) -0 95

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed, f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

--77 + 18 + -95

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

(21.2) -0 21.2

(147) -0 147

--16.8 + 44 + -21.2

---

0

-147

0

0

of animal component

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t j ~ u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

64 + 83 +

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

19. 20.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL

21.

22. 23. 28. 30.

by application of manure and/or waste by droppings on grazed areas . . . application of manure . . . . . . fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

. . . . . . .

. .

. . . . . . . 98* 5+ . .

17" 18 + -138 m P18 + 10 + ---95 + 123 + 15

. .

. . . . . . 25.0* _ .

42*

--0.3*

--

4.4 + -29.7

83 + -128

3*

---

--

0.5 + ---21.2 + 21.7 + 8.0

16 + ---147 + 163 -

35

61

T A B L E 14 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : I n t e n s i v e arable

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a -1 y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f Dart o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. N e w b o u l d a n d Floate-9

Winter w h e a t , U.K.

Nutrient

N

P

K

--

---

98 + 5+ --17" -83* --

25.0 + ---

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. T r a n s f e r b y applidation o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . 9a. T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n grazed areas . . . . . . . 10a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . 14. I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . 15. I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . 16. T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . 17. T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n 26a. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g o n field . 27. T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o v o ? g ~ L . . . . . . . . . . . .

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

42 + ---3*

0.3* P~n2.7* --

33* -83 +

38"0

Output by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . prn~ O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . 18, O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . 0 O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . -T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction 83* T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . 95 + Transfer by net uptake ~VOt~Elant . . . . . . . . . SUPPLIES-REMOVAI~

--

- 3

---

-0.5* 0

16" 0

17.8: 12.7 21.2 +

19" -147 +

52.2

182

-14.2

-21

, ---12.7"

--

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y a p p l i c a t i o n a n d / o r waste . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL

83* 18 + 101

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL

83* 0 83

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

4.4 +

---

0

17.1

0

12.7" 0 12.7

0 0 0

+18

+ 4.4

---

17.8" pm

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

+17.8

19" 33 -14

62

NOTES TO TABLE 12. (Reference Newbould and Floate-7) 1. It is assumed that 'finishing' lambs are fed 0.45 kg concentrate feed per day for 21 days and that each pregnant ewe eats 51 kg y-I of the same feed; the concentration of nutrients in the feed was taken to be 3.3% N, 0.16% P and 1.1% K. 4. Herbage production, 5750 kg of dry matter per ha (4250 without fertilizer, plus 120 × 12.5 = 1500 following the application of nitrogen fertilizer). It is assumed that 15% dry matter is wasted or spoiled in the grazing process and that 25% dry matter is wasted in making and feeding silage. On these assumptions the overall utilisation of available herbage was taken to be 81%. The concentration of nutrients in grass/clover silage was taken to be 3.5% N, 0.4% P, 2.8% K, and in the freshly grazed grass/clover 3.2% N, 0.35% P and 2.5% K (Spedding and Diekmahns, 1972). 5. The system on this pasture type is operated to the schedule described previously (Table 11). It was assumed that the lambs were sold weighing 45 kg each, and that the nutrients in the bought-in replacement hoggs balance those in the sold-off cast ewes. The concentrations of nutrients in the lamb carcass were taken as 2.8% N, 0.65% P and 0.18% K (Sykes and Field, 1972). It is assumed that each ewe produces 2 kg wool containing 17.8% N (Ryder and Stephenson, 1968). 8, 9. The nutrients are apportioned between faeces and urine in the same manner as that described in ref. Newbould and Floate-2 to -5. 11. Fertilizer amounts are based on national average levels (Church, 1975) and on recommendations of the Edinburgh School of Agriculture (1969). 12. Nitrogen fixed by clover in the U.K. is reported to vary from 23 to 400 kg ha -1 by Nutman (1971) and from 105 to 430 kg ha -~ by Whitehead (1970). An approximate mean value of 150 kg ha -~ was used. 15. Inputs in rain are based on Cooke (1976). 16, 17. The net quantities of K released by weathering, and of nitrogen and P mineralized from organic matter are based on uptake by unfertilized leys on the reference plots at Rothamsted (Widdowson and Penny, 1973). 21. Leaching loss for nitrogen is based on Low (1973), for P and K on Cooke (1976). Use of the latter data may underestimate K loss; Wilkinson and Lowrey (1973) quote values up to 139 kg ha -1. 24. 71% of P and 46% of K in applied fertilizer is assumed to add to the mineral soil fraction (Widdowson and Penny, 1973). 25. System is assumed to be gaining in organic matter and hence N and P, but amounts immobilised by the soil organic fraction are not known. 26a. It is assumed that all K enters the pool of available soil nutrients. 26b. It is assumed that N and P remain in the soil organic matter pool. NOTES TO TABLE 13. (Reference Newbould and Floate-8) Entries identical to those for Table 12, except for the following: 4. Herbage production, 9500 kg dry matter per ha (2000 without fertilizer, plus 300 × 25 = 7500 in response to nitrogen fertilizer). On the same assumptions of wastage in grazing and making silage as were used in the previous system, the overall utilisation of available herbage was taken to be 81%. Nutrients in grass silage are assumed to be 2.8% N, 0.48% P and 2.7% K (Lush, 1952), those in grazed grass are 2.1% N, 0.32% P and 2.31% K (Whitehead, 1966). 5. It is assumed that all lambs are sold at 40 kg each and that nutrients in the bought-in replacement hoggs balance those in the sold-off cast ewes.

63

12. Nitrogen fixed in soils under fertilized grassland is estimated at 10 kg ha-~ (Jenkinson, unpublished data, 1975).

N O T E S T O T A B L E 14. (Reference Newbould and Floate-9) 11. Fertilizer amounts are national average levels used on winter wheat (Church, 1975). At Rothamsted, from which other data for the balance on this crop were obtained, the amounts of fertilizerN, P and K used annually on arable crops, including winter wheat, over a period of 15 years were, on average, 70--118 N, 27 P and 104--208 K (kg ha -~) (Widdowson and Penny, 1973). The N and P levels used at Rothamsted are similar to the national averages but the amount of K is very m u c h greater. 12. Nitrogen fixation estimated (Jenkinson, unpublished data, 1975). 15. Average nutrients in rain at Rothamsted, Woburn and S a x m u n d h a m 1969--1973 (Cooke, 1976). For Rothamsted, Williams (1976) gives 17.5 N, 0.81 P and 4.5 K (kg ha -I). 16, 17. The net quantities of potassium released by weathering and of nitrogen and phosphate mineralized from organic matter were based on the average uptake by unfertilized wheat over a period of 15 years (Widdowson and Penny, 1973) (see also 25). 18. The yield of grain was taken as 4356 kg ha -~, i.e.the average yield for the U.K. crop in 1973/1974 (Annual Review of Agriculture, 1975). The contents of nutrients used for wheat grain were 1.8% N, 0.4% P, 1.5% K, and for straw were 0.42% N, 0.1% P, 1.9% K (Halliday, 1948). 20. Yield of straw was assumed to be similar to the yield of grain and it was assumed that straw was burnt in situ, resulting mainly in a loss of nitrogen. 21. Leaching losses based on mean data for Rothamsted 1970--1974. Ranges N (3.85-82.3), P (<0.05--1.25), K (4.6--40), (Williams, 1976). Data for S a x m u n d h a m (heavy clay/ good wheat land) indicated that leaching losses would be 22.6 N, 0.02 P and 1.2 K kg ha -~ assuming 100 m m drainage through the profile (Cooke, 1976). 24. Phosphorus and potassium 'fixed' in soil were estimated at 71% and 4 6 % of that applied in fertilizer(Widdowson and Penny, 1973). 25. A steady state in soil organic matter and a balance of mineralization and immobilization of N and P were assumed. 26a. It was assumed that all K enters the pool of available soil nutrients (A). 26b. It was assumed that N and P remain in the soil organic matter pool (B).

the tables, a n d it is also possible that intermittent peat erosion keeps the s y s t e m in a steady state over a long time scale.

U.K. traditional hill sheep farming Like the high elevation moorland system, this system appears to be close to a steady state in the total soil component. A small gain in N contrasts with a small loss in the previous system, b u t the difference is probably n o t significant and is certainly less than the errors associated with some of the fluxes. The apparent gains in the soil organic pool of this system, which are almost matched by apparent losses from the available soil nutrient pool, can probably be explained in the same w a y as for the high elevation moorland system. In this case though, the underestimate of net mineralization is more likely than the intermittent erosion of peat.

64

Soil organic matter levels under perennial grassland are well known to be remarkab_ly constant for long periods, so that values close to steady state would be expected for this system.

U.K. improved hill sheep farming The analysis of this system consists of two sub-systems and an attempted synthesis for the whole farm system. We shall consider first the whole farm system followed by any possible interactions between the sub-systems. The total soil component appears to be gaining N and P but losing K. The small gain in N may not be significant for reasons discussed under the previous system. The gain in P is probably real and is due to fertilizer addition which is only balanced by small losses in animal product and by leaching. The apparent K loss may be made good by release through weathering. The apparent gains in the soil organic pool are probably too large for reasons already discussed, and for the same reasons the apparent losses from the available soil nutrient pool are probably erroneously large. The gain in P originates from fertilizer addition. The gain in N in the total soil pool of the improved paddocks may be at the expense of loss from the hill grasslands, but care must be taken in the interpretation of the data because of the different sizes of the two sub-systems. Hill grassland is close to steady state with respect to P, while the improved paddocks have gained as a result of fertilizer addition. The reasons for the apparent K losses have already been discussed. The soil organic pools of both sub-systems appear to be gaining in N, P and K but, especially where lime has been applied to the improved paddocks, mineralization must be greater than indicated in the tables. In the hill grassland sub-system the gains in the organic pool are almost matched by the losses from the available pool. The large gains in N and K in the organic pool of the improved paddocks axe unlikely to be real but there could be a small conversion of applied fertilizer P to organic form. The balances for this system suggest that in the absence of organic return via faeces, the available pool of N will be depleted -- it is, however, more than replenished in the long term as faecal N is mineralized. Application of phosphorus fertilizer on a 5-year cycle should more than make good the losses unless fixation is high, which it may be in some soils. Losses of K appear to exceed gains unless there is a significant release from weathering or unless some losses have been overestimated. It is interesting to note that, compared with the traditional system, an increase of 60--80% in cycling minerals leads to a lamb production increase of over 100% (see Table 15). Woodland The high positive balance for nitrogen is much influenced by the exceptionally high figure for nitrogen fixation. However, the wilderness area on Broadbalk at Rothamsted is apparently gaining significant amounts of nitrogen

65

TABLE 15 Comparison of nutrient turnover and production from traditional and improved hill farming systems Traditional system

Improved system

Percent increase

Nutrient turnover in soil compartment (kg ha -1 ) N 30.3 48.7 P 2.3 4.3 K 18.5 32.1

61 87 74

Nutrients removed in animal products (kg ha -1) N 1.3 2.4 P 0.2 0.4 K 0.1 0.1

85 100 --

Animal production (kg ha -~ ) Lamb 20.5 Ewes 13.5 Wool 2.8

109 56 96

42.8 21.0 5.5

(40--60 kg N ha-1) each year so that this may be a genuine observation. The phosphorus and potassium losses are of the same order of magnitude as in the primary product sold, and since there is considerable uncertainty about the quantities weathered and mineralized, they are probably reasonable. I n t e n s i v e arable - - w i n t e r w h e a t

The total soil compartment appears to gain nitrogen and phosphorus and to lose potassium. The gain in nitrogen is 'apparent' only because no estimate for denitrification is possible. In the arable rotation of the Rothamsted (1956--1970) and Woburn reference plots (1960--1969) nitrogen was gained only when farmyard manure was used (Williams, 1973). The gain in phosphorus is probably genuine and it was observed at both Rothamsted and Woburn. The loss in potassium despite the addition of potassium fertilizer is unexpected by comparison with the observed data, although losses in this element did occur at Woburn when nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers were added. The observation of potassium loss may be a consequence of the method of calculating the data and may indicate use of too low a level of nitrogen fertilizer in the calculation (see note 11). Changes in the pool of available soil nutrients are not unexpected in view of the previous discussion, but it should be noted that the apparently large loss of phosphorus is more than balanced by a gain in the mineral soil compartment. I n t e n s i v e s h e e p - - g r a s s / c l o v e r a n d grass

The balances for the pool of available soil nutrients in both systems show large gains in N and K and small losses of P. However, since the losses of nitrogen by denitrification and volatilization are not known, the gain for this

66

T A B L E 16 A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e a n n u a l gains a n d losses o f N, P a n d K (kg h a -~ ) in the pool o f available soil n u t r i e n t s o f s e v e n d i f f e r e n t U.K. e c o s y s t e m s System

Nitrogen

Phosphorus

Gain

Loss

Moorland Ref. N a n d FI.-1

26

45

T r a d i t i o n a l hill sheep farming Ref. N and F1.-2

29

I m p r o v e d hill sheep farming Ref. N and Fl.-3

Balance

Gain

Loss

- - 19

0.2

4.4

47

- - 18

0.4

41

69

- - 28

Woodland Ref. N a n d FI.-6

227

180

+ 47

I n t e n s i v e arable (winter wheat) Ref. N a n d Fh-9

203

206

--

I n t e n s i v e sheep (grass/clover) Ref. N and Fl.-7

448

Intensive sheep (grass) Ref. N a n d Fl.-8

500

Potassium Balance

Gain

Loss

Balance

- - 4.2

13

22

-- 9

4.6

- - 4.2

30

36

-- 6

5.5

6.2

- - 0.7

42

49

--, 7

8.6

"11.1

- - 2.5

70

85

--15

3

38.0

52.2

--14.2

161

182

--21

214

+ 234

38.7

41.4

- - 2.7

208

163

+ 45

205

+ 295

59.3

65.9

- - 6.6

315

257

+ 58

element is probably apparent. Since phosphorus is recycled by the grazing animal, the loss from the available pool is much less than for the intensive arable system although it is probably genuine. The gain in potassium in these systems compared to the small loss shown in the extensive grazing systems (ref. Newbould and Floate-1, -2 and -3) is possibly a real gain. The balance of K in the present system reflects more rapid recycling via the grazing animal, and an estimate of the amount of weathering from minerals which was not attempted in the case of the extensive animal systems. Similar remarks can be applied to the balances in the total soil compartment where all three elements show gains. The gain in phosphorus is probably genuine because of the very small amount of the element removed in the animal product. This contrasts with the arable system where considerable amounts of phosphorus are removed in the primary product~

67

T A B L E 17 A c o m p a r i s o n o f the annual gains and losses o f N, P a n d K (kg ha-' ) in the total soil com-

partment of seven different U.K. ecosystems System

Nitrogen

Phosphorus Gain

Loss

2

3.7

4.4

+

2

4.3

69

+

2

258

180

+

Intensive arable (winter wheat) Ref. N and Fl.-9

138

123

+

Intensive sheep (grass/clover)

458

513

Moorland

Gain

Loss

Balance

58

60

--

63

61

71

Potassium Balance

Gain

Loss

Balance

- - 0.7

13

22

-- 9

4.6

- - 0.3

30

36

-- 6

10.8

6.2

+ 4.6

42

49

-- 7

78

9.8

11.1

- - 1.3

70

85

--15

15

29.7

21.7

+ 8.0

128

163

--35

214

+ 244

49.9

20.1

+ 29.8

191

145

+ 46

205

+ 308

80.5

30.4

+ 50.1

309

220

+ 89

Ref. N a n d Fl.-1

Traditional hill sheep farming Ref. N a n d FI.-2

Improved hill sheep farming Ref. N a n d FI.-3

Woodland Ref. N a n d Fl.-6

Ref. N a n d F1.-7

Intensive sheep

(grass) Ref. N a n d F1.-8

6.2. 7. Summary table and discussion of U.K. systems Seven different ecosystems in the U.K. have been discussed in the preceding section and, of these, six are concerned with agricultural production. In summary it is useful to compare the amount~ of nutrients in circulation in these systems and to consider the gains and losses in the soil compartment. For this purpose the systems are listed in Tables 16 and 17 in increasing order of amounts of nutrients annually entering and leaving the soil compartment, and it is instructive to note that this order more or less corresponds with the increasing order of sophistication based on production and degree of manipulation of the system. Annual turnover and production are lowest in the moorland system (Newbould and Floate-1) where climatic limitations are severe. It is likely that climatic limitations are imposed upon both plant nutrient uptake and release from decomposing organic matter, and the system is probably close to steady

68 state. The small changes in balance are well within the limits of accuracy with which the various flows are known; the u n k n o w n a m o u n t of release from the weathering of rocks probably accounts for the apparent loss of K. Traditional hill sheep farming systems (Newbould and Floate-2) also have a small annual turnover of nutrients. This is also in part owing to climatic limitations to plant production and decomposition (although less severe than in the moorland system) b u t also in part owing to the low level of utilisation of herbage production. Only a small part of the nutrients taken up by grassland is consumed by grazing animals and the remainder returns to the soil organic pool. Intensification of the same system (Newbould and Floate-3), involving land improvement of a small part and increased stocking and herbage utilisation overall, leads to a 60--80% increase in nutrient turnover, and to a doubling of production. In both the traditional and improved versions of the system the changes in soil nutrient balances are small and within the limits of accuracy of the data, suggesting that the whole system is near equilibrium. The data for the woodland system (Newbould and Floate-6) indicate rather large amounts of nutrients in circulation compared with the other natural or semi-natural systems which do not include fertilizer inputs. This may in part be due to considerably moderated climatic limitations to production and decomposition at this lowland site and in part to the deeper rooting habit of the trees on a more fertile soil. White and Harrison (in preparation) do, however, point o u t that in comparison with other woodland and forest studies the values for their nutrient data are above average, and that this appears inconsistent with the fact that the site is described as commercially non-productive woodland. Apart from the very small overall addition of P in system 2.2b, all the foregoing systems rely on recycling of nutrients within the systems and are thus in marked contrast to the more intensive agricultural production systems. The intensive arable (winter wheat) system (Newbould and Floate-9) involves application of all three major nutrients in significant amounts, and this in large part explains the increased turnover of nutrients in this system. However, it should also be pointed o u t that in contrast to the animal production systems, all nutrients taken up by the aerial parts of the crop appear in the balance sheet. There does appear to be a significant gain in soil-N, b u t real changes are only detected in soil-N when there is a major change in the management of the system as, for example, from arable to grassland or vice-versa. It is therefore concluded that the apparent gain is probably accounted for by unidentified losses, most probably via the gaseous phase or by leaching below drain depth. The balance for P is near to steady state b u t K is apparently in deficit. This K deficit m a y be owing to our use of values which are t o o low for fertilizer (1) or release from rocks by weathering (16) and/or t o o high for leaching (21} or 'fixation' (24). Alternatively, it m a y reflect our attempts to select the best available data which, unfortunately, come from a wide variety of sources. Had other combinations of data from the same sources been used,

69 K w o u l d have b e e n m o r e n e a r l y in balance, b u t the balances f o r t h e o t h e r n u t r i e n t s w o u l d have b e e n disturbed. This strikingly illustrates t h e n e e d t o strive f o r the ideal o f fully i n t e g r a t e d m e a s u r e m e n t s c o l l e c t e d f o r each particular system. T h e intensive grassland systems ( N e w b o u l d and Floate-7 and -8) involve significant additions o f n u t r i e n t s as fertilizer and particularly high a m o u n t s o f N o n t h e all-grass s y s t e m (N and FI.-8). T h e s e large a m o u n t s o f applied N are r e f l e c t e d in the a p p a r e n t soil-N gains, b u t again such increases are seldom d e t e c t e d in m e a s u r e d changes in soil-N. Indeed, soil-N levels r e m a i n r e m a r k a b l y c o n s t a n t f o r long periods u n d e r grassland (Richardson, 1 9 3 8 ) and significant changes in soil-N are o n l y m e a s u r a b l e a f t e r 5 - - 1 0 years with intensive use o f fertilizers (Clement, 1 9 6 1 ; C l e m e n t and Williams, 1964). It is assumed t h a t these a p p a r e n t gains are really u n i d e n t i f i e d losses, p r o b a b l y in t h e gaseous f o r m . T h e s e a p p a r e n t losses highlight an i m p o r t a n t gap in existing knowledge, which will n o t be filled until m o r e reliable d a t a are available f o r t h e m o v e m e n t o f N i n t o drainage w a t e r b e l o w field drain level, and f o r gaseous losses b y

TABLE 18 Nitrogen balance sheets for intensively managed grassland at Jealott's Hill. Summary results

for three years (Hood, 1976) System A -- low N (kg N ha-') Input Fertilizer Feed and rain (1) Return by grazing animals (1) Soil (4) (5) Total Output Removed in grass (2) (3) Leached in drains Total Balance unaccounted for: Volatilized Denitrified ~ Leached below drain depth Immobilized in soil

System B -- high N (kg N ha- 1)

750 68 198 ?

2250 74 290 ?

1016

2614

616 32

954 105

648

1059

368

1555

%

(1) It is assumed that 65% o f ingested N is voided and 31% is lost by volatilization.

(2) N removed in crass includes grazing and silage cuts. (3) Silage cuts: two in first and third years; one in second year. (4) N fixed by non-symbiotic bacteria and algae not known. (5) Assuming no mineralization of organic N in soil.

70 denitrification, and volatilization from organic matter and animal excreta. Similar conclusions were reached by Beek and Frissel (1973) and it is noteworthy that even the careful gas lysimeter studies of HenzeU and his co-workers (Martin and Ross, 1968; Ross et al., 1968) have n o t solved the enigma of the soil-N balance which was reviewed in detail by Allison (1955, 1966). It is n o t e w o r t h y that such losses appear to be significantly greater in these animalbased systems than in the intensive arable system, suggesting that a major source of N-loss may be by way of animal excreta. Data for nitrogen balances for intensively managed grassland experiments at Jealott's Hill (England) have recently become available (Hood, 1976) and these are summarised in Table 18. These data confirm both the very large N losses from such systems and our conclusions regarding the possible sources of such losses. The soils of these intensive animal production systems seem to be gaining significant quantities of P and K, provided that the P in the faeces is included in the balance. If the amounts released by mineralization of organic matter, and by weathering, were known more accurately, the gain might be even greater and might suggest that some e c o n o m y of fertilizer use could be made in such systems. In this c o n t e x t it is interesting to note that Adams and McAllister (1975) have recently suggested a novel basis of calculating P and K fertilizer requirements on the livestock farm based on the nutrient o u t p u t in the excreta per animal-unit carried b y the system.

6.3.1.A G R O - E C O S Y S T E M S IN T H E N E T H E R L A N D S , P A R T I (J. D a m e n )

A mixed livestock farm in the south-western clay district of The Netherlands in 1800 To compare present-day intensive systems with an old extensive system from the same area, a self-sustaining farm such as existed around the year 1800 was analyzed.

Classification. Three nutrient balances were prepared, one for the arable part, one for the livestock part, and one for the farm as a whole. The reference numbers are: Livestock part of mixed (self-sustaining) system. Reference: Damen-1; livestock part of Dutch farm of 1800, Table 20. Arable part of mixed (self-sustaining) system. Reference: Damen-2; arable part of Dutch farm of 1800, Table 21. Mixed (self-sustaining) system. Reference: Damen-3: Dutch mixed livestock farm of 1800, ratio arable area: livestock area = 1 : 1, Table 22. Nutrient input t o o k place mainly by rain and N2-fixation, while nutrients left the system by leaching, volatilization from soil organic matter and ma-

71

TABLE 19 Energy balance of an arable farm of 55 ha in about 1800, in the southwestern clay district of The Netherlands (in 103 MJ per year, Dekkers et al., 1974) Yields Rye (0.5 ha, 1800 kg ha-') Oats (2.5 ha, 2400 kg h a - ' ) Barley (3.0 ha, 2400 kg ha -a ) Wheat (9.0 ha, 2000 kg ha -1 ) Peas, etc. (1.0 ha, 2200 kg ha -1) Beans (3.0 ha, 2000 kg ha -a ) Cole seed (1.5 ha, 1800 kg ha -~) Potatoes (1.0 ha, 10 000 kg ha -~ ) Flax (seed and straw) (3.5 ha, 550 + 2800 kg ha -~ ) Clover (8.0 ha, 3000 kg ha -~ ) Grasses and green fodder (18.0 ha, 3000 kg ha -') Fallow (4.0 ha) Straw Milk, 8500 kg Meat

Costs 15 98 117 292 36 97 44 38

Labour 42 Seed 84 Implements, buildings -From own farm for 26 AU (animal units), including 8 full-grown horses, clover and grasses 1222 Oats and beans for horses during hard labour 33 Milk ', 4 Straw 652 2038

190 375 845 652 25 31 2855

Net return

818 2855

nure, a n d b y t h e sale o f a p a r t o f t h e h a r v e s t p r o d u c t s , including m i l k a n d m e a t . T h e b a l a n c e given in T a b l e 19 was set u p using an e n e r g y b a l a n c e o f an arable f a r m a r o u n d 1 8 0 0 , w i t h d a t a derived b y D e k k e r s et al. ( 1 9 7 4 ) b a s e d o n a s t u d y o f Baars ( 1 9 7 3 ) . This was a f a r m o f 55 ha, o f w h i c h less t h a n h a l f o f t h e surface was u s e d t o g r o w m a r k e t a b l e p r o d u c t s . T h e r e m a i n i n g p a r t was m a i n l y u s e d f o r growing f o o d f o r c a t t l e a n d horses a n d n e a r l y 10% o f t h e surface w a s f a l l o w e d , m a i n l y for weed control. The cattle and horses were a source of manure and power a n d p r o d u c e d s o m e m i l k a n d m e a t as b y - p r o d u c t s . N e a r l y t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e p r i m a r y p r o d u c t i o n (grass, clover, f o d d e r , straw) was u s e d f o r this p u r p o s e . A p a r t f r o m this, a c o n s i d e r a b l e p a r t o f t h e o t h e r p r o d u c t s (grains, p o t a t o e s , beans) w e r e u s e d f o r m a i n t a i n i n g t h e l a b o u r f o r c e o f a b o u t 10 p e r s o n s a n d f o r seed.

72

T A B L E 20 S y s t e m type: Mixed, livestock part

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - ' )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. D a m e n - 1

Dutch m i x e d livestock farm o f 1800, livestock part, r a t i o l i v e s t o c k : arable ffi 1 : 1

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or s e e d l i n g s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products .............. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . Transfer by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

-71 pm -71

-8.6 pm -8.6

-63 pm -63

32 39 0 -0 71

3.9 4.7 0

28 35 0 -0 63

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-0 8.6

0

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3. 4.

REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by consumption of harvested crops T r a n s f e r b y g r a z i n g o f f°rageA:TOT L ............

5 10 32 39 86

. . .

O u t p u t by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

0.9 2.2 3.9 4.7 11.7

1 (

6)

2 20 28 35 85

0.2 --

0 --

(35)

(5.1)

(38)

(44) 86

-(6.4) 11.7

-(47) 85

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27. R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

T r a n s f e r by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r by d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . ... I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by N-fixation .................... I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . I n p u t by irn'gation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . Transfer by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL Output by denitrification ................ O u t p u t by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . Output by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-(44) --

--

(6.4)

(47)

----

--

80 0

-0

--

--

8 --~ 0 132 1161 5 --

--

--t --

3 --

--

-

0 56 --

0

71 132

9 --

0 7.4

0

0

0 --

1.0

0

8.6 8.6

-63 66

1.2

-10

73

T A B L E 20 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Mixed, livestock part

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . D a m e n - 1

Dutch mixed livestock farm of 1800, livestock part, ratio livestock: arable = 1:1

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by immobilization in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL

30r.

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction . . by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

-31 --80 --8 (--13) -0 13 2 16 40 5

-0 -----1.0 -(6.4) -0 7.4

-40 -----9 ( 7) -0 56

---

---

71 -132

----8.6 -8.6

3 ----63 -66

0

- 1.2

- 10

13

-6.4 ----6.4

-----

SUPPLIES- REMOVALS

t

Changes in amount of soil organic matter SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic f r a c t i o n by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

17. 28.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. TOTAL

-13 -~ (13) -13

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

7 ----7

(6.4) -6.4

---

0

+ 7

0 0

0 (7)

0

-

0

Changes in amount of soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ....... SUPPLY-REMOVAL

--0

7

74

TABLE 21 System type: Mixed, arable part

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a - '

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . D a m e n - 2

y-' )

Dutch mixed livestock farm of 1800, arable part, ratio livestock:arable = 1:1

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in amount of plant component SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-54 --54

. . . 10.4 -10.4

.

--49 -5 54

. . . -9.5 -0.9 10.4

.

0

37 -37 -34 -3 37

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3. 4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

--

---

--38 ----

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--35 -31 --8 -5 79 (20) -5 ---54 79 0

5.1 ----1.0 -0.9 7.0 --t ---10.4 10.4 -

9 --

3.4

3 50 --3 ---37 40 +10

75

T A B L E 21 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Mixed, arable part

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - ~ )

Type of farm or ecosystem or tv~e of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . D a m e n - 2

Dutch mixed livestock farm of 1800, arable part, ratio livestock:arable = 1:1

Nutrient

N

P

K

--24 -31

---

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16.

17. 26a. 27.

REMOVALS:

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction . . by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by immobilization in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net.uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL

--

-8 -(11) -5 79 (20) -5 ----

0 ----1.0 -(5.1) i 0.9 7.0 ---

---

-----

---

t

3

54 79

SUPPLIES-REMoVALS

0

--33 ----9 --_ 3 45

--

10.4 10.4

37 40

3.4

+ 5

-

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

RF.MOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by immobilization in soil organic fraction by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

17. 28.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . TOTAL

--11 -11 (11) -11

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ....... SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

---

--5.2

--i

5 --_

5.2

5

(5.2) -5.2

---

0

+ 5

0

76

TABLE 22 System type: Mixed farm

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Damen-3

D u t c h m i x e d l i v e s t o c k f a r m o f 1 8 0 0 , f a r m as a whole, ratio livestock :arable = 1 : 1

Nutrient

N

Changes in amount SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3. 4.

18. 26. 27.

SUPPLIES:

1. 2. 3.

4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

REMOVALS:

3.4 2.4 3.2 -0.4 9.4

25 18

62

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

23 20 17 -2 62 0

0

50

6

-2 51 -

1

of animal component Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

Output by animal products ............... Output by losses from manure to air, before application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/orwaste Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

-. .

.

-23 20 43

3.4 2.4 5.8

1 ( .

3)

-/ 171

-25 18 43

0.1 --1~161

0 --I~l

43

5.9

0

-0.1

0

17 22

2.6 3.2 -----1.0 -0.4 7.2

19 24 -----" 9 -2 54

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

19. 20.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

22. 23. 28. 30.

-50 --

62 --

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

21.

-9.4 --9.4

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLIES:

K

of plant component

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

P

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--55 -8 -2 104 (18) (20) 5 --

--

--

--

--

--

-62 105

---9.4 9.4

-50 53

-

-2.2

+1

1

t

3

77

T A B L E 22 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Mixed farm

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - ~ )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . D a m e n - 3

D u t c h m i x e d l i v e s t o c k f a r m o f 1 8 0 0 , f a r m as a whole, ratio livestock:arable = 1:1

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant Transfer by net uptake by the plant iiiiiiiii} TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

13 15

0 0

---

------

55 --8 -( 11) -2 104

1.0 -( 5.8) -0.4 7.2

(18) ( )20 5 -----

--t -----

62 105 -

1

17 20 -----9 (4) --2 52 --3 -----

9.4 9.4 -

2.2

50 53 -

1

Changes in amount of soil organic matter SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b. 17. 28.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by immobilization in soil organic fraction by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . TOTAL

4 7 -----

2.6 3.2 -----

11 ( 11) -11

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

2 4 -----

5.8

6

( 5.8) -5.8

---

0

+ 6

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f s o i l m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ........ SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

---

-(4) (- 4)

78

By using the Dutch h a n d b o o k for agricultural information, these yield data have been translated, as far as possible, into nutrient data. There are two ways to regard a farm system like this: -- The farm is split up into two separate ecosystems, an arable one and a livestock one. -- The farm is regarded as being one ecosystem. The first way is more applicable to the farming structure of those days. From the data it appears that in the past the arable ecosystem was enriched with nutrients via dunging with manure, while the livestock ecosystem was exhausted by harvesting clover and grasses without any dunging. Thus, three nutrient balances can be calculated, which are shown in Tables 20--22. In order to find the data for these balances and to make the tables comparable, some assumptions had to be made: -- The arable part of the farm is equal to the livestock part, namely 25 ha. The fallowed part is not taken into account. -- The percentage of nutrients in the crop species has not changed appreciably from 1800 till now. -- The quantity of seed used per ha was the same around 1800 as it is today. According to Becking (personal communication, 1976) the following figures are used for N2-fixation: beans 200 kg N ha -1 clover (200)--250 kg N ha -! peas 150--200 kg N ha -1 -- Figures for input by rain and o u t p u t by leaching have been taken from Henkens (see next section). -- The ratio between summer and winter consumption of grasses and clover by the cattle amounts to 0.55 : 0.45 (derived from Henkens, see next section). The ratio between available and n o t directly available manure is assumed to be 0.7: 0.3. The h u m a n consumption of beans, potatoes and grains on the farm itself is estimated from the labour mentioned in the costs column of Table 19, using arbitrary ratios between these products. -

-

-

-

A D D I T I O N A L N O T E S T O T A B L E S 20--22. ( R e f e r e n c e s D a m e n - 1 t o -3) Because t h e figures for m a n u r e p r o d u c t i o n b y a n i m a l s a n d m e n are t h e m o s t u n c e r t a i n , this i t e m is used t o close t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e livestock p a r t o f t h e table. Losses f r o m man u r e t o air are a s s u m e d t o b e 20%. As c a n b e seen in T a b l e 20, s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e f a r m i n t o t w o s y s t e m s gives a n e x h a u s t i o n o f t h e livestock p a r t e x c e p t for n i t r o g e n , b e c a u s e o f t h e N 2-fixation o f clover, a n d a n e n r i c h m e n t o f t h e arable part. W h e n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f a r m as o n e e c o s y s t e m , losses a n d supplies s h o u l d b e in e q u i l i b r i u m . By t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e i n a c c u r a c y o f t h e calculations, t h e figures in T a b l e 22 c a n b e r e g a r d e d as c o n f i r m i n g t h i s equilibrium. F o r f u r t h e r details o n soil t y p e a n d c l i m a t e t h e r e a d e r is r e f e r r e d t o t h e n e x t s e c t i o n b y H e n k e n s , w h o d e s c r i b e d t h e same area, b u t for t h e s i t u a t i o n a t t h e p r e s e n t day.

79 6.3.2. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN THE NETHERLANDS, PART II (Ch.H. Henkens) For the description of nutrient cycling in Dutch agricultural ecosystems, generalisations are inevitable. With regard to the ecosystems, t w o main groups can be distinguished: marine clay softs and sandy soils. The subdivisions of these two groups are based on type of land use; i.e. grassland and arable land. A distinction has also been made between the production during the period just before 1940 and during the past few years. Differences in yield between these periods result mainly from the use of fertilizers and concentrates, which markedly affect the nutrient balances.

Description o f the clay area Location. This system is located partly in the north-east, partly in the southwest of The Netherlands. The altitude ranges from - 6 below to 10 m above sea level. Coordinates are approx. 53.3 ° N, 6.5 ° E and 51.5 ° N, 4 ° E, respectively. Climate. Both areas have a maritime climate with a mean temperature of 9°C and an average annual precipitation (P) of 75 cm. According to Penman (1956), the annual average a m o u n t of potential evaporation (E0) is 75 cm, which would lead to an average annual surplus of precipitation of 22.5 cm (E = 0.7 E0). In fact the water surplus is alittle higher (see water regime). The precipitation is reasonably spread over the year, with a minimum from March to June and relatively high values from July to August. Usually there is an evaporation deficit from April to July. Soil. Geologically this area consists of y o u n g marine clay deposits. Soil types are: y o u n g clay soils, calcareous and slightly calcareous moderately sandy and light clay, humus-poor and shallowly humose. Water regime. Being very close to sea level, almost all clay softs are polders, so that the phreatic level is controlled, often at a depth of 100--120 cm. Drainage can be estimated at 25--30 cm, depending on the t y p e of vegetation. During dry periods, the soil water storage is sufficiently high most of the time to counteract the precipitation deficit. Use. Both areas are used mainly for arable farming. However, the crop rotation system differs. In the north-east, a crop rotation of wheat, beets, wheat, barley, beets and wheat again is used. In the south-west, the scheme is: peas, potatoes, wheat, flax, beets and barley. Differences in nutrient cycling are only slight, so that only mean values for the whole system are given. A distinction is made between areas from which the tops and leaves of beets are sold and areas where these products are ploughed in.

80 In part of the older polders, the phreatic level is considerably higher than - 1 0 0 cm. These soils are so wet that arable farming is difficult and they are used for dairy cows. The removal of nutrients in the form of milk is high, and losses are made good by fertilizers or purchased concentrates. During the last 20 years, both systems have been used within one farm: 2.5 cows ha -~ is, therefore, quite common, and in exceptional cases 4 cows ha -~ are maintained.

Description o f the sandy area Location. This system is situated in the north-eastern part of The Netherlands, in south-east Drenthe. The coordinates are 52.8 ° N and 6.6 ° E. The altitude ranges from 20 to 30 m above sea level. Climate. A maritime climate with a mean annual temperature of 9°C. The average annual precipitation and potential evaporation amount to 75 and 68 cm, respectively. This leads to a precipitation surplus of 28 cm. Geology and soil. Geologically this area lies on a ridge probably formed by a tectonic movement. The soil consists of non-loamy, occasionally slightly loamy sand and is poor in humus. Use. Although the c o m m o n land use is mixed livestock farming, a rather pure form of arable farming is carried o u t in addition. Pure dairy farming is n o t found on this type of soft. Grassland farms Classification. Four nutrient balance tables, all for the same area, but based on increasin~ amounts of fertilizers and supplemental feed, are described. Because neither fertilizers nor supplemental feed are used in the first system described, this system is considered by the editor as an extensive one. Extensive livestock system. Reference: Henkens-1; Dutch dairy farm, clay soil, 1937; no fertilizers or supplemental feed. Milk production 2924 1 h a - ' , meat 145 kg h a - ' , Table 23. Intensive livestock system. Reference: Henkens-2; Dutch dairy farm, clay soil, 1937; 0.86 cows ha -1, no fertilizers, with supplemental feed, milk production 3800 kg, meat production 145 kg ha -1, Table 24. Intensive livestock system. Reference: Henkens-3; Dutch dairy farm, clay soil, 1972; 2.5 cows ha -1, with fertilizers and supplemental feed, milk production 11 250 kg ha -1, meat 480 kg ha -~, Table 25. Intensive livestock system. Reference: Henkens-4; Dutch dairy farm, clay soil, 4 cows ha -~, with fertilizers and supplemental feed, milk production 18 000 1 ha -~, meat 768 kg ha -~, Table 26.

81 Special attention is given to the m e t h o d of calculating the cow density per ha in a livestock farming system, without the use of any arable land, and without supplemental feed, in this section called "concentrates". The density of cows per ha was derived by estimating the starch equivalent (s.e.) requirement of the animals, given a certain production level of milk and meat (Anonymus, 19735). Maintenance requirement in kg s.e. per day = 1 + (3.33 × weight)/1000 Requirement for 1 kg milk (fat c o n t e n t 3.2%) = 0.252 kg s.e. Requirement for 1 kg milk (fat c o n t e n t 4.0%) = 0.286 kg s.e. Requirement within the dry period (60 days) = requirement of 5 kg milk day -1 in 1930 = requirement of 10 kg milk day -1 in 1970 Requirement for calves aged 3--6 months = 2.200 kg s.e. Requirement for calves aged > 1 year = 2.800 kg s.e. Before 1940 the net production of grassland in the absence of fertilizers was 2200 kg s.e. The milk production at that time was 3400 kg with a fat c o n t e n t of 3.2%. Each cow (500 kg) was accompanied by 0.39 calf aged 3--6 m o n t h s and 0.32 calf > 1 year. This leads to an annual requirement per cow plus accompanying y o u n g animals of 2546 kg s.e. Thus, farms in the thirties could afford a cattle density of 0.86 dairy cow per ha together with accompanying y o u n g cattle. This cattle density is in agreement with that at the beginning of this century in The Netherlands (De Boer, 1975). Nowadays there may still be areas where no fertilizers are used. Nevertheless, the farmer will like a higher production. This higher production can only be attained by using concentrates. Tables 23 and 24 show the nutrient balances of both farm types. In the seventies the production of the milking cows is 4500 kg milk with 4% fat. The weight of a cow is 550 kg. Each cow is accompanied by 0.41 calf age < 1 year and 0.44 calf > 1 year. Using 400 kg N as fertilizer the net production is 4500 kg s.e. (Anonymus, 1975). This leads to an annual requirem e n t per cow plus accompanying y o u n g animals of 3272 kg s.e., which means that a cattle density of 1.37 cow per ha, together with accompanying y o u n g cattle is possible. Of course, higher densities are achieved by using concentrates. Tables 25 and 26 show the nutrient balances of two farms using 400 kg N ha -~ y-~; one with a density of 2.5 cows + accompanying y o u n g cattle, the other with a density of 4 cows + accompanying y o u n g cattle. For the farm with 2.5 cows per ha on marine clay soil the m e t h o d of calculation is given. Some remarks should be made about the other calculations. (1) On the farm w i t h o u t fertilizers the net production (= food value taken up by the animals) will, because of lower cattle density, be higher than on intensive farms. For Tables 23 and 24 we assumed a utilization of 70% of the grass production. For Tables 25 and 26 we assumed a utilization of 60% of the grass production.

82

T A B L E 23 System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -I y-1 )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Henkens-1

D u t c h d a i r y f a r m , c l a y soil, 1 9 3 7 ; 0 . 8 6 " c o w s h a - ~ , n o = fertilizers, no supplemental feed, milk production 2 9 2 4 1 h a - I , m e a t 1 4 5 k g h a -I

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3.

4. 18. 26. 27.

N

P

K

-158 + pm -158

-23 + pm -23

-158 + pm -158

50 + 61 + -47 + -158

7+ 9+ 7+

50 + 61 + -47 + -158

of plant component Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............ : Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-23

0

0

0

--50 + 61 + 111

-7+ 9+

-50 +

16

61 + 111

19: 34+ _ 37:

4+ -Z 5+

5+ -_ 48 +

46 109

16

58 + 111

+ 2

0

0

37 + 46 + -0 120 + --

5+ 7+ -0 ---

14" 47 -264

1" 7 -20

48 + 58 + -0 ---5* 47 -158

49 + 7T 11 + 0 0 150+8 225

--0 0 0 0 23 23

5 0 0 0 158 163

39

-3

-

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by gra~ing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... Outl}ut by losses from manure to air, before 6d application ...................... 6m Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings ongrazed areas ....... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

5

83

T A B L E 23 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows ( u n i t s : k g ha -1 y - t )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . H e n k e n s - 1

D u t c h d a i r y f a r m , clay soil, 1 9 3 7 ; 0.86 c o w s ha-t~ no fertilizers, no s u p p l e m e n t a l feed, m i l k p r o d u c t i o n 2 9 2 4 l/ha, m e a t 145 k g / h a

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

T r a n s f e r by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure ............ I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by N-fixation .................... I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . I n p u t by irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . Input by dry and wet deposition ........... T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g b f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r by m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . Transfer by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

25 + 31 + -0 120 + --14" -0 32 + -222

5+ 7+ -0 ---1 0 0 7 -20

48 + 58 + -0 ---5 0 -47 -158

REMOVAI~:

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Output by denitrification ................ O u t p u t by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . Output by leaching .................... O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n

4 9 ++ 7 11 + 0 0 -150+8

--0 0 0 0 20+3

--

30r.

Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

pm 225

~

~3

-

-3

-

30t.

Transfer b y net uptake b y the plant . . . . . . . . .

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

5 0 0 0

158 ÷

3

5

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. Transfer by application a n d / o r waste . . . . . . . . 9 b . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . .

10b. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . .

13b. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . 25. T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n 2 6 b . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

12 + 15 + --0 15 + 42

0+ 0+ --0 0+ 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

+42

0

0

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n O u t p u t by o r g a n i c m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

0+ 0+ ---0+ 0

84

'TABLE 24 System type: Intensive livestock

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha-'

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a

D u t c h d a i r y f a r m , c l a y soil, 1 9 3 7 ; 0 . 8 6 c o w s h a - ' , no fertilizers, with supplemental feed milk produc tion 3800 kg ha -I, meat 145 kg ha-'

farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Henkens-2 Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

y-' )

N

P

K

-158 + pm -158

-23 + pm -23

-158 + pm -158

38 + 73 + -47 + -158

6+ 10 + 7 +

38 + 73 + -47 + -158

of plant component

SUPPLIES :

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

-23 0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3. 4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

19 + -38 + 73 + 130

4+ -6+ 1 20

8+ -38 + 73 + 119

Output by animal products ............... O u t l ? u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e 6d application ....................... 6m Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

24: 5+ 4 -44 + 55 + 132

5+ ---

---

8 + 7+ 20

43 + 70 + 119

0

0

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

-

2

6+

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrificatton ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output" by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

44 + 55 + 0+

8+ 7+

120 + --

0 -Z

14" 47 + -280

1" 7 -23

51 + 8+ 12: 0+ 0+

-O +

43 + 70 + 0 --5* 47 -165 --

0+

5+ 0 ++

150+ 229

0+ 23 + 23

0+ 158 + 163

51

0

2

85

TABLE 24 (continued) System type: Intensive livestock

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Henkens-2

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - i ) D u t c h d a i r y f a r m , c l a y soil, 1 9 3 7 ; 0 . 8 6 c o w s h a -~ no fertilizers with supplemental feed, milk produ~ t i o n 3 8 0 0 k g h a - , m e a t 1 4 5 k g ha -~

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

30 + 37 + -0+ 120 + --14" -0+ 32 + -233

8+ 7+ -0 ---1" 0+ 0+ 7+ -23

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction .... T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant TOTAL

51 + 8 12 + 0 0 -0 158 + pm 229

--0 0 0 0 0 23 + pm 23

8b. 9b. 10b.

13b. 25. 26b. 17. 28.

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t 24. 16.

+ 4

0

43 + 70 + -0 ---5* _0 47 -165 -5+ 0 0 0 -158 + pm 163 + 2

o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

14 + 18 + -0+ 15 + 47

SUPPLY-REMOVAL

--

--

--

-O+

--0+ 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

+47

0

0

of soil minerals T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . .

--

0+ 0

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

K

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

REMOVALS:

P

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLIES:

N o f a v a i l a b l e soil n u t r i e n t s

---

86

T A B L E 25 System type: Intensive livestock

Stimmary" of n u t r i e n t flows ( u n i t s : kg ha - I y - i )

T y p e o f farm or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f part o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . H e n k e n s - 3

D u t c h d a i r y f a r m , c l a y s o i l , 1 9 7 2 ; 2.5 c o w s h a -~ w i t h fertilizers, with supplemental feed, milk production 11 2 5 0 k g h a -~, m e a t 4 8 0 k g h a -~

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... b y net, u p t a k e f r o m s o i l . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y g r a z i n g o f f o r a g e . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-450 + pm -450

-57 + pm -57

-375 + pm -375

126 + 144 + -180 + -450

16 + 18 + -23 + -57

105 + 120 + -150 + -375

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1. 2.

3. 4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e 6m application ....................... 6d Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

158 + -126 + 144 + 428

37 + -16 + 18 + 71

70 + -105 + 120 + 295

72 + 13 + 16

14 + ---26 + 31 + 71

18 + ---127 + 150 + 295

0

0

-149 + 178 + 428 0

Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Tr~Lnsfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field • . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia .....

21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL

20m 20d

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

149 + 178 + -400 + 0~ 14" 160 + 921 169 + 12 + 14 + 39 0 0 0 450 + 684 +237

26 + 31 + -----1" 2 -81

127 + 150 + ---5* 15 432

--

--

--

--

0* 0 0 0 57 + 57 +24

11" 0 0 0 375 + 386 +46

87

T A B L E 25 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive livestock

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a - 1 y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m or t:vpe o f p a r t o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Henkens-3

D u t c h dairy f a r m , clay soil, 1 9 7 2 , 2.5 Cows ha -1, with fertilizers, with s u p p l e m e n t a l feed, milk p r o d u c t i o n 11 250 kg ha -1, m e a t 480 kg h a -~ N P K

Nutrient Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation a n d flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for sowingTOTAL ..............

766

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by t h e plant . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

169 + 26 + 39 + 0 0 -0 450 + pm 684

0 0 0 0 57 + pm 57

375 + pm 386

+82

+24

+46

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

100 + 120 + -400 + 0 --14" -130+2

26 + 31 + -----

127 + 150 + -----

1" 0 20+3

--5* 0

81 ---0+

150 + 432 --11 + 0 0 0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction by p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL

49 + 58 + --

--

--

--0 + 48 + 155

--0 + 0+ 0

--

0 0 0

0 0 0

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

155

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r by fixation in son m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil fraction . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

0

0+

0+

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0

88

TABLE 26 System type: Intensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Henkens-4

Dutch dairy farm on clay soil, 4 cows ha-I with fertilizers and large amount of supplemental f e e d , m i l k p r o d . 1 8 0 0 0 1 h a -~, m e a t 7 6 8 k g h a -I

Nutrient Changes in amount SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r.

31. REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

N

P

K

-450 + pm -450

-57 + pm -57

-375 + pm -375

21 + 249 + -180 + -450

3+ 31 + -23 + -57

18 + 207 + -150 + -375

0

0

86 + --3+

of plant component Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . T r a n s f e r b y s e e d {~or s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors b y c o n s u m p t i o n o f t~arvestecl "crofts" ~ i i by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

369 + -214. 249 + 639

31 + 120

164 + -18 + 207 + 389

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e 6m application ....................... 6d Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings ongrazed areas ....... TOTAL

115 + 17 + 25 + -190 + 292 + 639

22 + ---48 + 50 + 120

29 + ---111 + 249 + 389

7. 8. 9.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

0

0

0

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . .

27.

T r a n s f e r b y s e e d f o r sowingTOTAL ..............

19. 20.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia .....

21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

20m

48 + 50 + ---

--

----5*

1"

192 + 15 + 23 + 44 ~ 0 0 0 450 + 724 +352

111~" 249 + --

---

14" 180 + 1076

2 0 d

SuPPLIES-REMOVALS

190 + 292 + -400 + 0 --

23 + 122

150 + 515

--

--

--

--

0* 0 0 0 57 + 57 65

16" 0 0 370+5 391 124

89

T A B L E 26 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m type: Intensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y-~ )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a

D u t c h d a i r y f a r m on clay soil, 4 c o w s ha -I w i t h fertilizers a n d large a m o u n t o f s u p p l e m e n t a l feed, m i l k p r o d . 18 0 0 0 1 ha -1, m e a t 7 6 8 k g ha -t

f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. H e n k e n s - 4 Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12.

13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27. R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure ............ I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by N-fixation .................... I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . I n p u t by irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . Transfer by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

128 + 197 + -400 + 0 --14" -0 132 + -871

Output by denitrification ................ O u t p u t by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . Output by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ............... ....... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . Transfer by net uptake by the plant TOTAL

192 + 38 + 44" ---0+ 450 pm 724

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

+147

48 + 50 + --

111 + 249 + --

--

--

----1"

----5*

0 0 23 + -122

0 150 + -515

--

-0*

--0 0 57 + pm 57 65

16" --0 375 + pm 391 124

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. T r a n s f e r 9b. Transfer 10b. I n p u t by 13b. I n p u t b y 25. Transfer 26b. Transfer 17. 28.

by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ application o f litter, sludge and waste . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL

62 + 95 + --0 48 + 205

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n O u t p u t b y o r g a n i c m a t t e r , r e m o v e d by r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

0

0

0 0 0

0

---0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

205

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

0 ---

---

90

NOTES TO TABLES 23--26 (References Henkens-1 to -4) 30t. Nutrient flow on a farm with 2.5 cows + accompanying young animals (Table 25). Milk production per cow 4500 kg ~ per ha 11250 kg Meat production per cow 192 kg -~ per ha 480 kg Annual requirement per cow 3272 kg s.e. -, 2.5 cow = 8180 kg s.e. Net production of grassland 4500 kg s.e. " ffi 9000 kg d.m. Efficiency 60% -, Total gross production (10/6) × 9000 = 15000 kg d.m. containing 3% N; 0.38% P; 2.5% K. Thus: Nutrient uptake from soil: 450 kg N; 57 kg P; 375 kg K and 26. Remaining on the field, 40%: 180 kg N; 23 kg P; 150 kg K 3. Winter production, 45% -* requirement 3681 kg s.e. Harvested 1.2 cuttings ha -1 = 1.2 × 1750 2100 kg s.e. Needed from concentrates during winter = 1581 kg s.e. = 2433 kg of concentrates (Cw). Thus: Harvested for winter feeding, 2100 kg s.e. = 4200 kg d.m. (3% N; 0.38% P; 2.5% K), i.e. Harvested on farm: 126 kg N; 16 kg P; 105 kg K 4. Left for grazing, 4500--2100 = 2400 kg s.e. = 4800 kg d.m. Thus: Taken up by grazing: 144 kg N; 18 kg P; 120 kg K 5. Milk contains 0.53% N; 0.09% P; 0.15% K (Anonymus, 1961, 1967). Meat contains 2.60% N; 0.74% P; 0.19% K Animal products sold: 11250 kg milk -, 59.6 kg N; 10.1 kg P; 16.9 kg K 480 kg m e a t - , 1 2 . 5 kg N; 3 . 6 k g P ; 0 . 9 k g K Total animal products sold: 72 kg N; 14 kg P; 18 kg K 1. Summer production, 55% -, requirement 4499 kg s.e. Uptake by grazing 2400 kg s.e. Needed from concentrates during summer 2099 kg s.e. = 3229 kg of concentrates (Cs). Thus: Total concentrates C w + C s = 1581 + 2099 = 3680 kg s.e. = 5662 kg of concentrates Nutrient content of concentrates: 2.79% N; 0.65% P; 1.24% K. Thus, Concentrates: 158 kg N; 37 kg P; 70 kg K 6m. Manure production in winter Uptake from harvested crop 126 kg N; 16 kg P; 105 kg K Uptake from concentrates (Cw) 68 kg N; 16 kg P; 30 kg K Total uptake during winter In meat and milk (45% X i t e m 5 )

194 kg N; 32 kg P; 135 kg K 32kgN; 6kgP; 8kgK

In manure 162 kg N; 26 kg P; 127 kg K Part of the nitrogen in manure is mineral; part is organic. Part of the organic nitrogen is available after a short time (Nf); part becomes available later (Nr) -, soil organic matter. Thus, N t = N m + N f + N r Nm= 0.4 Nt; Nf = 0.3 Nt; N r = 0.3 N t (Anonymus, 1976) Part o f the N m will be lost to the air before it reaches the soil. This is + 20%. Thus, Lost from manure to air: 0.2 x 0.4 N t = 0.08 N t = 13 kg N 8a. The rest of the N m will be available, whereas the Nf will become available during the year; the N r will become available in the following years. Thus, Manure from own farm: 0.8 N m + Nf = 0.32 N t + 0.3 N t = 100 kg N; 26 kg P; 127 kg K 8b. Manure from own farm: N r = 0.3 N t = 49 kg N 8. Manure applied to own farm: 8a + 8b = 149 kg N; 26 kg P; 127 kg K 6d. Droppings on grazed areas Uptake by grazing 144 kg N; 18 kg P; 120 kg K Uptake from concentrates (Cs) 90 kg N; 21 kg P; 40 kg K

91

Total uptake during summer In meat and milk (55%x i t e m 5 )

234 kg N; 39 kg P; 160 kg K 40kgN; 8kgP; 10kgK

In droppings 194 kg N; 31 kg P; 150 kg K Before the droppings reach the soil ± 20% of N m will be lost to the air. Thus, Lost from droppings to air: 0.2 × 0.4 N t = 0.08 N t = 16 kg N 9b. Droppings on grazed area: N r = 0.3 N t = 58 kg N 9a. Droppings on grazed area: 0.8 N m + Nf -- 0.32 N t + 0.3 N t = 120 kg N; 31 kg P; 150 kg K 9. Droppings on grazed area: 9a + 9b = 178 kg N; 31 kg P; 150 kg K 20. On grassland, manure and droppings are not ploughed in. Lying on top of the soil ± 20% of the N m from items 8 and 9 will be lost by volatilization. Thus, Volatilization: from manure (20m) = 0.2 N m ~- 0.08 N t (item 8) -- 12 kg N from droppings (20d) ~- 0.08 N t (item 9) -- 14 kg N Total 26 kg N 11. Based on Anonymus, 1976, the net s.e. production of 4500 kg ha -1 can be achieved by fertilizing with 400 k g N per ha. Fertilizing with P and K is not needed, keeping the mentioned number of animals. Thus, Fertilizers: 400 kg N; 0 kg P; 0 kg K 12. At this nitrogen level N-fixation is negligible. 15. Between 1 October 1973 and 1 October 1974 the rain was collected in 14 different places scattered over the country, and was analysed for N.P.K. (Henkens, 1976). Rain: 14kgN; 1.0kgP; 5kgK 21. Henkens (1972, 1976) mentions some analytical data for drainage water on grassland, thus: Leaching: 39 kg N; 0.24 kg P; 11 kg K 26b. In item 26 the plant products remaining on the field are mentioned. This organic material will build up soil humus. No figures are known about this building up on grassland. Kolenbrander (1974) mentioned that after one year 20 kg humus is built up from 100 kg d.m. plant foliage. This means that from the 6000 kg d.m. remaining on the field, 1200 kg humus is produced. We assume a nitrogen content of 4%. Thus, Plant products remaining on the field: 48 kg N 26a. The rest of the nitrogen from 26 and the P and K will become available. Thus, Plant products remaining on the field: 132 kg N; 23 kg P; 150 kg K 19. Dilz and Woldendorp (1960) came to the conclusion that on clay soils 22% of the applied nitrogen is lost. As leaching had been excluded, these losses must be attributed to denitrification. Therefore we assume that 22% of the available nitrogen will be lost by denitrification, thus: Denitrification: 22% of (26a + 8a + 9a + 11 + 15) -- 0.22 × 766 -- 169 kg N ( 2 ) O n a f a r m w i t h 4 c o w s + a c c o m p a n y i n g y o u n g a n i m a l s t h e g r a z i n g is very intense, so only a small part of the grass can be cut. According to Lamm e r s ( 1 9 7 3 ) o n l y 0 . 2 c u t t i n g p e r h a is p o s s i b l e h e r e . ( 3 ) I n t h e t a b l e f o r t h e 2 . 5 - c o w f a r m , a l e a c h i n g o f 3 9 k g N a n d 11 k g K is m e n t i o n e d . T h i s is 5% o f t h e N a n d 3% o f t h e K in t h e p o o l o f a v a i l a b l e s o i l n u t r i e n t s . F o r t h e o t h e r f a r m s t h e s a m e p e r c e n t a g e o f l e a c h i n g is a s s u m e d . ( 4 ) T h e r e a r e n o t a b l e s g i v e n f o r s a n d y soils. O n l y t w o i t e m s a r e d i f f e r e n t , i.e. l e a c h i n g a n d d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . T h e l e a c h i n g o f K o n s a n d y soil is 1 5 % o f t h e K in t h e p o o l o f a v a i l a b l e s o i l n u t r i e n t s . T h e r e is n o d i f f e r e n c e in l e a c h i n g o f N and P between clay and sandy grassland. Denitrification on sandy grassland is 1 6 % i n s t e a d o f t h e 2 2 % o n c l a y s o i l s ( D i l z a n d W o l d e n d o r p , 1 9 6 0 ) .

92

TABLE 28 System type: Intensive arable

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha-'

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Henkens-5 Nutrient

N

Changes in amount SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

y-' )

D u t c h a r a b l e f a r m , c r o p r o t a t i o n , c l a y soil, b e e t t o p s p l o u g h e d in ( 3 5 0 0 0 k g h a - f ) , ~ e r y h i g h u s e of fertilizers P

K

of plant component

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

2+

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field Transfer by seed for sowing ............. TOTAL

0.5 +

} 195 + -197 .

--.:126 + . 71 + ~ -: 198

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

20 +

35 + -35.5

206 + -226

--25 + 10.5 + -35.5

--107 + 119 + -226

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3. 4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ........... .... O u t P u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . b y s e e d f o r sowingTOTAL ..............

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification. ............... Output by volatilization of ammonia . . . . . Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

--0

--

24 +

142 +

--1"

---.5*

10.5 + 35.5

11 ~+ 266

--

--

195 + 324

. O* ---35 + 35

---206 + 246

66

+0.5

+20

--0 305 + 0 --

14' 71 + 3"90 71 + . . 50* ---

.

0

40*

93

T A B L E 28 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : I n t e n s i v e arable

Summary of r i u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 ~=~ )

T y p e o f f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. H e n k e n s - 5

D u t c h arable f a r m , c r o p r o t a t i o n , clay soil, b e e t t o p s p l o u g h e d in ( 3 5 0 0 0 k g / h a ) , v e r y high use o f fertilizers

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES :

REMOVALS:

N

P

K

---

---24 ---1 0 0 10.5 0 35.5

---

.

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer I n p u t by I n p u t by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

19. 20~ 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

O u t p u t by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 O u t p u t by volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . 0 Output by leaching .................... 58 O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . -Output by dust ...................... -T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n 4 5 Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . Transfer by net'uptake by theplant ......... J 195 TOTAL 369

30t.

30r.

by application of manure and/or waste . by d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . applica'tion o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-fixation .................... a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . dry and wet deposition ........... b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

305 0 --

-14 ~- ~ 45 71 0 435

142 ---5 0 -119 -266

--0 -----

--40 ---

35 35

206 246

+66

+0.5

+20

--

--

45 0 45

----0 O O

45 0 45

O 0 0

O 0 0

0

0

0

--

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. T r a n s f e r 9b. T r a n s f e r 10b. I n p u t b y 13b. I n p u t b y 25. Transfer 26b. T r a n s f e r

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

by application and/or waste ....... : b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g o n field . . TOTAL

Tr~msfer by m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n O u t p u t by organic matter, removed by r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REM()VAL

---

--0 0

94

T A B L E 29 S y s t e m t y p e : I n t e n s i v e arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : kg h a -1 y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. H e n k e n s - 6

D u t c h arable f a r m c r o p r o t a t i o n , clay soil, b e e t t o p s (35 0 0 0 k g h a - ) r e m o v e d , v e r y h i g h use o f fertilizers

Nutrient

N

P

K

2 195

0.5 35

20 206

-197

-35.5

-226

--

--

166 31

--31 4.5

154 72

197

35.5

226

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t

SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. Input by seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30t. Transfer by net uptake from soil . . . . . . . . . . . 30r. Transfer by net uptake from soil . . . . . . . . . . . 31.

Input by uptake from atmosphere TOTAL

..........

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products .............. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

}

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3.

4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l i t t e r used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by consumption of harvested crops by g r a z i n g o f f o r a g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application~l|, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-fixation .................... a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . b y seed f o r s o wTi nOgT A. L .............

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . Output by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-0 332 0 --14 31 --7 37

--0 30 ---1 4.5

-0 189 --5 72

35.5

266 --40 --

195 324

--0 ---35 35

-206 246

+5~3

+0.5

+20

71 0 58 --

95

T A B L E 29 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m type: Intensive arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . H e n k e n s - 6

D u t c h arable f a r m , c r o p r o t a t i o n , clay soil, b e e t t o p s (35 0 0 0 k g h a -~ ) r e m o v e d , v e r y h i g h u s e o f fertilizers

Nutrient

N

P

--

---30 ---1 --4.5 -35.5

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16.

17. 26a. 27. R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 3Or.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure ............ I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by N-fixation. ................... I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f l i t t e r , sludge a n d w a s t e . I n p u t by irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . Input by dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o.r~anic f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m m m n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL O u t p u t by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . Output by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e b y t h e p l a n t i~ii~i~i} TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-332 0 -14 45 31 -422 71 0 58 --

--189 --5 --72 -266 --40 --

45

--0 -----

195 369

35 35

206 246

+53

+0.5

+20

--

--

45

------0

45 0 45

0 0 0

0 0 0

0

0

0

--

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Output by organic matter, removed by r u n - o f f . . TOTAL

45

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n '. . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

--

---0

96

Arable farming Classification. Two almost identical crop rotation systems are compared to each other; one in which the tops of beets are removed and another one in which the tops are ploughed in. Intensive arable system. Reference: Henkens-5; Dutch arable farm, clay soil, crop rotation, beet tops ploughed in, Table 28. Intensive arable system. Reference: Henkens-6; Dutch arable farm, clay soil, crop rotation, beet tops removed, Table 29. On an arable farm different crops are grown, and so the mean annual removal should be based on a rotation. The following is taken as a crop rotation: potatoes, wheat, sugar beets, wheat. This is a frequent rotation in The Netherlands. Table 27 shows the yields and the nutrient contents. The yield hardly influences the nutrient content and so the removal is determined by yield. The same table shows the quantity of crop residues expressed in dry matter (Anonymus, 1973a). A distinction has been made between areas from which tops and leaves of sugar beets are sold and areas where these products are ploughed in. TABLE 27 Yields of harvested crop (fresh material), crop residues (dry material) and their nutrient contents Harvested crop Yield Potatoes Wheat: seed straw Sugar beets: beets tops + leaves

45 5 5 50 35

000 500 000 000 000

kg kg kg kg kg

Crop residue N~oo

P%o

K~oo

Amount

N%

P%

3,0 19.1 5.1 2.1 4.6

0.6 3.7 0.8 0.5 0.6

4.6 4.2 8.1 1.9 5.3

3 500 kg 4 500 kg

1.3 0.6

0.13 3.1 0.09 0.9

1 500 kg

0.9

0.22 0.8

Tables 28 and 29 give the nutrient flow in kg ha -1 y-1 of crop land as a mean of the rotations mentioned, on a marine clay soft. The nitrogen flow requires further discussion. The harvested part of the crops (beet tops and leaves included) take up 166 kg N. According to the results of field experiments, 50% of the nitrogen given is stored in the harvested crop (Sluysmans, 1966). Thus 332 kg N fertilizer is needed, the other 5 0 % being stored in the plant products remaining on the field or disappearing by leaching or denitrification and volatilization. According to the results of Van der Paauw and Ris (1963}. 13.5% of the nitrogen, which is n o t taken up by the harvested crop, will be available in the following year. This after-effect depends on the rainfall. This means that 0.135 X 166 = 22 kg N will remain in the soil.

K~

97 In the case where the beet tops and leaves are removed, 3500 kg dry matter containing 29 kg N remains on the fields. According to Kolenbrander (1974), 30--35 kg humus will be formed after one year from 100 kg dry matter of plant residues. This means that from 3500 kg dry matter of plant residues 0.32 X 3500 kg = 1120 kg humus (4% N) will be formed, containing 45 kg N. This means that 45 - 29 = 16 kg of additional N is b o u n d by the new humus. These 16 kg N are obtained from the fertilizer nitrogen or from the nitrogen delivered by breakdown of soil humus. We will assume that there is equilibrium between breakdown and building up of humus in our examples. Thus the breakdown of soil humus will yield 45 kg N, so that the net result is an enrichment of available nitrogen in the soil of 29 kg N. In the case where the sugar beet tops and leaves are ploughed in, an extra a m o u n t of 5250/4 kg dry matter per year containing 40 kg N is supplied to the soil. From this material 0.25 × 1312 = 328 kg humus, containing 13 kg N, will be formed after one year. Thus, by ploughing in the tops and leaves from sugar beets an extra 40 - 13 = 27 kg available N is supplied. This amount should be subtracted from the N fertilizer needed so that, when beet tops are ploughed in, 305 kg N fertilizer is needed. Of course, in the year directly after sugar beets, more nitrogen can be subtracted. Based on analytical data (Henkens, 1972, 1976) of drainage water on crop land, the leaching (300 mm drainage water) is: on marine clay softs: 58 kg N; 0.2 kg P; 40 kg K on sandy soils: 85 kg N; 0.06 kg P; 48 kg K With the rain water, 14 kg N; 1.0 kg P; and 5 kg K are supplied (Henkens, 1976). Thus, in fact, only 44 kg of the N fertilizer is leached on marine clay soil and 71 kg on sandy soft. From the 332 kg N fertilizer 166 + 22 + 29 + 44 = 261 kg N on marine clay soil is n o w accounted for and on sandy soil 166 + 22 + 24 + 61 = 273 kg N. The rest, 71 or 59 kg respectively, is n o t accounted for. This a m o u n t is lost by denitrification. 6.4. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN GERMANY (B. Ulrich)

Forests in Central Europe Three forest systems have been described. Classification. Forest. Reference: Ulrich-l; Deciduous and coniferous forests, acid softs, northern hemisphere, Table 31. Forest. Reference: Ulrich-2; Coniferous forest on grey-brown podsolic soft, Central Europe (IBP-Solling project), Table 32. Forest. Reference: Ulrich-3; Deciduous forest on grey-brown podsolic soil, Central Europe (IBP-Solling project), Table 33. For forests, some special aspects have to be considered with respect to nutrient cycling.

98

6.4.1. Input Due to their larger extension into the troposphere (tree height 30--40 m), forests have an increased input from the atmosphere by interception of air constituents. Air masses exchanging between the crown space and the boundary layer of the troposphere carry aerosols as well as gases to the leaf surfaces, where they can be adsorbed or dissolved after impaction. The a m o u n t of this additional input by interception depends upon the air impurities, and in forest regions of Central Europe is approximately 5 kg N, 0.1 kg P and 7 kg K per ha and per year. The removal of impurities from the air is, on the one hand, a special contribution of forests to air cleansing, and on the other hand, an appreciable contribution to the nutrient requirement, accounting for approximately 8% of N uptake, 2% of P uptake and 30% of K uptake.

6.4.2. Uptake In contrast to agricultural crops, it is easily possible in a forest to measure and collect the precipitation after passage through the leaf space. Measurements of this kind show that the rain leaches potassium out of the leaves in an a m o u n t comparable to the net uptake, calculated as the sum of forest increment and litter fall. No leaf leaching occurs in the cases of N and P, at least at the low nutrient levels encountered in acid forest soils. Leaf leaching occurs very probably in agricultural crops too. Its neglect is n o t important in a consideration of annual balances, b u t it should be taken into acc o u n t in simulation models because it increases the rate of turnover.

6.4.3. Primary products sold Forests differ from agricultural crops in the time span between two harvests. In a forest with a uniform age structure, approximately half of the annual increment is harvested over a time interval of 15--30 years; the other half is allowed to accumulate on the site and is harvested at the end of the life span of the stand. For ease of comparison, the amounts listed under "primary products sold" correspond to the total mean annual increment, irrespective of the time of harvesting. At a given harvesting time, only part of the accumulated increment m a y be taken o u t of the forest. For example, the bole may be exported, whereas the bark and the branches remain on the forest floor, becoming part of the plant products remaining on the field. Since modern forestry tends to whole-tree logging, the annual increment was considered to belong in total to the primary products sold.

6.4.4. Changes in soil component Forest stands of a uniform age m a y have life spans between 80 years (Douglas fir, Norway spruce) and 240 years (oak). The final harvest (clear cut) means a destruction of the ecosystem, especially if the forest stand has no shrub layer or ground flora. If the vegetation is destroyed in total by

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (I)

input by rain input by interception total input t r a n s p o r t b y rain inside s t a n d soil i n p u t b y l i t t e r fall growth increment leaching f r o m soil leaf leaching u p t a k e f r o m soil uptake from atmosphere total uptake c h a n g e in soil reserves

0.90 --1.21 --0.30 ----+1.7 34.4 1.4

5.1 -1.3 -

3.8 7.3 11.1 22.9 16 6.6 5.9 11.8 34.4

K

8.2 3.8 12 12.5 0.7 0.1 10.6 0.5 5.1

H Na (kg h a - l y - i )

F l u x balance o f a b e e c h s t a n d in C e n t r a l E u r o p e (Ulrich, 1 9 7 5 )

T A B L E 30

-

27.2 1.8

13.9 8.6 22.5 26 16 7.7 16.6 3.5 27.2

Ca

3.5 -1.6

2.2 1.3 3.5 3.7 1.6 1.7 3.4 0.2 3.5

Mg

0.9 0.5 1.4 1.2 1.8 0.7 0.1 -0.2 2.3 0.2 2.5 +0.9

Fe

7.6 -6.9

0.6 1.5 2.1 3.0 5.1 3.4 5.6 0.9 7.6

Mn

1.2 0.5 1.7 1.5 0.5 0.1 12.7 - 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 -11.1

Al

2.1 - 2.9

17.9 12.5 30.4 31.6 0.8 0.1 33.2 1.2 2.1

CI

8.5 +11.5

24.5 14.9 39.4 44.2 3.2 0.5 27.4 4.8 8.5

S

0.71 0.09 0.8 0.55 4 2.1 0.05 -0.25 5.85 0.25 6.1 -1.35

P

23.7 4.8 28.5 24.7 49 13 6 - 3.8 58.2 3.8 62 + 9.4

N

100

T A B L E 31 System type: Extensive forestry

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha-'

T y p e o f farm or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f part o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . U l r i c h - 1

y-' )

D e c i d u o u s a n d c o n i f e r o u s f o r e s t s , a c i d soils, northern hemisphere

Nutrient

N

P

K

-50--80 -0--5 50--80

-4.5--9 --4.5--9

-11--28 --11--28

t t 10--20 40--60

t t 1.5--3 3 --6 -4.5--9

t t

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

50--80

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

5--10 6--18 11--28

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field • . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-t

-t

-t --5--30 40--60 -45-90 t -1--20 t --50--80 51--100 (-10)---20

-t

-----0.5--1 3 --6 -3.5--7 --0.05 t --4.5-9 4.5-9 (-2)--2

----1--10 6--18 -7--28 --1--8 t --11--28 13--32 (-

5)-5

101

TABLE

31 ( c o n t i n u e d )

System type: Extensive forestry

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 ~y-I )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref, n o . U l r i c h - 1

D e c i d u o u s a n d c o n i f e r o u s f o r e s t s , a c i d soils, northern hemisphere

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a v a i l a b l e s o i l n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e hb vy ~thh,e, l ap nl at n t .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Transfer by'net uptake

--

-t --

t --

------

t --5--30

---0.5--1 0 --2

--

3

40--70 ---

1--10 0--5

--6

6--18

--45--100

--3.5--9

t --

7--32

--1--20

t ---

--0.05

t

0--10 --50--80

Ydfihf~

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

t

1--8 t

--

--

0--2 -4 -- .5--9

0--5 -1 -- 1--28

51--110

4.5--11

(-10)--10

12--41

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b.

Transfer by application and/or waste ........ Transfer by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . .

10b. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . .

REMOVALS:

-t --

--

--

t

t ---

---

13b. • 25. 26b.

Input by application of litter, sludge and waste . Transfer by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction Transfer by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

0--10 40--60 40--70

3--6 3--6

6--18 6--18

17. 28.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . TOTAL

40--70 0 40--70

3--6 0 3--6

6--18 0 6--18

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

(-10)--10

( - 1)---0

0

Changes in amount of soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ....... SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

0--2 0--2 (-2)--2

0--5 0--5 (-5)--5

102

TABLE 32 S y s t e m t y p e : E x t e u s ! v e forestkT

Summary of n u t r i e n t f o w s (units: k g h a - I y - I )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . Ulrich-2

C o n i f e r o u s f o r e s t o n g r e y - b r o w n p o d s o l i c soil, C e n t r a l E u r o p e (IBP Soiling P r o j e c t )

Nutrient

N

P

K

~* -(4)59

5* -5

22" -2--2

--

--1.4, 3.6 -5

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t b y seeds o r seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g o n field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

, 12, 47 59

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

--

78* 14 21.8

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1. 2. 3. 4.

REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

I n p u t b y feed f o r l i v e s t o c k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by litter used indoors .............. Transfer by consumption of harvested crops Transfer by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... Outp.ut b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n grazed a r e a s . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . Input by N-fixation ..................... I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter 2 sludge a n d w a s t e Input by imgation and floodmg . . . . . Input by dry and wet deposition ........... T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g o n field . Transfer by seed for sowing . . . . . . . TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28.

Output by danitrification . . . . . . . . . Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter removed by run-off.. T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

30.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Z . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 0.8* 47 3.6 . . . . . . . . . 76 4.4

. . . . . . . .

.

.

.

. . .

. . -17" ----

.

.

.

.

.

0.02* ----

59 76 0

.

11 + 14 25

. 2* ----

5 5

22 24

-0.6

+1

103

T A B L E 32 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Extensive forestry

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . U l r i c h - 2

Coniferous forest on grey-brown podsolic soil, Central Europe (IBP-Solling Project)

Nutrient

N

P

K

-------

--------

Changes in amount of availablesoil nutrients SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a.

11. 12. 13a. 14.

REMOVALS:

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ...........

15. 16.

Input by dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil mineral fraction..

29

17. 26a. 27.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

47 --

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction .... Transfer by immobilization in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL

--

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

76

17 --

59 -76

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-------

0.8

11

(3.60"6) --5.0

140 --

---

--

25

0.02 ----5.0

0.6 -22 -24.6

0

+0.4

3.6 3.6

-----14 14

5 --

0

2 --

Changes in amount of soil organic matter SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. Transfer 9b. Transfer 10b. Input by 13b. Input by 25. Transfer 26b. Transfer 17. 28.

by application and/or waste ........ b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by immobilization in soil organic fraction by plant products remaining on field - • TOTAL

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. TOTAL

-----

------

47 47 (47) 0 47

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

(3.6) 0 3.6

(14) 0 14

0

0

0 0.6

0.6 0

- 0.6

+ 0.6

Changes in amount of soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction .... Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ....... SUPPLY-REMOVAL

-0

104

TABLE 33 System type: Extensive forestry

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha-'

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Ulrich-3

Deciduous forest on grey-brown podsolic soil, Central Europe (IBP-Solling project)

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere TOTAL ..........

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

P

K

-59* --

-~, o --

-23* --

~3~

6*

23*

--13: 49 -62

--2.1"

--16.6:

-6.1

-22.6

0

0

0

of animal component

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... Output by losses from manure to air, before application ......................... Output by manure ~ ................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

N of plant component

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

y-, )

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . . by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . application of manure . . . . . . . . . . fertilizers .................... -N-fixation .................... -application of litter, sludge and waste . -irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... 28: by plant products remaining on field . . 49 by seed for sowing .............. -TOTAL 77

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-6* ---62* 68 +9

. . .

. . .

. . . . . ----0.8:

----

-4.8

11.* 16 -27

--

--

0.05* ---

6 ---

6* 6.1

23* 29

-1.3

-2

105

T A B L E 33 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Extensive forestry

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a - l ~f-i )

T y p e o f f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Ulrich-3

D e c i d u o u s forest o n g r e y - b r o w n podsolic soil, Central E u r o p e (IBP-Solling Project)

Nutrient

N

P

K

---

-------

---

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer by application of m a n u r e and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g o n field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL O u t p u t by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y ,the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . Transfer by net uptake b y t h e p l a n t . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

28 49 -77 ---6 -9 62 77

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0.8, 1.3 4 --6.1 --0.05 ----6 -6.1

-11, 16 --29 --

6 --23 29

0

0

0

Transfer by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction ( 9 ) T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . 49 TOTAL 58

-4 4

-16 16

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL

(49) -49

4* -4

16' -16

+ 9

0

0

---

-1.3

-2

-1.3

-2

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17.

28.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

106

clear cutting, nutrient losses, especially nitrogen losses, may occur by increased mineralization of soil organic matter and the cessation of plant uptake. The nitrogen losses may reach 500 kg N ha- ' , in extreme cases even 1000 kg N ha- ' , if, as a consequence of clear cutting and soil cultivation, the m o t layer on top of the mineral soil is decomposed completely. On an annual basis this corresponds to average nitrogen losses of 0--5 (--10) kg N ha- ' y- ' in a coniferous forest region, assuming that the stands have a mean life span of 100 years and a balanced age distribution.

6.4.5. Measurement and calculation o f nutrient fluxes To describe the nutrient fluxes in a forest, Fig. 3 is acceptable only as a summary; for calculating the actual fluxes a more refined model is required. The following fluxes can be measured in the field by measuring the flow rate of the transport medium and its bioelement concentration. (Comparable fluxes in Fig. 3 are indicated with their usual numbers): (a) Input by rain (compare 31) (b) Input by interception by the canopy and bark (see Mayer and Ulrich, 1974) (compare 31) (c) Total input = (a) + (b) (compare 31) (d) Transport by rain inside stand (sum of canopy drip and stem flow) (no comparable flux, may be included in 26) (e) Flow by litter fall (compare 26) (f) Growth increment (does n o t exist in Fig. 3) (g) Leaching from soil (water collection by suction lysimeter plates or candles) (compare 21) (h) Leaf leaching and (j) uptake from the atmosphere = (d) - (c) (compare 15) (i) Uptake from soil = (e) + (f) + (h) (compare 30) (k) Total uptake = (i) + (j) (compare 30+ 31) (1) Change in soil reserves = (c) - (f) - (g) (not applicable) Table 30 shows a flux balance of a beech (Fagus silvatica) forest which may be used to outline the measurement and calculation of nutrient fluxes as described before. The ranges for nutrient flows shown in Table 31 for deciduous and coniferous forest stands with a regular age structure on acid soils of the northern hemisphere are taken from a set of IBP data (Ulrich et al., 1974).

107

6.5. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN FRANCE (P. Jacquard) The nutrient cycling scheme as presented in Fig. 3 is in fact a very simplified one because the role of the microflora in the soil is not taken into acc o u n t as a separate storage level for nutrients. We use schemes as presented in Figs. 4--12 to describe the cycling within the soil system. These figures describe h o w much of the fertilizer which was added at a certain time will be available for the next crop. This depends in particular on the fraction of pastures which is used for grazing. We have differentiated between the following systems: System A (French farm, all in pasture lands, without fertilizers); System B (French farm, 75% of leys used by grazing); System C (French farm, 50% of leys used by grazing); System D (French farm, 25% of leys used by grazing); System E (French farm, no use of leys by grazing); System F (French farm, forage production without animals). The farms m a y be dairy and/or meat oriented, except, of course, in system F. The figures do not refer to areas in the farm, or to years in the same plot, but to the type of use of the forage production. Arable parts of the system were excluded; they were used only to test the availability of soil nutrients after leys. As regards the kind vegetation types, A is a mixed vegetation of permanent grassland, B may be a simple mixture (one grass + white glover), C (sysCarried off ,(5)0 Meat and/or mitk ~e/Livestock

Carried off

Herbage

(11)/ /

//

//(30t÷r)

idue \ (26) / / //~ e×creta ~ . E * c r e t a

;// . ~26÷9) [/~/ (26a+ga) ( e= ~IDP'/Microftorait)

Ava itabte (t) (16+1

(12)

b+gb) Soil reserves it) From time (t) to time ( t + l )

I/

~Microftora (t+,) \" (Sa) >% ~ 0 Avaitab,e ( Soil reserves (t÷l)

Fig. 4. The cycling o f n u t r i e n t s in t h e soil (fluxes are indicated according to Table 3). --~increase;--~ decrease; ~'~ a n a b o l i c processes; ~-~ f e e d b a c k l o o p s increasing the stability o f t h e system.

108

90

Uv~es~20°ck

e~ock

/

Fixed

9.5

mt

J

Leached

50

• Soil reserves = - 7

Sol [ reserves = - 20

Fig. 5 (left). The cycling of N (kg h a -~ ) in system Jacquard-1. Fig. 6 (right). T h e cycling o f P (kg h a -~ ) in system Jacquard-1.

///•t

• Livestock

7/ /

av. t

300 mt

X e l

,

12

P

,=Leached

Sol[ reserves = - 20 Fig. 7. The cycling o f K (kg ha -~ ) in system Jacquard-1.

tern Jacquard--3) consists of pure legumes, whilst C (system Jacquard--4) and the systems D, E, and F are pure grass. An overview of the systems is shown in Table 34. The Tables 36--43 show the nutrient balances in the usual way. References: Tables 36--42, Jacquard, 1972; Table 43, Specty and Mettauer, 1971; Coppenet, 1975. The leaching data used are equal for all systems(50 kg N ha- 1 y- 1 ) and are derived from French literature (Table 35).

Reference

Jacquard-1 Jacquard-2 Jacquard-3 Jacquard-4 Jacquard-5 Jacquard-6 Jacquard-7 Jacquard-8

Description

Extensive livestock Intensive m i x e d Intensive m i x e d Intensive m i x e d Intensive m i x e d Intensive m i x e d Intensive arable (grass) Intensive horticulture

Agro-ecosystems in France

T A B L E 34

A B C C D E F --

System type according to Jacquard 100 75 50 50 25 0 0 --

Grazing (%)

0 25 50 50 75 100 100 --

Cutting (%)

0 100 0 200 400 800 800 50

N Fertilizer ( k g h a -1 y - I )

(50) (50) 60 (50) t t t t

N fixation ( k g h a -1 y-~ )

5,6 and 7 8 -9 10 11 12 --

Figure(s)

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Table

O cD

110 T A B L E 35 Output of nutrients by leaching (kg ha -1 y - ' ) Reference

N

P

K

Specty and Mettauer, 1971 Coppenet, 1975 Gachon, 1974: Annual forage crop Ley Natural grassland

45 50 14 2--7 0--11

-1 ----

3 10--20 19--22 10 6--7

Fert:zersHr '

ck

/ o ~ ~ 1~esidues\ ~ ,01 >o 2oo/XExcr.,. I

.v ~/,oo

mt

•t e~

Fix~

•

f

~30 ,~ !.v,.,

/

mt÷ 1 ~

~ . /

50

crop /,3o

/

50 SoiL reserves = +40

Le~ched

4O

,~111

'

~./

s.n t + 1 =-60

Fig. 8. The cycling o f N (kg ha-' ) in system Jacquard-2.

Herbage~/fi •/

Fertilizers

200~> 0 0 1 / av.t

~/<

mt 80

L'~ e 801

\ 80

/60 /

ep"

2 0 ~ / Fixed

50

50 - Leached SOi[ reserves = +60

I135

"~Excreta ~0 mr÷, ~11 40 40 60

~e

~-/ aM. t+l

95 s.r: t*l •*5

Fig. 9. The cycling of N (kg h a - ' ) in system Jacquard-4.

111 ck Fertilizers Herb 90 400I

//450

/~

l~rop

•

/

~W~

/~o

Excreta

\%

~ • ~

4o

147~p 6~S6r.7 60 • . . t+l = + 140

• 50 ~ Leached Soil reserves=+ 60

Fig. 10. The cycling of N (kg ha -~ ) in system Jacquard-5.

Herbag~

8•~

Fertilizers / ' ~

°ck ~0

I /"',"°°'\

,ooI /~o~

m

,o~/

Soil reserves = +350

Crop

k ~-'' 320

350

t i,oo

s.E t*l = ÷ 510

Fig. 11. The cycling of N (kg ha -~ ) in system Jacquard-6.

Fertilizers

Herbage~/~ •

i ~oo I ~/~

av, ~

croo

Z

/,o5

35 ~ ' / 0 Leached Soil reserves = +350

I,~0 .av,., 350 ---~ s.r. t+l = + 190

Fig. 12. The cycling of N (kg ha -~ ) in system Jacquard-7.

112

T A B L E 36 S y s t e m t y p e : Extensive livestock

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -~ y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y v e o f v a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 1

F r e n c h f a r m , all in p a s t u r e lands, n o use o f fertilizers o r s u p p l e m e n t a l feed. S y s t e m A

Nutrient

N

P

K

90* 80 0 170

10* 7 -26

110* 96 -212

19" -7 -26

1-16"

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t by seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . "... TOTAL

-90* 80 -170

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

96 -212

0

0

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

-90* 90

19" 19

1"16" 116

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t b y feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by litter used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n of harvested crops T r a n s f e r by grazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . ................. Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

. . .

20*

7*

t

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

8*

--

---

---

70: 90

1"-2" 19

I08: 116

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. I0. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . Input by dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL O u t p u t by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

200

-12" -----t 7 -19

t t

---

70* --(50) -t 80

-108" ---t 96 204

50 + 0 0 0 170 220

t 0 0 0 26 26

--12 + 0 0 0 212 224

-20

-7

-20

113

T A B L E 36 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha - l y - l )

T y p e o f f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f part o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 1

F r e n c h f a r m , all in p a s t u r e lands, n o use o f fertilizers or s u p p l e m e n t a l feed. S y s t e m A.

Nutrient

N

P

K

-35* --(50) --

~, v -----t 0 16 3.5 t 25.5

t 110 -48 t 212

--

--

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. T r a n s f e r by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . 9a. T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . 10a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and waste . 14. I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . 15. I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . 16. T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . 17. T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n 26a. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g o n field . 27. T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

t -95 40 t 220 t t5 0+ 0 0

-54* -----

t

12 + 0 0

0 0

--

t

t

t 90* 80 220

t9* 7 26

116" 96 224

0

-0.5

-10

-35* ---

-~, o ---

-54* ---48 102

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

Transfer by application and/or waste T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n grazed areas" ~ i i ~i i Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g o n field . . TOTAL T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVAI~

t

t 40 75 95 0 95

3.5 9.5 16 0 16

-20

-6.5

---

t

-0 0 +102

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r by fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil fraction . . . . . . . SUPPLY- REMOVAL

0 t

t 110 - 110

114

T A B L E 37 S y s t e m t y p e : Mixed f a r m i n g

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a -1 y - i )

T y p e of f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e of part o f a farm or e c o s y s t e m , r e f no. J a c q u a r d - 2

F r e n c h f a r m , leys in r o t a t i o n with arable crop; 75% o f the h e r b a g e is used by grazing. S y s t e m B

Nutrient

N

P

K

160* 100 0 260

20* 15 -39

160* 104 -270

40* 120"

6* 18" -15 -39

41" 125 ~

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t by seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by u p t a k e f r o m a t m o s p h e r e . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r by grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by p r i m a r y p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

100 -260

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

104 -270

0

0

0

0 0 40 120 160

0 0 6 18 24

0 0 41 125 166

30

8

16

---4*

--38* 112 166

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t by feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n of h a r v e s t e d crops T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL .

5. 6.

O u t p u t by animal p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e T r a n s f e r by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

. . .

t -30* 100 160

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

12 24

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation I n p u t by application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r by seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

30: 100 -100 (50) --

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

O u t p u t by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

t t

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

t 100 -380

4* 12" -50 ---t 15 -81 ---

50 + 0 0 0 260 310

t

+70

+42

0 0 0 39 39

38: 112 -100 --t 104 -354 --12 + 0 0 0 270 282 +72

115

T A B L E 37 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : Mixed f a r m i n g

S u m m a r y of ~,-! n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha - I )

Type of farm or ecosystem or t v v e of vart of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 2

F r e n c h f a r m , leys in r o t a t i o n w i t h arable crop; 75% o f the h e r b a g e is used b y grazing. S y s t e m B

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . I n p u t b y irn'gation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r by m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n p l a n t for p r osdouwcit ni ogn_ _r e m. .m T r a n s f e r by seed . . n. .m . . g. . .on . field . Transfer by TOTAL Output by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fr:action b yV O the Transfer by net uptake ~ t ~ £p1l aa nn tt .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Transfer by net uptake

15" 35 * -100 (50) --

2*

19: 54 -100 ---

6*

t

-60 50 -310

-50 ---t 0 10 7.5 -75.5

t t

---

---

t

50 + 0 0 -t 160" 100 310

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

67 -52 -292

t

12 + 0 0 0

0 0 0 t 24* 15 39 +36.5

166" 104 282 + 10

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

Transfer by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL

15" 50 ~ --t 50 115

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL

60 0 60

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

2* 6*

19" 56"

---

----

t 7.5 15.5

52 127

10 0 10

+55

+ 5.5

---

0 0

--

0

-0 0 +127

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil fraction . . '. . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

0 67 -

67

116

T A B L E 38 S y s t e m t y p e : Mixed f a r m i n g

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a -~ y-~ )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 3

F r e n c h f a r m , pure stand o f lucerne in r o t a t i o n with arable c r o p ; 50% o f t h e h e r b a g e is used b y grazing System C

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t b y seeds o r seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

3150,

130,

1660,

115 0 430

5 0 18

60 0 226

160 155 -115

7 6

83 83

--

--

430

5 -18

60 226

0

0

0

0 0 160 155 315

0 0 7 6 13

0 0 83 83 166

63

4

16

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1. 2.

3. 4.

REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . litter used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops by grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y lasses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y droppings o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

t

---

-126: 126 315

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--4*

13

0

75: 75 166

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and waste . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by d r y and w e t deposition . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

126" 126 ~ -0 60 --t 115 --7 42

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

O u t p u t by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil by p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

t

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

4* 5* -100 ---t 5 114 ---

t 50 + 0 : 0

75* 75 -200 ---t 60 410 --

t 0 0

i2 + 0 0

0

0

0

430 480

18 18

226 238

-53

+96

+172

117

T A B L E 38 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : Mixed f a r m i n g

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a - I F -1 )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 3

F r e n c h f a r m , p u r e s t a n d o f lucerne in r o t a t i o n with arable c r o p ; 50% o f t h e h e r b a g e is used b y grazing System C

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in amount of availablesoil nutrients SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

T r a n s f e r b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l fraction . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

63 63 -0 60

.

Output by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

- -

t -0 57 -243 t t

2 2

37 37

-100 ---t 0 0 2 -106

-200 ---

--

t 0 -30 -304 --

5 0+ 0 0

t

-310* 115 480 -237

1 2+ 0 0 0

0 0 0 10* 5 18 + 88

166" 60 238 + 66

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

Transfer by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL

63 63

.

---

- -

t

38 38 ----

t 58 184

3 8

0 0 0

0 0 0

--

8

+106

---

0 0

0 0

--

0

0

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

2 3

--

+184

+

30 106 0 0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: R

E

M

O

V

A

L

:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

118

T A B L E 39

System type: Mixed farming

Summary. of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -I y-~ )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Jacquard-4

French farm, leys in rotation with arable crop; 50% of the herbage is used by grazing. System C

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in amount of plant component SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t b y seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by.uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

220.0

310,

210.6

80 0 300

7 0 38

96 0 312

110 110 -80 -300

15 16 -7 -38

108 108 -96 -312

0

0

0

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t b y feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n of h a r v e s t e d crops T r a n s f e r by grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

O u t p u t b y animal p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e applmation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

0 0 110 110 220

. . .

0 0 15 16 31

60

0 0 108 108 216

11

t

--

16 --

-80: 80 220

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

10: 10 31

0

0

80; t~U

10: 10 -75 ----

100: 100 216 0

Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization Of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

-200 (50) -t

t 7

96

-490

-102

496

--50 + 0 0

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

t

80

t t

. .

100: 100 -200 ---

---

t 0 0

12 + 0 0

0

0

0

300 350

38 38

312 324

+140

+64

+172

119

T A B L E 39 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : Mixed f a r m i n g

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -~ y-~ )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 4

F r e n c h f a r m , leys in r o t a t i o n with arable c r o p ; 50% o f the h e r b a g e is used b y grazing. S y s t e m C

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . Input by dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

40: 40 200 (50) -t --

t

50** 50 200 --t

20 40

0 3 4

-390

-92

-348

---

--

Output by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . t O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 + O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . 0 O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction 0 T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . 22 * T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t 80 TOTAL 350 SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

5* 5* -75 ----

+ 40

0 -48

t 0 0 0 0, 31 7 38 +54

12 + 0 O 0 -216" 96 324 + 24

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

Transfer by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field • . TOTAL

40* 40 --t

---

50* 50 ----

t

40 120

3 13

20 0 20

3 0 3

+100

+10

+148

---

0 0

0 0

--

0

0

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

5* 5

48 148 -0 0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil mineral fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

120

T A B L E 40 S y s t e m t y p e : Mixed f a r m i n g

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha - I y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 5

F r e n c h f a r m , leys in r o t a t i o n w i t h arable c r o p ; 25% o f t h e h e r b a g e is used b y grazing. S y s t e m D

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t b y seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

360* 90 0 450

40* 12

360* 92 -461

-60

270 90 -90 -450

60

277 92 -92 461

0

0

0

0 0 270 90 360

0 0 36 12 48

0 0 277 92 369

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

36 12 -12 --

Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

O u t p u t b y animal p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by consumption of harvested crops b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

. . .

70

12

t -220* 70 360

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

18

---

--263* 88 369

27* 9 48

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

220: 70 -400

27: -80

t

----

--t

t 90 --80 7

t t

t 12

92

128

843

--50 + 0 0 0 450 500

+280

268* 88" -400 ---

---

t 0 0 0 60 60 + 68

12 + 0 0 0 461 473 +370

121

T A B L E 40 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Mixed farming

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows ( u n i t s : kg ha -~ y - ' )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 5

F r e n c h f a r m , leys in r o t a t i o n w i t h arable c r o p ; 25% o f t h e h e r b a g e is used by grazing. S y s t e m D

Nutrient

N

P

K

73* 23 * -400 t --t -0 33 529

10" 3* -80 - ---t 0 0 4 --97

97* 33* -400 ---t 0 -34 --564

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. T r a n s f e r b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d ] o r w a s t e . 9a. T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . 10a. I n p u t by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. I n p u t by fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. I n p u t by N - f i x a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . 14. Input by irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . 15. Input by dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . 16. T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . 17. T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n 26a. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . 27. T r a n s f e r b y seed f o r sowingTOTAL ..............

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

O u t p u t by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by v o l a t i l i z a t i o n o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by l e a c h i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n , a l l o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by d u s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

t t

--50 + 0 0

---

t

12 + 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 48* 12 60

-0 360* 90 500 + 29

369* 92 473

+37

+ 91

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. T r a n s f e r 9b. Transfer 10b. I n p u t by 13b. I n p u t b y 25. Transfer 26b. Transfer 17. 28.

by application and/or waste ........ 147..*. b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . 47 ~ application of manure . . . . . . . . . . a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . -b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n 0 by p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . 57 TOTAL 251

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

.

17.* 6~ . . . -0 8 31

166: 55 . --58 279

0 0 0

0 0 0

--

+251

+31

+279

---

0 0

0 0

--

0

0

0 0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

122

TABLE 41 System type: Mixed farming

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - ~ )

Type.of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Jacquard-6

F r e n c h f a r m , l e y s in r o t a t i o n w i t h a r a b l e crop; zero-grazing. System E

Nutrient

N

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

REMOVALS:

seeds or seedlings .... i iii~iiiiii by.net uptake from soil b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

400*

50*

4100*

105 0 505

14 0 67

107 0 517

53*

67

410' --107 -517

0

0

400* --105 -505

0

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e applicationdi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

...

REMOVALS:

0

400* -400

0

50*

410* -410

-53

80

28

t

32

---

-320* -400

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLIES:

14 --

of animal component Input by feed for livestock ............... Input by litter used indoors .............. Transferbyconsumptionofharvestedcrops Transfer by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

---

0

1. 2. 3. 4.

7. 8. 9.

K

of plant component

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLIES:

P

--378* -410

25* -53

0

0

0

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

t"ransfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding . . ......... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

320* --800

25* --160 ----

t --t

t

105 -1225

50 + 0 0 . .

t 14

t t

378* --800 ----

-199

107 -1285

---

---

t 0 0

12 + 0 0

0

0

0

505 555

67 67

517 529

+670

+132

+756

123

T A B L E 41 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : Mixed f a r m i n g

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -~ y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f part o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 6

F r e n c h f a r m , leys in r o t a t i o n with arable c r o p ; zero-grazing. S y s t e m E

Nutrient

N

P

K

107" --

8* --160 ----

125" --

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. T r a n s f e r b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . 9a. T r a n s f e r b y droppings o n grazed areas . . . . . . . 10a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e 14. I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . 15. I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . 16. T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . 17. T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction 26a. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . 27. T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

800 t

.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic f r a c t i o n b yo t thh.e~ p llant ant . . . . . . . . . Transfer by net uptake ~ Transfer by net uptake SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

- -

t

t

800 --t

-0 35

0 0 4

-942

-172

-963

---

---

t t 50 + 0 0

0 -37

t

12 + 0 0 0

0 0 0

-400* 105 555

50* 14 67

+387

+105

410" 107 529 +434

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

Transfer by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . 213" T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction t T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . 70 TOTAL 283

. .

. .

17" . . . . . .

t

252*

-10 27

70 322

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

+283

+ 27

+322

---

0 0

0 0

--

0

0

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic f r a c t i o n O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

.

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil fraction . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

124

TABLE

42

System type: Arable farm

S u m m a r y of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -~ y-1 )

T y p e of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Jacquard-7

French farm, forage production without animals. S y s t e m F

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t of plant c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

Transfer b y consumption of harvested crops

400* 105 0 505

...

Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

50* 14 0 67

410* 107 0 517

--

--

--

-400* 105 -505

--

-410" 107 -517

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

53* 14 -67

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t of animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1.

~. 41

REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by consumption of harvested crops Transfer by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

..

---

. . . . --

. . .

--. .

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . . . TOTAL . . SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

.

.

.

.

---

.

. .

.

. . . . . . . . . . .

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f t o t a l s o i l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer

27.

T r a n s f e r b y s e e d f o r s o wTi nOgT A.L. . . . . . . . . . . . .

19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Output by denitrification'. ............... Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... O u t p u t by. r u n - o f f o f a v a i l a b l e n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL

28.

30.

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . .

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-800 t --t 105

----160 ---t

905 t t

+350

800 ---t

14

107

174

907

--50 + 0 0 0 505 555

--

---

t 0 0 0 67 67 +107

12 + 0 0 0 517 529 +378

125

T A B L E 42 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Arable farm

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows ( u n i t s : k g ha -1 y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 7

French farm, forage production without animals. S y s t e m F

Nutrient

N

P

K

---800

---160 ---t 0 0 4 -164

---800 ---

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Transfer Transfer Input by I n p u t by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . by d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-fixation .................... a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

t

.

O u t p u t by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . Output by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by d u s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e by t h e p l a n t . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b~v t h e p l a n t . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

- -

t -0 35 -835 t t

t 0 -37 -837

--50 + 0 0

---

t

12 + 0 0 0

0 0 0 0. 53 14 67

-0 400 105 555 +280

-410 107 529

+97

+308

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. T r a n s f e r 9b. Transfer 10b. I n p u t b y 13b. I n p u t b y 25. Transfer 26b. T r a n s f e r

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

by application and]or waste . . . . . . b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . application of manure . . . . . . . . . application o f litter, sludge and waste . . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n t b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field - 70 TOTAL 70

. .

. .

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

. . .

.

. t

-10 10

70 70

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

+ 70

+10

+ 70

---

0 0

0 0

--

0

0

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n O u t p u t by o r g a n i c m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

.

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

126

T A B L E 43 S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive h o r t i c u l t u r e

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -1 y - J )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e of part o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. J a c q u a r d - 8

F r e n c h int. arable f a r m , irrigated beans

Nutrient

N

P

K

-125" --

-15" --15

-89* --

10' 5*

64*

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t b y seeds o r seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by u p t a k e f r o m a t m o s p h e r e . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by p r i m a r y p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

125 89*

89

36* --125

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

--15

25* --89

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t by feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y litter used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e appncation ......................... Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

. . .

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . . T r a n s f e r by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50* I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . -I n p u t b y irrigation and f l o o d i n g . . . . . . . . . . . 1" I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . 8* T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . -~ r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL 59 O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

. . .

. .

.

. .

.

79* . . .

. 149" .

.

--0" 0* --79

2*

153

--

--

--

0* 45* ---

---

1--25" 170

15" 15

-111

+64

3* --89* 92 +61

127 6.6. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA (J. K o l e k )

6.6.1. Introduction The organization and structure of agricultural enterprises in the socialist countries is characterized by substantial differences in the relationships of the land to property, as compared with the individual property. These differences, to a certain extent, result in differences in the nutrient flow. It can be noticed that: (a) The development of farm organization tends towards the formation of large associations of several agricultural enterprises, which together cultivate several thousand hectares of agricultural soil. (b) The associations (co-operative and state farms) create common enterprises for working up their primary products. (c) The most important change is that monogastric animals (pigs, poultry) are detached from the primary production in common enterprises so that, in the primary production, there remains only cattle and sheep breeding. (d) With this organization, agricultural production approaches a considerable way towards industrial production. 6.6.2. Calculation method The annual balances of two co-operative farms served as a basis for the calculation of the fluxes. 6.6.2.1. Plant production: the flow o f nutrients For calculating the nutrient flow, we used, as bases, data concerning the purchase and application of industrial fertilizers to different crops, and the content of nutrients in precipitation (Hrb~, 1974) and irrigation water (Antonovi~ and Jacko, 1966). The content of nutrients in various parts of the plant (in the crop products and the plants' aerial parts) were calculated from Bajer's data (1973). The loss of nutrients by run-off was calculated after (~vandara (1962), and losses by leaching after Bfzik {1975). The N fixation was calculated according to ~van~ara (1962), and volatilization according to Mfiller (1966). We did not obtain any data on mineralization, on reserves of soil nutrients or data on any enrichment of the soil from the geological substratum. For the uptake of nutrients from pastures, we started from the calculations of Kraj~ovi~ (personal communication, 1974). From the nutrient balances of both farms, we calculated then the quantity of nutrients which remained on the farm, the amount returned to the soft in the form of stall dung or post-harvest remains (Bajer, 1973) and how much had been exported from the farms as primary products.

71500 8100 60600 19600 16200 1900 46200 3100 22000 400 500

Wheat Barley Maize grain Sugar b e e t Maize silage Fodder beet Perennial grass A n n u a l grass Vegetables Oats Grapevine

52000 12100 34600 15400 8100 1100 42000 700 15400 200 500

Fertilizers N P

Product

77000 16200 80800 28000 18200 1900 67200 5000 28600 400 1000

K 14540 3460 10760 63130 2790 4230 51150 1030 58110 130 60

1210 370 1040 15860 280 1120 430 123 14040 10 0

Other inputs N P

N u t r i e n t b a l a n c e o f Teged~kovo c o o p e r a t i v e f a r m (kg p e r y e a r )

TABLE 44

3060 110 4290 45380 1390 1570 3570 330 39510 20 0

K 42200 14400 27280 3040 12230 2740 136700 6480 4530 250 36

19500 5040 10290 9120 5930 1290 47350 2570 2960 80 2

38390 8990 23690 22740 10780 3690 101670 5120 3350 150 18

Used o n f a r m itself N P K 51670 6230 33550 28850 -1670 41970 -3700

10330 1510 8971 2284 -220 8380 -96

Sales a n d losses N P 12310 870 29510 14850 -2930 37770 -690

K

Oo

129

6.6.2.2. Animal production: the flow of nutrients For calculating nutrient flow from the plant c o m p o n e n t into the animal component, we calculated the nutrients contained in the forages of whatever origin, starting from the sub-system of plant production. The purchased feed mixtures were of standard composition and the contents of nutrients and energy were determined by the Czechoslovak Standard No. 467.007 (Labuda, 1973). The c o n t e n t of NPK in animal bodies was calculated as follows. In horned cattle, we used the data of Schulz et al. (1974), and considered the average value of NPK contents in pieces weighing 480 kg (whole animals). For other animals, we did n o t obtain complete data on the NPK contents of their entire bodies and, therefore, we only used data on the commercially used parts of the animals (Strmiska, 1970). Thus the resulting values do n o t contain the NPK of skin, bones, entrails, etc., and so, to a certain extent, this distorts the final results (they would have been somewhat higher). The NPK content of milk was also calculated according to Strmiska (1970), and that of the sheep cheese according to ~kopkov~ et al. (1957). In the total balance of nutrients, we included solid and liquid excrements (Bajer, 1973), the loss of nitrogen from manure by volatilization and the nutrients lost in animals which died.

6.6.2.3. The overall balance of nutrients By following the flow of NPK, it was impossible to calculate the effectiveness of fertilizers in plant production, since we did n o t obtain data on the amounts of nutrients in the soil, on the mineralization of organic matter and on humification. Therefore, we were able merely to indicate the NPK amounts applied to the soft, the amounts exported by the crops and their flow through the animal component.

6.6.3. The nutrient balance of two particular farms Classification. Intensive mixed system. Reference: Kolek-1; Slovakian lowland farm, arable land, livestock without grass, use of supplemental feed, Table 46. 6.6.3.1. Description of the JRD Te~ed&ovo The agricultural co-operative (JRD) of Te§edfkovo covers 1853 ha, including 1845 ha of arable soil. The number of workers in the co-operative in 1973 was 498. The soil is a chernozem on loess. The mean annual precipitation is a b o u t 56 cm, the mean annual temperature 9.2°C, and the altitude is 130 m. The structure of plant production is obvious from Table 44. In animal production, the structure was as follows: 882 horned cattle, 2630 pigs, 362 sheep, 1950 ducks, 2410 geese and 2677 poultry. The J R D specializes mainly in the production of cereals. On the animal side, it is oriented towards milk production and rearing geese (in 1974, the number of the latter increased to 10 000).

130

6.6.3.2. Production data Plant production. Wheat is the principal crop of this co-operative. It is cultivated on 550 ha with mean yields of 5451 kg ha- ~. The entire wheat area received 106 041 kg N, 54 314 kg P and 80 060 kg K from industrial fertilizers, precipitation and irrigation. In the form of solid grain, 51 670 kg N, 10 330 kg P and 12 310 kg K left the farm. The following amounts of nutrients in grain (payments in kind, seeds, forage) remained on the farm: 8210 kg N, 1636 kg P and 1936 kg K. A further 7340 kg N, 1580 kg P and 14 680 kg K were removed in straw. From this quantity of straw, approximately one half was returned to the soil in the form of stable manure. Thus, per 100 kg of grain, 1.6 kg N, 0.48 kg P and 0.96 kg K were removed. In barley, the total nutrient content of grain was 11 850 kg N, 2667 kg P and 3784 kg K, with a total nutrient input of 13 566 kg N, 12 356 kg P and 16 917 kg K. The relatively high input of P and K is surprising, in view of their export by the grain yield. Thus, for 100 kg grain, 2.07 kg N, 0.49 kg P and 0.8 kg K were removed. The total nutrient content of straw was 1760 kg N, 210 kg P and 1980 kg K, which was utilized as a whole in animal production (for horned cattle). Sugar beet was grown on 140 ha, and fertilized with 82 730 kg N, 31 261 kg P and 73 397 kg K (including the nutrients from stable dung, irrigation and rainfall). The industrial fertilizers used amounted to 19 600 kg N, 15 400 kg P and 28 000 kg K. The whole yield of 5 712 400 kg beet roots sold contained 10 853 kg N, 2284 kg P and 14 850 kg K. On the farm, there remained beet-chips containing 9147 kg N, 1496 kg P and 13 804 kg K; the chips were used for feeding horned cattle. For 100 kg of beet roots, the nutrient uptake was 0.2 kg N, 0.04 kg P and 0.34 kg K. Grain maize was grown on 404 ha, providing a mean grain yield of 5024 kg ha- 1. This area was fertilized with 78 600 kg N, 40 900 kg P and 93 400 kg K, including the following amounts of industrial fertilizers: 60 600 kg N, 36 400 kg P, and 80 800 kg K. For 100 kg grain, 2.5 kg N, 0.66 kg P and 2.2 kg K were removed. In the grain that was sold, nutrient removal from the farm amounted to 33 549 kg N, 8971 kg P and 29 514 kg K. The members of the co-operative received cereals containing 9213 kg N, 1180 kg P and 3856 kg K. The maize remained on the field, thus returning 572 kg N, 110 kg P and 710 kg K to the soft. Silage maize, grown by the JRD on 101 ha with an average yield of 21 654 kg ha- 1, is an important crop for the farm's animal production. It was fertilized with 16 200 kg N, 8100 kg P and 18 200 kg K. The green biomass harvested in the field contained 4190 kg N, 690 kg P and 4840 kg K. The amounts removed per 100 kg dry matter were 1.9 kg N, 0.3 kg P and 2.2 kg K. The whole quantity of biomass produced was used for the production of silage for horned cattle. The area for field vegetables was fertilized with 77 000 kg N, 28 900 kg P and 67 100 kg K, of which industrial fertilizers amounted to 22 000 kg N,

131 15 400 kg P and 28 600 kg K. As for the uptake of nutrients, we could n o t assess the NPK c o n t e n t of irrigation water. The whole quantity of produced vegetables was sold; it contained 4539 kg N, 2960 kg P and 3365 kg K. Perennial forages (clover and alfalfa) were grown on 420 ha, giving an average yield of 67 780 kg ha- 1 green biomass. One part of the forage area was fertilized with 46 200 kg N, 42 000 kg P and 67 200 kg K, and the entire area was irrigated. Part of the yield was utilized at the farm and had the following nutrient contents: 70 800 kg N, 10 120 kg P and 62 080 kg K. Nutrients removed from the farm as sales in the form of alfalfa meal amounted to 41 910 kg N, 8395 kg P and 37 778 kg K. Annual forages were grown on 31 ha and were fertilized with the following industrial fertilizers: 3100 kg N, 700 kg P and 5000 kg K. The p r o d u c t remained on the farm for use in animal production and it contained 3150 kg N, 432 kg P and 2646 kg K.

Animal production. At the end of 1973, 889 h o m e d cattle were reared on the farm, of which 408 were milk cows. The mean milking capacity was 3112 litres yearly. At the beginning of the year, the live weight was 154 700 kg and at the end 335 800 kg. The cattle did n o t graze, but were kept exclusively in stables. Since it was n o t possible to assess the changes in the herd during the year, and to distinguish the different age and productivity groups of animals, we simply considered the balance of nutrient flows based on the live weight of animals at the end of the year. The cattle were fed with bulk feed produced on the farm. During the whole year, the nutrient values amounted to 108 200 kg N, 19 400 kg P and 103 900 kg K. When it comes to concentrates, it is the general practice for raw materials grown on the farm to be delivered to feedstuff manufacturing plants and, in exchange, the J R D receives standard feeding mixtures. From these purchased concentrate feed mixtures, the h o m e d cattle received 18 970 kg N, 8400 kg P and 16 880 kg K. From the feedstuff amounts mentioned, 153 200 kg of live weight was produced, and the losses by sale represent 162 500 kg of live weight (including the weight of cattle present on the farm in the previous year). Animal deaths resulted in loss of 6300 kg live weight. The NPK content in animal bodies was calculated according to Schulz et al. (1974), for one animal of 480 kg. The live weight (153 200 kg), produced from the feedstuffs of 1973 represents 3940 kg N, 960 kg P and 270 kg K. There was a removal from the farm of 162 500 kg live weight by sale, which represents 4420 kg N, 1016 kg P and 303 kg K. Thus, t h e export from the farm is 4890 kg N, 1286 kg P and 573 kg K. Altogether, 1 270 000 1 of milk, containing 670 kg N, 270 kg P and 220 kg K were produced and removed from the farm. Thus, the total nutrient export from the farm, in the sold cattle and milk, amounts to 4990 kg N, 1286 kg P and 573 kg K. The h o m e d cattle yielded 13 460 kg N, 4940 kg P and 20 540 kg K in solid and liquid excreta. Assuming that all the excreta go into the pro-

132 duction of 14 000 tons of stable manure, the values mentioned return into the nutrient cycle of the farm, after, of course, subtracting the losses from volatilization of nitrogen. At the beginning of 1973, sheep rearing represented 800 kg in live weight of animals. At the end of the year, the live weight had increased to 7200 kg. Concentrate feedstuffs containing 80 kg N, 21 kg P and 25 kg K were purchased for the sheep. Bulk feeds were produced on the farm and represent 3400 kg N, 612 kg P and 2970 kg K. It is impossible to assess the consumption from grazing because, in contrast to mountain farming, the lowland sheep graze harvest remains from the fields. From the above-mentioned live weight (7200 kg), 600 kg containing 10 kg N, 11 kg P and 2 kg K (in meat) were sold. All the cheese produced on the farm, 88 600 kg, containing 22 kg N, 9 kg P and 4 kg K, was removed. It must be noticed that in the Te~ed~kovo farm, sheep rearing is a supplementary component of animal production. It is not possible to assess the amounts of nutrients returned to the soil as excrements. Poultry keeping (hens, geese, ducks) represents an important sector on the farm. At the beginning of 1973, no fowls were kept. By the end of this year, they had produced 151 100 kg of live weight containing 1143 kg N, 160 kg P and 180 kg K. At the same time, 99 000 eggs were sold, containing 180 kg N, 36 kg P and 21 kg K. For poultry keeping, standard concentrate feed mixtures were purchased, containing 1210 kg N, 3400 kg P and 11 190 kg K.

Classification. Intensive mixed system. Reference: Kolek-2; Slovakian mountain farm, mixed system, use of supplementary feed, Table 47. 6.6.3.3. Description o f the JRD Brusno JRD Brusno lies in mountainous country, at an altitude of 400--900 m. The softs are brown, acid, and the annual precipitation is 78 cm. The total area is 1281 ha, including 172 ha of arable land, 410 ha meadows and 699 ha pastures. In 1974, 188 persons worked in the JRD. The animal production had the following structure: 688 homed cattle, including 110 milk cows, and 557 sheep (the average annual cheese production per ewe was 26.5 kg). The co-operative specializes in the production of milk, sheep cheese and wool. In contrast to the previous farm, JRD Brusno is principally oriented to the rearing of homed cattle and sheep. The topography and the relatively great dispersion of lands, lying mostly in hilly terrains, result in rather high costs for transport and for soil cultivation. 6.6.3.4. Production data Plant production. Wheat was grown in this farm on 26 ha, giving an average yield of 3640 kg ha- 1. This area received the following amounts of nutrients

133 (in kg, the figures in parentheses are the amounts of industrial fertilizers): 3277 (2600) N, 2114 (2060) P and 2699 (2600) K. The difference between the two values gives the supply of nutrients from precipitation and purchased seeds. A part of this area, containing 1070 kg N, 211 kg P and 387 kg K, was allotted to the co-operative's members. In the form of purchased grain, 980 kg N, 193 kg P and 354 kg K were removed from the farm. Straw contained 356 kg N, 40 kg P and 406 kg K; it was used to produce stable manure. The uptake of nutrients, by the grain removed, was as follows (per 100 kg of grain): 2.5 kg N, 0.48 kg P and 1.14 kg K. The balance of NPK in this farm is shown in Table 45. Potatoes are the typical crop of mountainous regions. The co-operative grows them on 18 ha, with an average yield of 23 110 kg ha- ~. This area received nutrients from stable manure: 5800 kg N, 2200 kg P and 7100 kg K, and from industrial fertilizers: 1800 kg N, 1580 kg P and 3440 kg K. Thus, altogether, the following amounts of nutrients entered the soil (inclusive of precipitation and seeds): 8105 kg N, 3857 kg P and 10 862 kg K. A part of the yield was used as a feedstuff; it contained 322 kg N, 120 kg P and 500 kg K. Removal as sold tubers accounted for 650 kg N, 260 kg P and 940 kg K. The potato foliage left on the field contained 1296 kg N, 260 kg P and 1684 kg K. The utilization of nutrients per 100 kg product was 0.3 kg N, 0.1 kg P and 0.45 kg K. Barley was grown on only 21 ha, with an average yield of 3750 kg ha- ~. To produce this yield, the whole area received 2634 kg N, 970 kg P and 2188 kg K, of which industrial fertilizers accounted for 2100 kg N, 930 kg P and 2100 kg K. Part of the grain, containing 100 kg N, 24 kg P and 30 kg K, was assigned to the co-operative 's members. A further 1320 kg N, 316 kg P and 396 kg K were removed as sold grain. The straw, containiDg 206 kg N, 33 kg P and 308 kg K, was used in animal production. The utilization of nutrients per 100 kg barley grain was 2 kg N, 0.45 kg P and 0.9 kg K. Forages for silage, hay production and green fodder were the farm's main crops. In view of the various kinds of foods for different uses, we converted the yields from the total area, covering 1213 ha, into hay production. Then the total production of hay was 3 200 000 kg. To obtain this, the following nutrients from stable and liquid manures (to the annual silage crops) were used: 20 260 kg N, 4830 kg P and 20 050 kg K. The industrial fertilizers, supplied to the annual forage and clover crops, amounted to 42 070 kg N, 8740 kg P and 52 320 kg K. After adding the nutrients from precipitation, the total entry of nutrients into the area under fodder plants increases to 88 620 kg N, 14 794 kg P and 76 011 kg K. The mass of feedstuffs produced contained 54 510 kg N, 9790 kg P and 37 500 kg K. The whole quantity of fodder remained on the farm for rearing cattle and sheep beyond the grazing period (about 160 days of the year).

Animal production. The JRD Brusno reared 578 homed cattle, including 100 cows having a mean annual milking capacity of 3331 1. The purchased

2600 2100 1800 42070

Wheat Barley Potatoes Forage c r o p s

2060 930 1580 8740

Fertilizers N P

Product

2600 2100 3440 52320

K 677 534 6305 44530

54 40 2277 6050

Other inputs N P

N u t r i e n t b a l a n c e o f B r u s n o c o o p e r a t i v e farm (kg p e r y e a r )

T A B L E 45

99 88 7422 23680

K 2240 720 912 546 1970 1140 104800 40510

1350 780 1820 75030

Used o n f a r m itself N P K 980 1320 615 24260

193 316 260 --

Sales a n d losses N P 354 396 840 6050

K

¢~

135 fodders were standard mixtures containing, on the whole, the following amounts of nutrients: 7540 kg N, 1570 kg P and 2050 kg K. The farm-grown bulk feed used for cattle rearing contained 47 280 kg N, 8510 kg P and 41 370 kg K. From these nutrients, 198 400 kg of live weight were produced, containing 366 kg N, 840 kg P and 250 kg K. Loss from deaths amounted to 5800 kg live weight, containing 140 kg N, 34 kg P and 10 kg K. Milk production was 323 300 kg, containing 170 kg N, 60 kg P and 36 kg K. All of the milk was sold. For 160 days of the year 470 horned cattle were put out to graze; they produced and left on the pasture 12 800 kg N, 5190 kg P and 20 840 kg K in excrements. From this quantity 3800 kg is assumed to be lost by nitrogen volatilization. During stabling, the cattle produced 8780 kg N, 2750 kg P and 8090 kg K, which went into the production of stable manure. Pigs reared in the co-operative had a total live weight of 16 400 kg, containing 330 kg N, 30 kg P and 48 kg K. From this quantity 7600 kg were sold, i.e. 152 kg N, 11 kg P and 20 kg K, and the farm's own consumption was 8800 kg, containing 180 kg N, 19 kg P and 28 kg K. The pigs produced excreta containing 590 kg N, 230 kg P and 840 kg K. The live weight of pigs, produced on the farm, required the purchase of standard concentrate fodders containing 2303 kg N, 460 kg P and 548 kg K. In this JRD, sheep rearing is a further important branch of farming. At Fo0der 0o°ght N 0

P 0

Ferti.zors

precipitation N P K ~I

K 0

00360996055960] t

,.xat,oo N

eOSO

k o 0 0 e r 0ooghtl r-~ N

I 17~0

P K / 1480 177o /

/ N 54

P 4

KCj j

I I N P K ~1 1890 440 120 /

P

[ S Nh e e p K[ 740 50 110

4 Excret e Namanur, P andK l ~

~ ~'1I

NG r'8 Sstand P K 64010 13520 5601C

III Run-Off a n d N0 P teachingK

1450 1210 2080 I

I 24260

Animals sold N P K 60 6 10

L

t Cheese sold N P K 2,50 50 50 Animals dead N 60 P5 K10

0 6050 t Vo[atiliza~l[on 6670

,," NC?eKJ 18600 1970 590 1~ E x c r e t a mNanu~ andK t 120950 8340 30130

Animats sold ~_ N P K 3660 840 250 1 [ Mitk sold N P K 170 60 30 [ Animats deKad L1:0 3~)10

Fig. 13. Nutrient balance of the mountain farm JRD Brusno and dependence of animal production upon the grassland (kg).

136

T A B L E 46 S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive m i x e d f a r m

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -1 y-~ )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Kolek-1

Slovakian lowland f a r m , arable land with livestock, w i t h o u t grazing

Nutrient

N~

px

K~

2.4 88.4 44.3 -135.1

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

30r. 31.

29.

I n p u t b y seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

4.4 151.8 57.2 -213.4

1.1 33.4 37.7 -72.2

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products .............. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

51.0 0 81.5 76.5 4.4 213.4

8.5 0 17.3 45.3 1.1 72.2

0

0

0

41.6 0 51.0 0 92.6

11.5 0 8.5 0 20.0

27.9 0 27.7 0 55.6

30t.

REMOVALS:

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

.

27.7 0 48.5 56.5 2.4 135.1

Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t b y feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by consumption of harvested crops T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e applicationdl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y droppings o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

. . .

16.7 12.1 0 41.5 0 70.3

1.6 --

1.2 --

0 19.2 0 20.8

0 53.9 0 55.1

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

+22.6

- 0.8

+ 0.5

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and f l o o d i n g . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r by seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

41.5 0 0 143.0 44.4 0 11.4 10.9 76.5 4.4 332.1

19.2 0 0 100.3 -0 0.4 0.7 45.3 1.1 157.0

53.9 0 0 188.8 -0 1.7 1.6 56.5 2.4 304.9

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

47.1 12.1 78.0 20.0

---

Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

20.0 209.0 386.2

0 71.1 71.1

--21.4 30.5 ? 30.5 132.7 215.1

-54.1

+85.9

+89.8

?

0 0 ?

137

T A B L E 46 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive m i x e d f a r m

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -1 y - l )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Kolek-1

Slovakian l o w l a n d f a r m , arable land with livestock, w i t h o u t grazing

Nutrient

N'

P'

K'

12.0 0 0 143.0 44.0 0 11.4 15.9 -49.2 47.6 4.4 322.5

10.8 0 0 100.3 -0 0.4 0.7 ? 27.0 27.0 1.1 167.6

25.8 0 0 188.8 -0 1.7 1.6 ? -33.6 2.4 293.9

---

---

? -? 151.3 57.2 366.2

-? ? ? 33.4 37.7 71.1

21.4 30.5 ? ? --? 88.4 44.3 184.6

-38.8

+96.8

+108.8

8.0 0 0 0

7.2 0 0 0

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . .

10a. I n p u t by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27. R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25.

30t. 30r.

I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation a n d flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL O u t p u t by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

47.1 12.1 78.0 20.0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y a p p l i c a t i o n a n d / o r waste . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL T r a n s f e r by m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

28.9 36.9

18.3 25.5

18.2 0 0 0 --? 22.9 41.1

49.2 20.0 69.2

27.0 --27.0

39.2 30.5 69.7

?

?

-32.3

-

1.5

-

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals

SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil fraction . . . . . . .

---

? ?

SUPPLY- REMOVAL ' A f t e r p r e p a r a t i o n of the final m a n u s c r i p t Tables 46 and 47 were revised on a few points. T h e r e f o r e t h e r e m a y b e slight differences b e t w e e n the d e s c r i p t i o n and d a t a t a b u l a t e d here.

? ?

28.6

138

T A B L E 47 S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive m i x e d f a r m

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha - I y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Kolek-2

Slovakian m o u n t a i n u o n s f a r m , grassland with livestock

Nutrient

N1

p~

0.4 54.5 35.5 ?90.4

0.1 10.4 24.9 ? 35.4

K~

Changes in a m o u n t of p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

I n p u t by seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . ........ T r a n s f e r by net u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d c r o p s . . . T r a n s f e r by grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0.3 45.7 26.8 ? 72.8

40.0 11.0 2.3 36.7 0.4 90.4

7.8 1.5 0.6 25.4 0.1 35.4

34.7 9.4 1.2 27.2 0.3 72.8

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t b y feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y litter used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by consumption of harvested crops T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

. . .

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

8.0 -40.0 11.0 59.0

1.6 -7.8 1.5 10.9

17.0

3.7

5.2 6.2 8.2 8.1 44.7

-3.1 2.8 1.5 11.1

+14.3

-0.2

2.2 -34.7 9.4 46.3 1.1 -7.4 13.0 9.4 30.9 +15.4

Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . 8.2 2.3 T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . 8.1 1.5 Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 9 10.4 I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 -I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litterz sludge and waste . . . . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . 19.9 1.0 T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . 36.7 25.4 T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 TOTAL 105.9 41.2 O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by d u s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b~" r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

9.1 5.2 18.9 4.1 ?

----

13.0 9.4 .

. 47.2 --

.

. 3.0 27.2 0.3 104.4 --4.7 5.2 ?

4.1 90.0 131.4

? -35.3 35.3

-25.5

+5.9

+16.8

5.2 72.5 87.6

139

T A B L E 47 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Intensive mixed farm

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows ( u n i t s : k g ha - I y - I }

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. K o l e k - 2

S l o v a k i a n m o u n t a i n o u s f a r m , grassland with livestock

Nutrient

N'

P~

K'

2.4 2.1 -37.9 4.7 -? 19.9 -23.5 21.6 0.4 152.5

1.2 0.9 -10.4 --? 1.0 ? 14.8 15.0 0.1 43.4

6.7 5.3 -47.2 --? 3.0 ? -16.2 0.3 78.7

9.1 5.2 18.9 4.1 ? -? 54.5 35.5 127.3

----? ? ? 10.4 24.9 35.3

--4.7 5.2 ? ? ? 45.7 26.8 81.4

+25.2

+8.1

-2.7

1.6 1.4 --? 15.1 18.1

0.8 0.4 --? 10.4 11.6

4.4 3.1 --? 11.0 18.5

23.5 4.1 27.6

14.8 -14.8

16.0 5.2 21.2

9.5

-3.2

-2.7

---

? ?

? ?

?

?

?

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . .

10a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27. R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . Output by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e b y t h e p l a n t . . . . . . . . . Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Trafisfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL

17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n O u t p u t by o r g a n i c m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

' See f o o t n o t e Table 46.

140 the end of 1974, the total live weight of sheep was 28 700 kg. This weight of sheep was produced by consumption of the following quantities of nutrients (in grass and hay): 16 736 kg N, 3012 kg P and 14 600 kg K. This entire amount of nutrients originated from the same farm. From the quantity produced, 3300 kg live weight, containing 60 kg N, 5 kg P and 10 kg K were sold. Losses from deaths amounted to 3400 kg, containing 61 kg N, 5 kg P and 11 kg K. The cheese production was 10 300 kg and it contained 257 kg N, 56 kg P and 51 kg K. From this quantity, 9800 kg containing 244 kg N, 53 kg P and 48 kg K were sold. The remainder was used on the farm. The sheep produced 263 000 kg excrements containing 1450 kg N, 1210 kg P and 2080 kg K. These nutrients remained on the pastures. In conclusion, one may say that with regard to the animal production of this JRD, rearing of horned cattle and sheep on pastures substantially lowers the dependence of meat, milk and cheese production upon fossil energy. Similarly, the costs of industrial fertilizers are decreased and the life cycle here has a more natural character, more dependent upon natural grass covers. Thus, the pasture style of farming makes for a more closed system. A flowchart of the fluxes is shown in Fig. 13. One should note that the share of nutrient resources from grazing and hay, in horned cattle, is 87.75%, while the purchased fodder mixtures involve only 12.25%. In sheep rearing, pastures provide all the nutrient resources (except feeding lime, salt and mineral substances, during winter). The immediate return of nutrients to the pastures, from the excrements of cattle and sheep, is also a not inconsiderable factor.

6.6.3.5. Comparison o f the nutrient cycles in the two farms The quantity of nutrients moving through the primary producers, animal production and outputs from the farm is directly determined by the input of nutrients into plant production from industrial fertilizers and stable manure. The soil type and exposure, determining the field crop yields, are the second most important factor. Thus, in the wheat production of JRD Te~ed~kovo (lowland region), the grain yield removed more N (7800 kg) than had got into the soil, which indicates exhaustion of the original strength. Moreover, the N in the yield also includes remains left on the field. This fact is pointed out by Peterka (1973), who recommended, on the basis of 13 years' experiments, that the quantities of N supplied should be lowered by 4--22 kg N ha- 1, depending upon the nutrients removed through the yield. The opposite was true for values of phosphorus and potassium. For phosphorus, the quantity supplied was in excess by 16.6--23.5 kg P ha- 1, and for potassium by up to 28 kg ha- 1, depending upon the uptake of nutrients. In JRD Te~ed~kovo, the output via the yield was 23 600 kg P and 34 900 kg K less than the input. A similar situation, in wheat, can be observed in the JRD Brusno. Growing fodder crops is very effective from the point of view of nutrient cycling. In both farms, the removal of nutrients by yields far surpasses their supply in the form of fertilizers.

141

6.6.3.6. Leaching of nutrients This depends on the soil type, relief, precipitation, vegetation covers on the soil and, finally, on the quantity of nutrients applied. For central European conditions, Miiller (1966) suggests the following amounts of nutrients leaching annually from 1 ha: 30--40 kg N, 20--40 kg K, 40 kg Ca (in dry weather). More detailed observations by Paetineanu et al. (1973) showed considerable differences in the nitrogen contents in lysimetric waters, depending u p o n the crops. With an application of a b o u t 500 kg N per ha in the form of NH4 NO3 and a precipitation between 35.8 and 61.9 cm during the vegetation period, the following amounts were washed o u t in 1970 and 1971 respectively: winter wheat, 16.5 and 24.3 kg N ha- 1 (43.0 and 28.7); maize, 8.4 and 31.9 kg N ha- 1 (6.1. and 19.9); soya, 3.7 and 21.7 kg N ha- 1 (4.5 and 20.9); sugar beets, 3.7 and 14.5 kg N ha- 1 (7.6 and 18.9). The values in parentheses refer to the amounts of water in cm, which were leached during the vegetation periods in 1970 and 1971 respectively. As can be seen, the least NO~ was washed o u t from under the sugar beet cover. Stra~kraba and Proch~zkov~ (1974) followed the leaching of nutrients from agricultural and forest soils. They report that for Czechoslovakia, in woodless basins 21.8 mg NO-3 per litre water escape into the water reservoirs while, in wholly w o o d e d land, only 1.4 mg 1- 1 (according to the woodiness -- from 20 to 70% -- the values vary from 12.5 to 3.1 mg NO-3 per litre water in the valley). In the Carbonaceous chernozem of southern Slovakia, Bfzik (1975) followed the influence of irrigation on the escape of NO-3. When 140 kg ha- 1 were applied to maize, and after 50 mm irrigation, 15-20 kg N ha- 1 escaped. The maximum N washed o u t was ascertained with a lysimeter placed at a depth of 60 cm. Masaryk (1973) observed the escape of NO-3 ions after applying up to 480 kg N fertilizers ha- ~ to pasture land; at lower nitrogen applications leaching decreased simultaneously. A similar conclusion was reached by Pfaff (1963) since 10 kg N were washed o u t from meadow, and y e t even 140 kg N from fallow. Nevertheless, it seems that greater run-off of nutrients is caused, especially on slopes, by rinsing the applied fertilizers from the soil surface. But in the central European literature, unfortunately, we find few observations on this problem. In the conditions of southern Moravia, Kirschner and Kukulka (1974) report some results from a study of this run-off. These authors studied the discharge from 135 ha agricultural land (105 ha arable soft) during 30 days. On average, the fields were fertilized with 190 kg of nutrients. In the study period (24/4--16/5), there were 64 mm rainfall (9.1% of the annual quantity) and the evaporation from a water surface was 4.8 m 3 a- 1 month- ~. From a medium heavy, clayey soil the following amounts of nutrients were washed o u t from 135 ha (in kg): 176.1--344.4 N, 12.48-12.7 P and 499.4--439.0 K. The removal of sodium was surprisingly high: 1202 kg in 1 month. The authors suggest that from the 330 800 t of nutrients applied to 1/5 of the soils in Czechoslovakia (exploited in water management), 115 780 t net of nutrients are washed out.

142

Ameliorated (drained) lands are special places where nutrients escape from the agro-ecosystem. Hrb~5 (1974) followed the quantity of NO-a released from two soil types. Winter wheat grown on brown soil was fertilized with 200 kg KNO3 per ha. From February to April, the content of nitrates in the drainage water was a b o u t 6.0 mg 1- ~ ; from April to June it rose to 7 mg and then decreased to 4 mg 1- 1 ; stubble breaking and ploughing caused a moderate rise of NO-3 release. In podzolized, sandy-loamy soil (with summer barley fertilized in spring with 280 kg ammonium sulphate per ha), the escape was substantially higher: in February it was 70 mg 1- x NO-3. In May, even though the precipitation amounted to 6.0 cm, the discharge was the lowest (30 mg l- ~ ). Ploughing in of stable manure provoked no increase in the NO-3 removed by the drainage water; b u t the use of liquid manure increased the escape of nitrate. Under a cover of leguminous plants, during their maximum growth period, nitrate discharge is lowered, but during crop maturation it increases. The author suggests the possibility of restricting the escape of nitrates by limiting the a m o u n t of the first application, made in autumn when wheat is sown. To prevent the escape of fertilizers from agricultural ecosystems, apart from dividing the applications during the vegetative period, few data are known on the run-off of nutrients from the soil surface. This holds especially for mountainous and sub-mountainous regions. Therefore, it will be inevitable in any given region: (a) to conserve permanent grass covers in valleys, along the water courses, (b) to border protected rivulets with nitrophilous vegetation, (c) to prevent the direct discharge of drainage systems into water courses and to build retaining devices filled with porous material (straw, peat), to prevent the excessive removal of nutrients, (d) to examine, from the standpoint of nutrient escape, the practical use of polyphosphates, (e) to investigate the consequences of unmeasured phosphorus nutrition, (f) in dry regions, to review the recycling of potassium by straw, in view of its possible toxic effects. 6.6.4. Conclusions

The author studied the annual average values of nutrient flows in plant and animal production. These observations were carried o u t in two co-operative farms: the first one in the south Slovakian lowland, the second in a mountainous region. The productivity data should be understood as an a t t e m p t to find the gaps in our knowledge, and to supplement the often imprecise or even unsatisfactory data in the literature, which are required for elaborating the nutrient flow picture of high complexity. Comparison allows some general conclusions to be drawn, which can be summarized as follows:: (1) The yields of field crops were directly proportional to the amounts of fertilizers applied. Biomass production by field forages was influenced most.

143 (2) Mountainous farming utilized the nutrients in the forage biomass produced for cattle rearing much better than did lowland farming.

Energy relations (Editor) The original draft contained very interesting calculations on efficiencies with which solar energy was intercepted and a comparison between the energy relations of the two farms. Because of lack of space these sections had to be omitted. 6.7. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN ISRAEL (I. Noy-Meir and Y. Harpaz)

6.7.1. Introduction This study is limited to a qualitative description of nitrogen cycling in non-irrigated, unfertilized annual pastures and crops in a semi-arid winterrainfall region, and gives rough quantitative estimates of nitrogen flows in such ecosystems under various forms of management. This paper is based on a more detailed study (Harpaz, 1975), which includes a simulation model of the annual nitrogen balance and its effects on pasture yields, a literature survey and some field experiments at the Tadmor Experimental Farm at Migda (Northern Negev, Israel). That study, in turn, relied on previous and simultaneous work on pasture and animal production at the same site (Tadm o r et al., 1974; Eyal et al., 1975; Van Keulen, 1975) and on a detailed simulation model of plant production in a semi-arid climate in conditions of abundant nitrogen (Van Keulen, 1975). The study did n o t include cycling of other minerals (phosphorus, potassium). There is some evidence that their effect on total production in these systems is less than the effect of nitrogen. But the phosphate status of the soil appears to have an important effect on species composition of pastures.

6.7.2. Description o f the system 6.7.2.1. Climate. The Northern Negev is part of the semi-arid mediterranean belt of the Middle East and North Africa, with an annual rainfall between 150 and 300 mm (at Migda a b o u t 250 mm). Rainfall is virtually restricted to the cooler months (November--March) with a peak in winter (December-January--February). There is strong variation between years, both in the total amount (coefficient of variation 35--40%) and in the distribution of rain within the season. Mean temperatures range from 10--15°C in January to 24--27°C in July and class A pan evaporation from 3 mm per day in winter to 10 mm per day in summer. 6.7.2.2. Soils. The soils of the semi-arid region are diverse, b u t here attention is limited to "arable soils". These are defined as soils in which a " r o o t z o n e "

144

at least 60--80 cm deep is available for annual plants, i.e. is free of rock and of high concentrations of stones or salt. At Migda the soil is a deep fine sandy loess, in which roots can extract moisture down to 150 cm (Van Keulen, 1975). The discussion of the nitrogen balance is probably applicable to a wide range of soils of different depths (t> 60 cm) and textures (except very sandy or very clayey).

6.7.2.3. Vegetation. All areas with arable soils are either actually cultivated for crops, or covered by a segetal vegetation of winter annuals, which dominates abandoned fields for many years. The crops are mainly winter grains, i.e. wheat and barley. The segetal " p a s t u r e " vegetation includes grasses (Phalaris minor, Hordeum murinum, Stipa capensis), forbs (Erucaria boveana, Anthemis melanolepsis, Centaurea iberica) and legumes ( Trigonella arabica). 6.7.2.4. Land use and management. Different types of land use and management exist in the region, e.g.: (a) Natural pastures used by nomadic flocks of sheep and goats, at fluctuating densities. (b) Winter grain crops (wheat, barley) grown with no direct input of fertilizer and manure; the stubble is gathered as straw, or grazed by animals in summer. (c) Winter grain crops (wheat) with high inputs of nitrogen fertilizer (about 100 kg N ha- ~ ) each year. (d) Intensive natural or sown pasture, grazed permanently by sheep; with or without fertilizer inputs. Types (a) and (b) have existed in the region almost unchanged for a b o u t 5000 years and are still practised by part of the Bedouin population. Type (c) is n o w dominant in the modern Jewish agriculture in the Negev and is being gradually adopted also by the Bedouin. T y p e (d) exists at Migda and a few other farms. 6.7.2.5. The seasonal cycle in the ecosystem. The biological processes in the ecosystem have a characteristic seasonal cycle. There is a well-defined "growing season" from germination after the first effective rains in November or December, until the rapid desiccation of all plants in March--April. Within this period, growth is often continuous; there may be occassional spells of moisture stress in the middle of the period, during which the vegetation stops growing but only rarely dies out. The rate of growth is usually slow in the first two months and very rapid in February and March. Roots grow rapidly and explore effectively all soil layers in which there is moisture, which means down to 30 cm in a dry year to 150 cm in a w e t year. The plants flower mostly in March and set seeds just before soil moisture is exhausted in late March or early April; then seed dispersal occurs. In pastures which are n o t grazed, there is only a slow loss of standing dry vegetation from May, through the dry summer, until October. This loss is mostly through physical erosion and insect activity rather than through microbial decomposition. The latter is activated after the first rains of the next season.

145

Livestock graze the green pasture throughout winter and spring (except possibly for a deferment period just after germination) and the dry pasture in summer and autumn. Crops are harvested in April (barley) and May (wheat). A variable proportion of the straw is gathered and baled shortly after the harvest. The stubble and the ungathered straw may be grazed by livestock during summer, or else burnt or ploughed in.

6.7.3. The nitrogen balance 6.7.3.1. Some characteristic features The treatment of the nitrogen balance is facilitated by some special features of nitrogen processes in semi-arid, winter-rainfall ecosystems with medium-textured soils and annual vegetation. (a) The depth of wetting of the soil profile in most years does n o t exceed the depth which can be effectively utilized by roots ( 8 0 - 1 2 0 cm); thus leaching of nitrogen beyond the root zone is negligible. (b) Conditions which promote rapid denitrification (i.e. low oxygen with high temperatures in the soil) are infrequent. (c) Conditions are relatively favourable for nitrification of ammonium during most of the growing season.(d) Conditions which enhance volatilization of ammonium (high concentration near surface, high temperatures, frequent but superficial wetting) occur only at the end of the growing season (e.g. if there are late spring rains), and in urine patches throughout summer. (e) The main nitrogen inputs to the system are in rain, and fixation by non-symbiotic microorganisms; the amounts of both depend on rainfall a m o u n t and distribution. (f) The organic matter c o n t e n t of the soil is fairly low; the a m o u n t of mineral N released from it each year also depends on rainfall. (g) The potential contribution of symbiotic N-fixation is large compared with the other inputs (rain and non-symbiotic), but the realization of this potential depends on the coincidence of suitable legume and bacteria populations and of soil and climatic conditions suitable for legume growth. (h) In years which are n o t too dry, the annual vegetation, with a dense and growing r o o t system, can take up almost all the nitrate available in the soil, as well as that which becomes available during the growing season. In drought years a surplus of mineral nitrogen may remain in the soil. (i) A large proportion of the annual production of plant biomass and nitrogen can be utilized each year, and is indeed utilized in present management systems. 6.7.3.2. The seasonality o f nitrogen processes Each of the processes in the nitrogen cycle has a definite seasonal pattern, related to the patterns of rainfall, soil moisture and plant growth (Fig. 14). The main nitrogen inputs, rain and non-symbiotic fixation, occur only in the rainy season (November--April) and are distributed within it according to rain events. Rapid decomposition of dead plant remains from the previous season

146

r0n

II

.I.,.I

, J..

soil moisture

temperature

~

plant

green A / " - .

-

biomoss . . d r y

........ s

N inputs (rain* fixation) mineral N

immobilizationmineralization

NH3 volotilizotion

N uptake ( demondl OCT' NOV' C)EC'JAN 'FEB MAR APR 'MAY IJUN IJUL 'AUG I slrp,

Fig. 14. Seasonal patterns of climate, plant growth and nitrogen flows in a semi-arid winter-rainfallecosystem (schematic). (roots; leaves and stalks that have been pressed onto the soil) begins after the first rains in November. But since the C:N ratio of this material is usually higher than the optimum for the decomposing micro-organisms, this pr;)cess may initially not release any mineral nitrogen into the soil (Parnas, 19~5). On the contrary, it may use and immobilize mineral nitrogen, if avail~ ,~le. Later in the wet season, as the C:N ratio decreases and the bacterial L~mass itself begins to decompose, there is net mineralization of nitrogen from the organic remains. A certain proportion of the nitrogen will however remain in the stable organic fraction ("humus"). Uptake of nitrate by plants (or demand for it) begins slowly at germination and accelerates to a very high rate in February and March (Van Keulen, 1975). In this period, any nitrate appearing in the moist root zone may be

147

taken up within days (Van Keulen et al., 1975). Toward the end of March, soil dryness becomes limiting to r o o t activity and plant growth, and the uptake diminishes. In the period of seed filling there is internal redistribution of nitrogen within the plant, from all other organs to the seeds. Fixation by legumes symbionts follows the establishment of the legume plants with a certain lag, and is probably maximal in early spring. Grazing in pastures is yearlong (or almost so). But since the green season is only 3--4 months, most of the material is consumed when dry (in crops -all of the material). For the same reason, most of the nitrogen in excreta returned during the year is n o t likely to be taken up by plants and recycled before the next growing season.

6.7.3.3. Theory of a simple nitrogen balance The special features of the nitrogen cycle in semi-arid ecosystems as described before permit the use, as a first approximation, of a very simple model for calculating the annual nitrogen balance of an ecosystem with annual vegetation and the following attributes (Seligman et al., 1975): (a) no fertilizer or manure input (b) no legumes (c) plant biomass is used by harvesting, n o t by grazing.

IM ~

MY I---~

YO

Fig. 15. A simple model of the annual nitrogen balance in a semi-arid agro-eeosystem: no legumes, no grazing-recycling (see text for definition of symbols).

The following nitrogen pools or compartments are distinguished (Fig. 15). M -- mineral nitrogen in the soil at the end of the growing season H - - n i t r o g e n in stable organic matter ( " h u m u s " ) Y -- nitrogen yield in vegetation at the end of the growing season R -- nitrogen in dead plant residues T -- total nitrogen in the system (M + H + Y + R). The following annual nitrogen flows are considered: IM -- inputs of mineral nitrogen (rain, non-symbiotic fixation) MY -- uptake by plants YO -- nitrogen in plant parts removed by harvest YR -- nitrogen in plant parts left in the system (roots + stubble) RM -- mineral nitrogen released from decomposing plant residues RH -- nitrogen from plant residues incorporated into stable organic matter HM -- mineral nitrogen released from stable organic matter.

148

Some simplifying assumptions are made: (1} The annual nitrogen input is independent of the rest of the system: IM = i. (2) A fraction u of nitrogen in plant biomass is utilized (harvested) each year; the rest is left as residues. (3) A fraction m of nitrogen in plant residues is mineralized rapidly (1--11/~ years); the rest becomes part of the stable organic matter. (4) Nitrogen uptake by plants each year is a fraction f of the available mineral nitrogen, which includes the previous pool (M) plus the inputs during that year (IM + RM + HM). (5) Nitrogen mineralized each year from "humus" is a fraction d of total nitrogen in this material. (6) The mineral nitrogen pool is in equilibrium, and there is no trend towards accumulation or depletion (apart from possible year-to-year fluctuations). (7) The stable organic nitrogen pool is in equilibrium and there is no trend of accumulation or depletion (apart from year-to-year fluctuations). From assumptions 6 and 7 (together with the assumption of complete turnover of Y in one year and of R in 1--2 years) it follows that total nitrogen in the system is also in equilibrium and the input (IM) equals the output (YO). Assumptions 1--3 give the nitrogen conservation equations, assumptions 4--5 the turnover equations and assumptions 6--7 the equilibrium equations. Since the turnover time of stable organic nitrogen is long (of the order of 100 years), assumption 7 and its consequences are true only for a system which has been under the same management for a long time. By combining conservation, equilibrium and turnover equations it is pos,sible to derive explicit expressions (eq. 8--16) for the equilibrium values of all nitrogen pools and annual flows as functions of five parameters: the annual input i; the utilization fraction of plant yield u; the mineralization fraction of plant residues m; the annual mineralization rate of humus d; the utilization fraction of soilmineral nitrogen by the vegetation f. The three latter are more or less biologically determined parameters. The effect of management on the balance is mainly through the utilization u (and potentially through the input i).

Equations for a simple nitrogen balance (no legumes, no grazing recycling) Basic equations (assumptions) Conservation equations IM = i

(I)

Y O = u.MY

(2)

149

Y R = (1-u).MY

5y = 0

RM = m . Y R

(3)

RH = (1-m).YR

AR = 0 AT=M+H+IM-

YO

Turnover equations MY = f (M + IM + HM + RM)

(4)

HM = d . n

(5)

Equilibrium equations IM + HM + RM = MY

AM = 0

(6)

HM = R H

AH = 0

(7)

( t h e r e f o r e IM = YO

A T = 0)

Derived equations (consequences) Flow equations IM = i

(8)

YO = i

(9)

M Y = u1 YR =-

i

1-u

(10)

-i

U

(11)

RM = r e ( l - u ) U

• i

(12)

R H = ( 1 - m ) ( 1 - u) .i

(13)

U

HM = ( 1 - m ) ( 1 - u ) U

•i

(14)

Pool equations M=(T-

1)

H= ( 1 - m ) ( 1 ud

• i

u) . i

(15)

(16)

150

Extension o f N-balance to a livestock system (see Fig. 16 and section 6.7.3.7.) Additional pools are: A = animals F = faeces U = urine Additional flows considered are: YA = nitrogen in vegetation taken up by animals AO = nitrogen removed in animal products AF = nitrogen in faeces from animals AU = nitrogen in urine from animals FO = part o f nitrogen in faeces, leaving the system FR = part o f nitrogen in faeces, which is humified UO = part o f nitrogen in urine leaving the system UM = part o f nitrogen in urine in mineral forms Additional parameters are: x = fraction of consumed N which is r et ur ne d in excret a y = fraction of exc r et a N which occurs in urine v = losses fraction for urine w = losses fraction for faeces Additional equations are: AF = x . A AU = y • A UM = ( 1 - v ) - U FR = ( 1 - w ) - F

l

~UM

~U

V- -I

V-C-1

Fig. 16. A simple model of the annual nitrogen balance in a semi-arid agro-ecosystem with grazing-recycling (no legumes). Nitrogen pools: A, in animals; U, in urine; F, in faeces. Annual nitrogen flows: YA, animal intake; AO, animal products exported; AU, urine excretion; AF, faeces excretion; UO, losses from urine; FO, losses from faeces; UM, from urine to mineral pool; FR, from faeces to fresh organic residues (other symbols - - see text).

6.7.3.4. E x t e n s i v e w h e a t p r o d u c t i o n Classification. All systems considered here have the same climate (200--250 m m rainfall per year), t o p o g r a p h y (plain) and soil t y p e (deep loess); t h e y differ only in management.

151 This section considers management systems in which removal of plant matter is only by direct harvesting and in which no fertilizer is added to the soft, i.e. the extensive grain cropping systems which have existed in the area for thousands of years, until the last decade. For comparison, a non-agricultural (or pre-agricultural) system is also considered, using observations on abandoned cropland. Thus three levels of utilization, u, are considered: Semi-arid non-agricultural (u = 0.2). Reference: Noy-Meir and Harpaz-1; Natural losses by run-off and wildlife, no utilization by man, Table 49. Note: Because there is no agricultural output, this system is an ecosystem, n o t an agro-ecosystem. Extensive grain (u = 0.4). Reference: Noy-Meir and Harpaz-2; Semi-arid wheat area, grain harvested, straw returned, Table 50. Extensive grain (u = 0.6). Reference: Noy-Meir and Harpaz-3, Semi-arid wheat area, grain and straw harvested, Table 50.

Estimation of parameters. A review of data in the literature (Harpaz, 1975) shows that the average concentration of nitrogen in rainwater in semi-arid climates is a b o u t 2 ppm and the average annual input in rain is a b o u t 5 kg ha- 1 (3--8). Reported values of annual fixation by non-symbiotic microorganisms in semi-arid regions vary between 3 and 12 kg ha- 1 ; 5 kg ham a y be taken as a rough average. Thus the annual "natural" nitrogen input to the system is between 5 and 20 kg ha- ' ; in the following calculations an average value of i = 10 kg ha- ~ is assumed. A b o u t 15--20% of the organic matter in plant remains is incorporated into the stable humus; but the nitrogen content of this fraction is a b o u t twice that of the original material. Thus it may be estimated that 30--40% of the nitrogen in residues is incorporated into the humus rather than mineralized rapidly, or m = 0.6--0.7. The annual rate of mineralization of the stable organic nitrogen: in this ecosystem is relatively low, because the soil is wet for only about 100 days each year, and this in the coolest months. The average annual rate is estimated at 0.2%, i.e. d = 0.002. If growth is limited by nitrogen, it may be assumed that the dense r o o t system of the annual vegetation is capable of extracting almost all (f --- 0.9-1.0) mineral nitrogen in the r o o t zone during the growing season.

Effect of utilization. As explained, the difference between the three systems is the utilization u. By applying the nitrogen balance equations it can be seen that the level of utilization has marked effects on the equilibrium levels of nitrogen flows and on the productivity of the system (Table 48). At high utilization, the nitrogen and dry matter production axe reduced considerably. The harvested nitrogen yield YO is unchanged, but since at u = 0.4 it is all in grain and at u = 0.6 it includes grain and straw, the grain yield is lower at u = 0.6. The utilization level also has a drastic influence on the equilibrium level of stable organic nitrogen.

152 TABLE 48 The annual nitrogen balance of a simple agro-ecosystem (no legumes, no recycling, no fertilizer) in a semi-arid climate: calculated equilibrium levels at different levels of plant biomass utilization u Other parameters i -- 10 kg N ha -~ , m = 0.6, f = 0.9, d = 0.002

Utilization u

Ref. Noy-Meir and Harpaz-1

Ref. Noy-Meir Ref. Noy-Mei and Harpaz-2 and Harpaz-3

0.2

0.4

Nitrogen flows (kg N ha -~ y-~ ) IM 10 MY 50 YO 10 YR 40 RM 24 RH 16 I-IM 16 Nitrogen pools (kg N ha -~ ) M 5.6 H 8000 Total available N = M + IM + RM + HM 55.6 Biomass production (1% N) (kg dry matter ha -~ ) 5000 Harvested yields (kg dry matter ha -1 ) Grain (1.5% N) 0 Straw (0.75% N) 0

10 25 10 15 9 6 6

0.6 10 16.7 10 6.7 4 2.7 2.7

2.7 3000

1.8 1350

27.7 2500

18.5 1667

667 0

444 444

I n T a b l e 4 8 n i t r o g e n yields have been used also t o calculate biomass pro-~ d u c t i o n , harvested grain and harvested straw, assuming t h a t the N c o n c e n t r a t i o n in d r y m a t t e r is 1% in t o t a l biomass, 1.5% in grain a n d 0.75% in straw. T h e grain yields thus c a l c u l a t e d ( 4 0 0 - - 7 0 0 kg h a - 1 ) are similar in m a g n i t u d e t o t h o s e actually o b t a i n e d in unfertilized w h e a t and barley fields in t h e B e d o u i n a g r o - e c o s y s t e m in the Negev ( 4 0 0 - - 8 0 0 kg h a - 1 ), in years w h i c h are n o t d r o u g h t y e a r s (/> 2 0 0 m m rain).

6.7.3.5. Water or nitrogen limitation So far calculations have been based o n the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a n n u a l nitrogen u p t a k e a n d p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n are limited, a n d d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e s u p p l y o f available n i t r o g e n , and n o t b y o t h e r factors, such as w a t e r s u p p l y . I t m a y be q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r this a s s u m p t i o n is still r e a s o n a b l e in semi-arid climates. T h e c o m b i n e d effects o f w a t e r and n i t r o g e n s u p p l y o n p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n can be a p p r o x i m a t e d b y Liebig's law o f the m i n i m u m (Shimshi, 1971). T h u s it is necessary t o c o m p a r e the n i t r o g e n u p t a k e MY N calculated f r o m the n i t r o g e n balance as above, and c o n s e q u e n t biomass p r o d u c t i o n YN, with the

153 biomass production calculated from the annual water supply to the crop, assuming unlimited nitrogen: Yw=eT=e(R-E)

(17)

and the nitrogen uptake demanded by it: MY w = cY w

= ce (R - E)

(18)

where: subscript N refers to limitation by nitrogen and subscript w refers to limitation by water T = annual water uptake (transpiration) by vegetation (mm) R = annual rainfall E = annual water loss by direct evaporation from soil e = ratio of biomass production to water consumption ("water use efficiency") in conditions of abundant nitrogen (kg ha- J / mm) c = nitrogen content of biomass in the same conditions. If MY N is less than MY w (and YN < Yw), production and N-uptake are limited mainly by the nitrogen supply, and MY may be assumed to be equal to MY N, as was done in Table 48. But if MY w is less than MY N (and Yw < YN ), as may happen when rainfall is sufficiently low, production is limited mainly by the water supply. In this case MY will be close to MYw, i.e. less than calculated from the nitrogen balance equations. The production:transpiration ratio e depends on climatic conditions during the growing season. In a winter-rainfall climate such as at Migda, it is a b o u t 50 kg ha- 1 of total biomass per mm, when nitrogen is abundant (Van Keulen, 1975). The final nitrogen content of biomass in these conditions is a b o u t 1.2% (Shimshi, 1971; Harpaz, 1975). Thus, for every mm of water available for transpiration, a b o u t 0.6 kg ha- 1 of nitrogen needs to be available for uptake to ensure that nitrogen is n o t limiting. Taking the values of MY in Table 48, it can be seen that at the low utilization level, nitrogen is expected to become limiting even when the water supply exceeds 80 mm; at medium and high utilization, the expected threshold is even lower. The partition of water input between transpiration and evaporation depends on rainfall distribution within the season, and n o t only on total rainfall. But as a general trend, as R increases the absolute amount of evaporation increases, but its relative proportion decreases. Thus T is a concave function of R, which may be approximated by a linear relation above a threshold R t : T = b (R - R t )

(19)

with scatter around this line due to variation in distribution. The water-limited production and N-uptake will be a similar function of rainfall (Fig. 17). If the nitrogen-limited production and uptake were inde-

154

T A B L E 49 S y s t e m t y p e : Semi-arid, non-agricultural

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a -1 y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f part o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Noy-Meir and Harpaz-1

Wildlife on semi-arid Israelian p a s t u r e no utilization b y m a n .

Nutrient

N

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t b y seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . .

-} 50 -50

TOTAL REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

-pm -50 -50

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t b y feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

O u t p u t by a n i m a l p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outp.ut b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y droppings o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

. • 9.

-. . . pm 0 --pm 0

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation a n d flooding • • ~ . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t deposition . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r b y seed for sowing' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

----

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

O u t p u t by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by vblatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f * . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS • and wind erosion

5 0 5 45 -55 t t 0 t t 5 50 55 0

155

TABLE 49 (continued) S y s t e m t y p e : Semi-arid, n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: k g h a -~ ~ - I )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , r e f . n o . N o y - M e i r a n d I-Iarpaz-1

Wildlife o n semi-arid Israelian p a s t u r e , no utilization by man.

Nutrient

N

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure ............ I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by N-fixation .................... I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . Input by im'gation and flooding ........... Input by dry and wet deposition ........... T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g o n field . T r a n s f e r b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 3Or.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant Transfer by net uptake by the plant i:::::~:} TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-pm --5 O 5 -16 24 t 50 t t 0 t t -0 50 50 0

Changes in a m o u n t of soil organic matter SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. lOb. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . application of m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . application of litter,sludge and waste . by immobilization in soil organic fraction by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-pm

16+5 16+5 16 5 16+5 O

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . : . . SUPPLY- REMOVAL

---

156

T A B L E 50 S y s t e m t y p e : Extensive grain T y p e of f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Noy-Meir and H a r p a z - 2 + 3

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -~ y - i ) Wheat, semi-arid area, s y s t e m - 2 : grain h a r v e s t e d , s t r a w r e t u r n e d ; system-3 : grain+ s t r a w harvested.

Nutrient

System-2 N

System-3 N

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t b y seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

t • ~ 25 -25

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r by grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r by seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

t 17 17

-1-0 15 t 25

-10 7 t 17

0

0

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . litter used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by consumption of harvested crops b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

.

.

----

.

-------

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

8. 9

101 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27. R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

----5

5 --

-5 7

5 15 t 25

t 17

t t

t t

0 --

0

t t 25 25

t t 17 17

0

0

157

TABLE

50 (continued)

System type:Extensive grain

S u m m a r y of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -l 'y-1 )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Noy-Meir and Harpaz-2 + 3

Wheat, semi-arid area, system-2; grain harvested, straw returned. System-3; grain + straw harvested System-2 System -3 N N

Nutrient Changes in amount of available soil nutrients SUPPLIES:

8a. T r a n s f e r b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . 9a. T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . 10a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . .

---

11.

Input by fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

--

12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y dry and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5 --

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t TOTAL ......... SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

5 -6 9 ~

5 -5 3 4 17

~ ------25

17

~

17 0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . application of m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic f r a c t i o n b y . p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . .

TOTAL R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVAI_,S

-----6

3

6

3

6 -6

3

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil fraction . . . . . . . SUPPLY- REMOVAL

---

3

158

4000

//

t

/

3000

~"~// - J ....

~ 2000 .-~,.

6

//

~'~°~'t;" /./

/

~

/

~

~ooo //

0(~

__ ,,~'F-

j

100

Fig. 17. Nitrogen-limited,

I

200 Rainfall (ram)

I

300

4~30

water-limited and actual yields o f plant biomass as functions o f

total annual rainfall (schematic, disregarding effects of rainfall distribution).

pendent of rainfall, they could be represented by a horizontal line. Its intersection with the MY w = f(R) would give the rainfall threshold above which nitrogen rather than water becomes limiting. Yield would increase with rainfall up to this threshold and remain constant above it. However, in semi-arid zones, many of the processes which supply mineral nitrogen to the soil are themselves dependent on the a m o u n t and distribution of rainfall: nitrogen input in rain, nitrogen fixation, mineralization of N from both fresh and stable organic matter. Therefore MY N (and YN) will also be an increasing function of annual rainfall R (+ scatter due to distribution). It may be expected to be an initially convex function, because even at rather low rainfall some mineral nitrogen is available. At a higher rainfall it is expected to become less steep than the MY w function and to intersect it. At the intersection, nitrogen becomes limiting. Simulations using detailed meteorological data (Harpaz, 1975) indicate that this intersection, in the conditions of Migda, is around 200 mm annual rainfall (between 150 and 250 mm, depending on distribution). An interesting corollary is that in the range of 200--400 mm, yields in unfertilized agro-ecosystems are expected to increase with rainfall, even though nitrogen rather than water is the main limiting factor. This response is due to the influence of rainfall on nitrogen inputs, and its slope will n o t be as steep as the "direct" response of yield to rainfall, in the same range, systems with abundant nitrogen fertilization.

159

6.7.3.6. The effects of rainfall variability If the amount and distribution of rain were constant between years, each a g r o - e c o s y s t e m c o u l d b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d as e i t h e r n i t r o g e n - l i m i t e d o r w a t e r l i m i t e d i n all y e a r s . I n t h e f i r s t case, p r a c t i c a l l y all m i n e r a l n i t r o g e n w o u l d b e u s e d u p e v e r y d a y . I n t h e s e c o n d case, t h e r e w o u l d b e a s u r p l u s e v e r y y e a r a n d m i n e r a l n i t r o g e n w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o a c c u m u l a t e i n t h e soil. H o w e v e r , s e m i - a r i d c l i m a t e s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y l a r g e v a r i a b i l i t y i n p r e c i p i t a t i o n . T h u s i n a n y g i v e n s y s t e m , p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n will b e l i m i t e d b y water in some years ("drought") and by nitrogen in others ("wet"). The

TABLE 51 Comparison between the annual nitrogen balance calculated at equilibrium for a semiarid agro~ecosystem (no legumes, no fertilizer) with two management systems in which utilization is (a) by direct harvesting, (b) by grazing with recycling of excreta; both at medium utilization, u = 0.4. Other parameters: i = 10 kg N h a - ' , m = 0.6, f = 0.9, d = 0.002, x = 0.9, y = 0.7, v = 0.6, w = 0.6 (x, fraction of consumed N which is returned in excreta; y, fraction of excreta N which occurs in urine; v, losses fraction for urine; w, losses fraction for faeces) Ref. Noy-Meir and Harpaz-2, harvesting Nitrogen flows (kg N h a - ' y - ' ) IM MY YO or YA YR RM RH HM AO AU AF UO FO UM FR Nitrogen pools (kg N y - ' )

10 25 10 15 9 6 6

Harvested yields (kg ha -~ ) Grain (1.5% N) Animal live weight (3%N)

10 39 15.6 23.3 15 10 10 1.6 9.8 4.2 5.9 2.5 3.9 1.7

--------

M

H Total available = M + I M + RM +HM +UM Biomass production (1% N) (kg d.m. h a - ' ) Utilized biomass (kg d.m. h a - ' )

Ref. Noy-Meir and Harpaz-4, grazing

2.7

4

3000

5000

27.7 2500

43 3900

667 (grain)

1560 (pasture)

667 --

-53

160

T A B L E 52 S y s t e m t y p e : Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a - ' y - t )

T y p e o f farm or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Noy-Meir and Harpaz-4

S h e e p on semi-arid Israelian pastures, production of meat

Nutrient

N

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t by seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d c r o p s . . . T r a n s f e r by grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by p r i m a r y p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for sowing T O T A. .L. . . . . . . . . . . .

i J

39 -39 -16 -23 39

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t by feed for livestock . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f harvested crops T r a n s f e r b y grazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

O u t p u t by animal p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

--. . . 1-6 16 2 8 -6 16

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p d t by application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t by irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r by seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

-6 --

Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

5 --5 23 -39

O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b~/volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . , T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

t t 0 t t t 39 39

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

161

T A B L E 52 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : E x t e n s i v e livestock

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flowS (units: kg h a -1 y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Noy-Meir and Harpaz-4

S h e e p on semi-arid Israelian pastures, production of meat

Nutrient

N

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a.

Transfer by application of m a n u r e and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . .

10a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27. R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r by seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL O u t p u t by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . Transfer by net uptake ~ O ~ l a n t

-4 --5 -5 --10 15 39 ------39

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

Changes SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

in a m o u n t 24. 16.

Transfer by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL

2 ---8 10

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL

10 -10

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

Transfer b y fixation in soil mineral fraction . . . . Transfer b y weathering of soil fraction . r . . . . .

---

of soil minerals

SUPPLY-REMOVAL

162

mineral nitrogen left unused in the soil in a drought will mostly be available for use, and will be actually taken up, in subsequent rainy (N-limited) years. The frequency of the two types of year is of course related to the average annual rainfall. In the conditions of Migda (average 250 mm) simulation results indicated that of 12 years, 6 were water-limited and 6 nitrogenlimited (Van Keulen, 1975; Harpaz, 1975). Even at the dry end of the semiarid region (average 150 mm) there are occasionally years with 250 mm or more, in which nitrogen is expected to become limiting because the mineral nitrogen that has accumulated in the soil is exhausted. The size of the mineral N pool will thus never be at equilibrium, b u t will fluctuate according to yearly rainfall conditions. All other components of the nitrogen balance will fluctuate similarly around their equilibrium values. This dynamic situation has several consequences: for instance, yield is expected to be higher in a rainy year that follows a drought (due to carryover of surplus N) than in a rainy year that follows a rainy year.

6. 7.3.7. Livestock systems Classification. Extensive livestock. Reference: Noy-Meir and Harpaz-4; Sheep on semi-arid Israelian pastures, production of meat, Table 52. The calculations in Table 51 were based on the assumption that the utiliz ed part of the annual vegetation was harvested in such a way that all its nitrogen was exported from the system. This section considers a system in which the utilized production is "harvested" by a population of herbivores (e.g. sheep) which remains in the pasture for most of the year (Fig. 16). Part of the nitrogen in utilized biomass is returned to the soil in animal excreta. Several equations in the annual balance have to be added or modified to account for this. Only a small proportion (5--15%) of consumed plant nitrogen is retained by the animals and exported as secondary production, b u t a considerable proportion of N in excreta is n o t really recycled to the soil--pasture system for various reasons: (a) part accumulates in stock camping areas rather than being spread over the pasture; (b) much of the nitrogen remains near the surface and volatilizes during dry periods, before being leached into the root zone; and (c) nitrogen in dry faeces on the soil surface is exposed to volatilization and to erosion for long periods before being leached in. After accounting for these losses, there is still a substantial proportion (20--40%) of the nitrogen in excreta which is effectively recycled into the r o o t zone and is available for plant uptake in the following growing season (or to some extent, inthe same one). Urine nitrogen becomes available as mineral nitrogen within a few weeks. Faeces nitrogen becomes in part available as mineral N during decomposition, and in part is incorporated into the stable organic matter.

,

4400* --

667 --

185

27.7

16600*

19 3000 + 34

2.7 3000 0

2500

100 166 66 100 60 40 6

0.4

10 25 10 15 9 6 6

0.4

Ref. N o y - M e i r a n d Harpaz-5, w i t h fertilizers

P o t e n t i a l yield, realized o n l y w h e n w a t e r is n o t limiting.

N i t r o g e n flows (kg N h a - ' y-~ ) IM MY YO YR RM RH HM N i t r o g e n p o o l s (kg N h a -~ ) M H AH (annual) T o t a l available N M + IM + RM + HM Biomass p r o d u c t i o n (kg d.m. h a - I ) H a r v e s t e d yields (kg d.m. h a -1 ) Grain Straw

Utilization u

Ref. N o y - M e i r a n d Harpaz-2 --

444 444

1667

18.5

1.8 1350 0

10 16.7 10 6.7 4 2.7 2.7

0.6

Ref. N o y - M e i r a n d Harpaz-3 --

3550* 3550*

13500*

150

15 1350 + 19.3

100 135 81 54 32 22 2.7

0.6

Ref. N o y - M e i r a n d Harpaz-6, w i t h fertilizers

T h e initial e f f e c t o f a d d i n g N fertilizer a t 9 0 kg N h a -1 y - 1 t o a s i m p l e a g r o - e c o s y s t e m ( n o legumes, n o grazing-recycling), c a l c u l a t e d a t t w o levels o f u t i l i z a t i o n . I t is a s s u m e d t h a t t h e m i n e r a l N p o o l has a l r e a d y r e a c h e d e q u i l i b r i u m w i t h t h e n e w i n p u t , b u t t h e h u m u s N is still at t h e o l d level, i = 10 + 9 0 = 1 0 0 kg h a -~ y - ~ . O t h e r p a r a m e t e r s as in T a b l e 51

T A B L E 53

O~

164

T A B L E 54 S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive grain

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha - I y - i )

T y p e of f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Noy-Meir and H a r p a z - 5 + 6

Intensive Israelian arable f a r m . semi-arid area, System-5: grain h a r v e s t e d , s t r a w r e t u r n e d S y s t e m - 6 : grain + s t r a w h a r v e s t e d

Nutrient

System-5 N

Syatem-6 N

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

I n p u t b y seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

j

T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n of h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

t

t

166 -166

135 135

--81 54

66 100 t 166

t 135

0

0

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t b y feed" for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by consumption of harvested crops T r a n s f e r by grazing o f f ~ O ~ A L . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

---

5. 6.

O u t p u t by animal p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Out~.ut b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . ................ T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

7. 8. 9.

---

----

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . 19"0. T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge and waste . 14. I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . 15. Input by dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . 26. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . 27. T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

---90 5

90 5 --

-5 54

1050 20--0 t t

154 t t

0 .

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

.

0

t t

t t

t

t

166 166

135 135

+34

+19

165

T A B L E 54 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive grain T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Noy-Meir and H a r p a z - 5 + 6

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a -~ y - i ) Intensive lsraelian arable f a r m , semi-arid area S y s t e m - 5 ; grain h a r v e s t e d , s t r a w r e t u r n e d S y s t e m - 6 ; grain + s t r a w h a r v e s t e d

Nutrient

System-5 N

System-6 N

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t by irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . T r a n s f e r by m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

O u t p u t by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

-90 5

-- -90 5 --

5

5

6 60 -166

3 32

--

135

-------166 -166

135

0

0

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

135

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

Transfer by application and/or waste . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . Input by application of m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g o n field . . TOTAL .

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

----

-

-40 40

22 22

6

3

-6

3

+34

+19

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil fraction . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

--

166 The net effect of recycling through animals on the equilibrium levels of nitrogen flows and pools is a reduction in the "effective" utilization (harvesting) fraction of nitrogen compared with the utilization fraction of biomass. Thus, for a given environment and a given biomass utilization level, grazing-recycling allows higher equilibrium yields than direct harvesting (Table 51).

6.7.3.8. Intensive grain farming Classification: Intensive grain system. Reference: Noy-Meir and Harpaz-5; Intensive Israelian grain farm, semi-arid area, grain harvested, straw returned, Table 54. Intensive grain system. Reference: Noy-Meir and Harpaz-6; Intensive Israelian grain farm, semi-arid area, grain and straw harvested, Table 54. The effects of adding nitrogen fertilizer will be considered with reference to the extensive system as described in section 6.7.3.4. If 90 kg N ha- 1 are added annually (roughly the a m o u n t used in intensive wheat farms in the Negev), the mineral nitrogen input to the system, i is increased from 10 to 100 kg ha- 1. If this has been done for long enough, so that the stable organic matter has attained equilibrium with this input level, all nitrogen levels and flows will simply have increased by a factor of 10 (equations 8--16). A more c o m m o n situation is that fertilizer application is only beginning, and the organic N is still near the level which was the equilibrium for the previous (unfertilized) system. The initial effect of fertilization on flows and yields and on the accumulation of organic N, at different utilization levels, is demonstrated in Table 53. The much higher flows and yields calculated for the fertilized systems are based on the assumption that production is limited by nitrogen, n o t by water. Thus they are expected to be realized only in years in which rainfall is sufficiently abundant for this to be true. The threshold rainfall for nitrogen limitation will of course be higher in the fertilized system; with i = 100 it can be estimated to be roughly a b o u t 400 mm (250 mm transpiration + 150 mm evaporation). In years with abundant rainfall and favourable distribution, grain yields of 3500--4500 kg ha- ~ are indeed obtained in wheat fields in the Northern Negev, with this fertilization level.

6.7.4. Conclusions Plant production in semi-arid agro-ecosystems is determined by the natural supply of nitrogen at least as much and as often as by the water supply. The depletion of the soil nitrogen by high utilization and low inputs over hundreds of years is probably a major reason for the generally low yields of crops and pastures obtained (even in the best years) in the traditional agro-

167

ecosystems in the semi-arid belt of the Middle East and North Africa. In the balances it has been assumed that by 1950--1960 the decline had approached very closely to a new (low) equilibrium, and the annual mineralization may be neglected. The regular addition of nitrogenous fertilizer to these agro-ecosystems can cause an immediate j u m p in yields (by a factor of 2--8), and a slower increase in the stable soil nitrogen reserve. In extreme drought years the response may be slight, but in all other years it is substantial and (at present price ratios) economically justifiable (up to 100 kg N ha- 1 y - , at least). Since leaching is negligible (and other losses small), most of the nitrogen left unused in a dry year is used in subsequent years, and the overall utilization efficiency of the fertilizer added is high. For the same reason, the danger of groundwater pollution by N fertilizers is n o t expected to be serious in non-irrigated semi-arid ecosystems. 6.8. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN JAPAN (M. Yatazawa)

6.8.1. Introduction

The structure of agro-ecosystems in Japan is very complex, and it is very hard to delineate certain units of agro-ecosystems of reasonable size which could be separated from others and within which the flow of material may be measured. Also, even if there were separable agro-ecosystem units of suitable size, there are no data on material flow which may be used. Therefore the cycling of nutrient elements in agro-ecosystems is first to be estimated macroscopically by preparing a balance sheet of such elements as average values for the entire country, with reference to some major cropping systems. Arable land use in Japan

In 1972, the total area of arable land in Japan was 5683 X 103 ha, including 3312 X 103 ha p a d d y fields, 1356 X 103 ha uplands, 627 × 103 ha tree plantations, and 389 X 103 ha grasslands. The degree of utilization is 93.3% for p a d d y fields and 114.7% for uplands (MAF, Statistics and Information Bureau, 1974). The former represents fallow which has appeared in recent years, and the latter indicates that a few uplands are used for more than one crop a year on average. Grasslands, 77% of which are located in the Hokkaido District, include some waste lands. The total cropped area in 1972 is shown in Table 55. The sum of the area for upland rice, wheat and barley, potatoes, pulses, and vegetables in Table 55 exceeds the area of upland in the whole country. This is because the former includes areas carrying two crops a year as well as areas of winter crops on drained p a d d y fields. The area for forage crops in Table 55 also exceeds the area of grasslands. This is because forage crops are grown on uplands and on drained p a d d y fields.

168

TABLE 55 Total area of cropped land

r

Type of crop

Surface area (1000 ha)

Paddy rice Upland rice Barley + wheat Potatoes Vegetables Fruit trees Industrial crops Forage crops

2581 59 260 237 676 428 406 816

Thus, Japanese agriculture could be classified roughly into the following three groups. (a) Paddy fields: mainly occupied by a single crop of rice. Other crops on paddy fields and winter crops (wheat and barley, Japanese milk vetch, etc.) on drained paddy fields are included. (b) Uplands: upland crops (upland rice, wheat and barley, potatoes, pulses, etc.), vegetables, and forage crops are grown. (c) Tree plantations: this group includes orchards, mulberry farms and tea gardens. Components o f input and output o f nutrient elements in arable land Input of nutrient elements into arable land is chiefly through fertilizers, irrigation water, and precipitation. Nitrogen also enters the system through biological nitrogen fixation from the atmosphere. On the other hand, output of nutrient elements from arable land is through harvested products, leaching, and run-off. In addition, nitrogen is lost through denitrification and volatilization. Input of fertilizers and output by harvested products differ from crop to crop, and the amounts are described in later sections in which the balance

800

•

g

0/*-0%

E

//

_O~-o~'

~ 6oo

O

500

-

a

. . . .

1960

I

1965

,

,

,

,

I

1970

,

,

I

1973

Fig. 18. T h e national trend in fertilizerconsumption in 10 6 kg per year. • P2Os; x-----x K~O.

• N; n

169 of nutrient elements in each cropping system is considered. The national trend in fertilizer consumption is shown in Fig. 18. Other components of input and o u t p u t of nutrient elements are shown in the following sections.

Precipitation. Precipitation in Japan contains on average, 0.2--1 ppm combined N, 0.01--0.04 ppm P, 0.1--0.3 ppm K (Sugawara, 1963; Civil Eng. Soc. Japan, 1972, 1973). The total a m o u n t of annual precipitation in the whole c o u n t r y is estimated to be 6.3 X 1011 m 3 , corresponding to 1.7 X 104 ton per ha annually. From this value the a m o u n t of input into arable land per ha can be obtained (Ukita et al., 1972; Civil Eng. Soc. Japan, 1972; Takeuch and Hasegawa, 1974). On average, the following values may reasonably be adopted; N: 5 kg, P: 0.2 kg, K: 4 kg.

Irrigation water. The quality of water in irrigation streams has fluctuated greatly in recent years. Therefore average values for water quality were calculated from the data on non-polluted water quality before 1960 and on polluted water quality after 1960 (AAF, 1969). The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry reported in 1969 that about 6% of paddy fields were being damaged to a greater or lesser extent by polluted water, a large part of which was eutrophic water (MAF, 1970). Therefore, the average value of irrigation water quality in the whole country was obtained by summing the t w o components of polluted and non-polluted water quality, multiplied by each irrigation area. The average a m o u n t of water used to irrigate paddy fields is estimated to be 15 000 t ha -~ y-~. Irrigation for upland is estimated to be 6000 t ha -~ y-~ (Kano, 1962) and the water quality is assumed in this report to be an average value for nonpolluted irrigation water. These data are shown in Table 56. TABLE 56 Mineral nutrient content and annual influx of irrigation water

Non=polluted water (ppm) Polluted water (ppm) Influx into paddy (kg ha-' )* Influx into upland (kg ha-' )**

N

P

K

0.32 12.54 16.5

0.01 0.2 0.4

1.64 4.11 27

1.8

0.0

10

*Including 6% of polluted water. Annual water influx: 15 000 t ha -1. **Non-polluted water only. Annual water influx: 6000 t ha-'.

N2 fixation. Atmospheric nitrogen is fixed in arable land mostly by bluegreen algae, legume-rhizobium symbiosis and free living micro-organisms. N2 fixation by blue-green algae was reported to be 0.4--0.5 mg kg -1 soil in the laboratory (Okuda and Yamaguch, 1956). In field experiments, using l SN,

170

Tolypothrix tenuis f i x e d o n average 2 2 . 5 kg N h a -1, o f w h i c h 4.8 kg h a -1 was a b s o r b e d b y rice p l a n t s (Nishigaki e t al., 1951). T h e increase o f y i e l d (rough rice) was 11.2% o n average in field e x p e r i m e n t s a t nine A g r i c u l t u r a l Experim e n t S t a t i o n s in 1 9 5 2 - - 1 9 5 6 ( W a t a n a b e , 1965). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , l o n g - t e r m e x p e r i m e n t s indicate t h a t t h e a m o u n t o f N2 f i x a t i o n in p a d d y fields w o u l d be 2 0 - - 5 0 kg N h a -1 ( W a t a n a b e , 1971), even t h o u g h t h e e s t i m a t i o n was m a d e f r o m i n d i r e c t evidence. N2 f i x a t i o n b y l e g u m e - r h i z o b i u m s y m b i o s i s in u p l a n d s is e s t i m a t e d t o be 1 0 0 kg N h a -~. N2 f i x e d b y free-living m i c r o - o r g a n i s m s is e s t i m a t e d t o be 20 kg N h a - 1 in u p l a n d s and 5 kg N h a - 1 in forests, e v e n t h o u g h we h a v e n o direct determinations.

Run-off. Earlier J a p a n e s e r e p o r t s ( W a t a n a b e , 1 9 7 2 ; H i r o s h i m a Agric. E x p t . Stat., 1 9 7 2 ) reveal t h a t loss o f n u t r i e n t s f r o m u p l a n d b y r u n - o f f , o n average, TABLE 57 Leaching ratios Leaching from fertilizer applied (leaching from nonfertilized plot was subtracted) (kg ha -1)

Leaching from fertilized plot (leaching from nonfertilized plot was not subtracted) (kg ha -1 )

N

N

P

K

P

Soil type

Reference

K #

Paddy 1.2 18.0

---

9.1 3.7

0.5 --

---

7.4 31.0

---

---

reductive oxidative

--

28.5

--

--

oxidative

--

31.7

--

--

semi-wet, even Irizawa and Yamane, in off-season } 1963

--

3.4

28.7

--

0.7

31.6

weakly aged } (akiochi) I Tokai-Kinki Natl. strongly aged Agric. Expt. Stat., (akiochi)

} Okuda, 1960 Civil Eng. Soc. Japan, 1972

1 9 6 9

Upland

33.1

<0.1

2.7

82 47 53 67

tr tr tr tr

40.4

0.04

54 11 21 45 9.7

sand soil sandy loam red soil ando soil citrus orchard

( t

Natl. Hort. Expt. Star., 1967 Funabiki et al., 1963

171 is as follows: inorganic N, 0.3 kg ha-l; P, 0.1 kg h a - ' ; and K, 2 kg h a - ' . Run-off from paddy fields due to over-flow of the water used to flood them is not negligible. The discharge of the fertilizer elements by the overflow often occurs just after puddling and/or top dressing, especially when heavy rain comes at these times. The amounts of nutrient elements lost in this way from paddy fields was estimated as follows: N, 0.7 kg h a - ' ; P, 0.01 kg ha-l; and K, 0.7 kg h a - ' .

Leaching by percolation. Almost all of the measurements for leached nutrients were made with lysimeter experiments. Table 57 shows several results obtained in Japan on the ratio of leached nutrients to fertilizer nutrients applied. Denitrification and volatilization. Direct measurements for denitrification and volatilization are very few, and values for them have been estimated from the difference between input and output in the nitrogen balance. Recently the extent of denitrification in paddy fields was measured by the use of ~SN, and the measurement showed that during one rice-growing season denitrification amounted to 67.5 kg N ha -~ in an N-fertilized (50 kg N ha -1) plot, and 46.4 kg N ha -t in a non-N-fertilized plot (Nishigaki, 1951; Watanabe, 1965). Other experiments also showed that 'SN-labelled ammonium sulphate applied to a paddy field lost about 30% of its m'trogen during 40 days (MAF, 1970). Upland fields produce gaseous nitrogen compounds: N2, N20, NO2 and NH3. The latter two are produced especially under intensive fertilization. Laboratory and field experiments (Ida and Mori, 1971) in Japan showed that the amount of denitrification and volatilization from heavily dressed soil (50 mg N applied per 100 g dry soil) during a 2-week incubation period was 10--30 mg N per 100 g soil, corresponding to 20--60% of the added nitrogen. In non-fertilized soils, the loss was 4--6 mg N per 100 g dry soil. These values indicate that about 100 kg N ha -1 y-i would be lost by denitrification and volatilization. This value is considerably larger than has been supposed. If this is true in general, then the amount of nitrogen fixation currently assumed would be too much of an underestimation. Therefore, in the following chapters where the nitrogen balance is calculated for each cropping system, the amount of denitrification and nitrogen volatilization is taken to be 70 kg N ha -1 for paddy fields and 30 kg N ha -1 for upland. 6. 8.2. Paddy rice Classification. Intensive arable. Reference: Yatazawa-1; Paddy rice, Japan, Table 58. According to the statistics of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF Agric. Economic Bureau, Statistics Inf. Sew., 1973), average consump-

172

TABLE 58 System type: Intensive arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y-~ )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . Y a t a z a w a - 1

P a d d y rice, J a p a n

Nutrient

N

P

K

-96 --96

-21.9 --21.9

-131 --131

--

--21.9 --

131 --

21.9

131

Changes in amount of plant component SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

96 ---6 9

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

--

0

0

Changes in amount of animal component SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3.

4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p . u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and floodlng ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19.

Output by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20. 21. 22. 23.

Output Output Output Output

28. 30.

Output by organic matter, removed by run-off Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant . . . . . TOTAL

by by by by

volatilization of ammonia ........ leaching .................... run-off of available nutrients ...... dust ......................

17 5 --178

--2.6 45.0 --0.3 0.2 --48.1

13 74 --27 4 --118

70

--

--

-0.9 0 --

-22 1 --

20 96 40

-20 1 -.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

.

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

96 187

21.9 22.8

131 154

-

25.3

-36

9

173

TABLE 59

System

type: Intensive arable

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -I y-1 )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Yatazawa-2

Upland rice, wheat, barley, sweet potatoes, pulses, weighted means, Japan

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t 29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

seeds or seedlings ............... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3.

4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

P

K

-88 --88

-i2.1 --12.1

-70 --70

--88 --

--12.1 --12.1

--70 --

of plant component

SUPPLIES:

Changes in amount

N

88 0

70

0

0

of animal component Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... Output by losses from manure to air, before application ......................... Output by m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

of total soil component

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . . by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... 65 N-fixation .................... 55 application of litter, sludge and waste . -irrigation and flooding ........... 2 dry and wet deposition ........... 5 by plant products remaining on field . . -by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL 127

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

30

. .

.

. . -37.7 --0 0.2 --37.9

. 62 --10

4 -76

0 --88 137

--0 0.1 --12.1 12.2

19 1 --70 91

-i0

25.7

- 15

19

--

174

T A B L E 60 System type: Intensive horticulture

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows ( u n i t s : k g h a - '

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Y a t a z a w a - 3

y-i )

Vegetables, Japan, mean of ten vegetables (specialities e x c l u d e d )

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer I n p u t by

seeds or s e e d l i n g s . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . 162 b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... -TOTAL 162

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d c r o p s . . . T r a n s f e r by g r a z i n g o f f o r a g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by p r i m a r y p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

. .

.

. .

--162 -162 0

. . . . 22.7 . . . . -22.7 --22.7 --22.7

193 -193 --193 -193

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1. 2. 3. 4.

REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed f o r l i v e s t o c k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l i t t e r used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure .................... T r a n s f e r by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES- REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . . . by d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 N-fixation .................... 20 a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . -irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . 2 dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . 5 b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . . . b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL 285

Output by denitrification ................ O u t p u t by volatilization of a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

. . . . . . . . 79.9 --0 0.2 . . . . . 80.1

206 --10 4 220

30 -77 0 --

--0.1 0.1 --

162 269

22.7 22.9

193 257

-16

57.2

-37

.

--

--62 2 ---

175

TABLE

61

System type: Intensive horticulture

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : kg h a - '

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Y a t a z a w a - 4

Citrus, apple, pear, p e a c h , grape a n d persimmon, Japan

Nutrient

y-' )

N

P

K

-82 --82

--

--

10 --10

70 --70

--82 -82

--10 -10

--70 -70

0

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or s e e d l i n g s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products .............. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . Transfer by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1. 2. 3. 4.

REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

I n p u t by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l i t t e r used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d c r o p s by grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by application of m a n u r e and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n ' t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. !5. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by I n p u t by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . . . . b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . . . . application of manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 48 N-fixation .................... 20 -a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . . . . i r r i g a t i o n a n d flood{ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dry and wet deposition ........... 5 0.2 b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . --by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --TOTAL 229 48.2

Output by denitrification ................ O u t p u t by v o l a t i l i z a t i o n o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... O u t p u t by o r g a n i c m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

82 173

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

56

143 -4 --147

30 -61 0 --

--0.1 0.1 --

--43

--

--

--

10 10.2 38

2

-70 115 32

176

TABLE 62 System type: Intensive arable

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha-'

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Yatazawa-5

Forage crop, Graminae-legume mixture, Japan

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t 29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b y net u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

P

K

-175 --175

-15 --15

-145 --145

--175 -175

--15 --15

--145 --145

0

0

0

- -

of animal component

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... Output by losses from manure to air, before applmation ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste Transfer by droppings ongrazed areas ....... TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

N of plant component

SUPPLIES:

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

y-' )

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

-.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f t o t a l s o i l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

---100 80 --5 --185

---45.8 ---0.2 --46

---106 ---

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL

20 -3 ---175 198

--0 ---15 15

--3 ---145 148

-13

31

-38

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

4 --110

177

TABLE

63

System type: Intensive horticulture

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -l y-: )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Yatazawa-6

Tea plants, Japan

Nutrient

N

Changes in amount SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

P

of plant component

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y ~..azing o f f o r a g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

.

.

.

. . 137 --137

SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... Output by losses from manure to air, before a vplic~tion~[i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . uutpu by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

7.

.

.

. 11 --11

.

. 58 --58

58 --

137

--11 --11

0

0

0

137 --

--

58

of animal component

1. 2. 3. 4.

8. 9.

.

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

K

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in amount SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

of total soil component

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . . by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . application of manure ............ 132 fertilizers .................... 161 N-fixation .................... 20 application of litter, sludge and waste . -irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... 5 by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing ............... TOTAL 318

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients . : .... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

. .

. .

. 17.9 31.8 ---0.2 --49.9

. 24 89 --4 -117

30 -88 0 --137 255

--0 0.1 --11 11.1

--34 2 --58 94

63

38.8

23

178 tion of fertilizers in 1972 for paddy rice cultivation in Japan was N, 95.3 kg ha-l; P, 45.4 kg ha-'; and K, 74 kg ha -1. Similar statistics show that the following materials were introduced in the same year into paddy fields (on average): compost, 1679 kg ha-'; stable manure, 1815 kg ha -~ ; rice straw, 490 kg ha -~ ; and Japanese milk vetch, 38 kg ha -~. The mineral nutrient content of these materials did not vary much, and was assumed to be N, 0.5%; P, 0.07%; and K, 0.3%. In spite of the above-mentioned statistical data, organic matter introduced into paddy fields in recent years has consisted largely of shredded raw straw rather than compost and stable manure. Moreover, in a considerable part of Japan, rice straw is burnt on drained paddy fields. However, we have no statistical data on the extent of these treatments. Output of mineral elements by the harvested rice was calculated from the following data: national average yield of hulled rice in 1972, 4560 kg ha-' (MAF Agric. Economic Bureau, Statistics Inf. Sew., 1973); ratio of hulled rice:unhulled rice, 0.81; ratio of unhulled rice:straw, 0.83 (Tanaka and Ishizuka, 1963); mineral contents (Inst. Agric. Sci., MAF, 1967) of unhulled rice and straw, N, 1.1%, P, 0.29%, K, 0.3%, and N, 0.5%, P, 0.1%, and K, 1.7%, respectively; ratio of mineral content of hulled rice:mineral content of unhulled rice, N, 0.915, P, 0.403, and K, 0.539.

6.8.3. Field crops Classification. Intensive arable. Reference: Yatazawa-2; Upland rice, wheat, barley, sweet potatoes, pulses, weighted means, Table 59. Weighted means of each input and output of cropping systems with the following five crops were calculated: upland rice, wheat and barley, sweet potatoes, potatoes and pulses. Rates of fertilizer application for these crops were those (Kusano, 1974; Inst. Agric. Sci., MAF, 1974) which are accepted as standard rates of application. The amount of nitrogen fixation was obtained by summing N2 fixed by free-living micro-organisms and N2 fixed in legume cropping which occupies about 35% of the total area for field crops. Uptake of mineral nutrient elements by field crops was obtained by multiplying the average yield in 1972 by the average content (Okuda, 1960) of mineral elements.

6.8.4. Vegetables Classification. Intensive horticulture. Reference: Yatazawa-3; Mean of ten vegetables, Japan, Table 60. In this category, speciality crops were excluded. Ten kinds of vegetables were chosen from those with the largest cropping areas. Rates of fertilization

179 (Hayama and Matsumara, 1970) and nutrient absorption (Okuda, 1960) were chosen for each vegetable so as to obtain a standard yield. These values coincide well with those of other authors (Akiya, 1970). Arithmetical means were calculated. Almost all of the harvested material was removed from the cropping system. Input from organic matter was excluded, because the a m o u n t of such input is considerably smaller than that from inorganic fertilizer, and, in addition, we have no reliable statistical data.

6.8.5. Fruit trees Classification. Intensive horticulture. Reference: Yatazawa-4; Citrus, apple, pear, peach, grape and persimmon, Japan, Table 61. Rates of fertilization and mineral nutrient absorption for six major kinds of fruit tree (citrus, apple, pear, peach, grape and persimmon) were obtained from a standard publication (Kobayashi, 1963). Arithmetical means were calculated. Input from organic matter was excluded for the same reason as in vegetable cropping. Supply of mineral nutrients from irrigation water was also omitted, because the influx of irrigation water is very small.

6.8.6. Forage crops Classification. Intensive arable. Reference: Yatazawa-5; Forage crop, Graminae-legume mixture, Japan, Table 62. The average rates of fertilization and mineral nutrient absorption are based on statistics (AFF, 1966) from stratified samples taken throughout the country, at a yield of 35 t ha -1 which is the national average for a Graminaelegume mixed culture.

6.8.7. Tea plants Classification. Intensive horticulture. Reference: Yatazawa-6; Tea plants, Japan, Table 63. The rates of fertilizer application and nutrient absorption are based on standard data at a yield of 9300 kg ha -1 (Nishikawa, 1960). 6.9. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN AUSTRALIA (C.H. Williams, P. N e w b o u l d and M.J.S. Floate)

Classification.Extensive livestock system. Reference: Williams-1; Subterranean clover pastures, Australia, Table 64.

180

TABLE 64 System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y-~ )

T y p e of farm or e c o s y s t e m or type of part o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . W i l l i a m s - 1

Subterranean clover pasture, Australia

Nutrient

N

P

K

-(38.3) --38.3

-(3.4) --

(27) --

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

3.4

27

-38.3 -pm -38.3

3.4 -pm -3.4

27 -pm -27

0

0

0

Changes in amount of animal component SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

a p prl l c_tt a t ~i O nl mia. .n~u_ e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outpu by .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . 9a 9b TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

t --(38.3) 38.3

t

t

--(3.6) 3.6

--(33) 33

5.8

0.4

pm --

1.0

----

22.0 10.5 38.3

---22 4 27

t 3 3.4

0

0

0

-3

-22 4

30--100

6.3 --

--

~ t pm . . . . 63--133

-~ t pm . . 9.3

Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9.

Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . 9a

-22.0

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

--lv.5

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL

application of manure .......... 9b fertilizers ..................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing__ . . . . . . TO}TAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

pm 25--60 2--5 t t . . 38.3 65--103 (-40)--(68)

t

.

-t pm .

. 26

----

----

t t

t t

.

. 3.4 3.4 5.9

27 27 -

1

181

T A B L E 64 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S y s t e m t y p e : Extensive livestock

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -1 y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Williams-1

S u b t e r r a n e a n clover pasture, Australia

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

8a. T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . 9a. T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . 10a. I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. I n p u t by fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. I n p u t by N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13a. I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . 14. I n p u t b y irrigation a n d flooding . . . . . . . . . . . 15. I n p u t by d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n 16. T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . 17. T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction 26a. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . 27. T r a n s f e r by seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

O u t p u t by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e b y the p l a n t . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

--

--

---

---

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b.. 13b. 25. 26b.

R E M O V A L S : 17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y application a n d / o r w a s t e . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and waste . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . TOTAL T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil organic fraction O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

48

3

--

48+pro

3+pro

--

pm

pm

--

+48

+3

--

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r by fixation in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . T r a n s f e r by w e a t h e r i n g o f soil fraction . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

182 The description of the system by C.H. Williams was in the form of a personal communication to P. Newbould and M.J.S. Floate. The system concerns subterranean clover pastures grazed only b y sheep for wool and meat production. It applies particularly to yellow podsolic soils formed on granodiorite in the Crookwell district of New South Wales (average rainfall, 840 mm) and stems initially from studies by C.M. Donald and C.H. Williams. Many of the values must be regarded as tentative as there was insufficient time to study adequately all of the literature available. The figures are average values based on a grazing intensity of 5 sheep ha- 1 b u t it must be remembered that plant production can vary greatly from year to year depending on seasonal conditions, and that stocking rates and stock managem e n t can vary appreciably from farm to farm. The a m o u n t of nitrogen fixed by the clover, for example, varies with clover growth, which can vary from year to year depending either on the total rainfall or on the autumn seasonal conditions as they affect clover germination relative to that of the associated grasses. Item 20 must be regarded as highly tentative as it is based on very preliminary data (Denmead et al., 1974). Values of the other items are based on studies by Donald and Williams, 1954; Williams and Donald, 1957; Fels et al., 1959; Williams and Lipsett, 1960; Bromfield, 1961; Vercoe, 1962; Simpson, 1962; Arnold et al., 1964; Williams, 1968, 1970.

6.10. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN THE U.S.A. (G.W. Thomas and J.W. Gilliam) This section contains a review of climate (6.10.1), soils (6.10.2), agricultural systems (6.10.3), fertilizer use (6.10.4), nutrient inputs and outputs (section 6.10.5) and nutrient losses via water and air (section 6.10.6) of the different regions and main products of the United States. Section 6.10.7 contains nutrient balances for the eight most important products, attributed to specific localities.

6.10.1. Climate The climates of the United States greatly affect the losses of nutrients from soils. These effects are strongest in the case of soluble nutrients such as nitrate, b u t potassium and phosphate are also affected. The t w o climatic factors which most directly affect nutrient loss from softs are precipitation and temperature. Values used in the figures are taken from Climate and Man (U.S.D.A., 1941). The description of climates is from N.O.A.A. (1974).

6.10.1.1. Precipitation Yearly distribution of precipitation and mean annual values vary greatly as one moves across the United States from west to east. For the purposes of this discussion, the United States will be divided into the following regions:

183

C°~I{

Fig. 19. Climatic regions of the United States.

the Pacific Coast, the Intermountain States, the Great Plains, the Northeast, the Southeast and Florida (Fig. 19).

Pacific Coast. Fig. 20 shows annual rainfall distribution for three locations on the Pacific Coast. In general, rainfall amounts decline from north to south, although temperatures change less with latitude than in any other part of the country. In all cases, rainfall is almost nil during the months of July and August and highest in the months of January, February and December. Thus, most of the rain comes at a time when evapotranspiration is the lowest. The effect of this rainfall distribution is to move any soluble salts from the soil surface to some depth dependent on the soil water content and the a m o u n t of water that falls on the soft. Along the upper Pacific Coast, the rainfall is well above the sum of soil water and evapotranspiration during the months of November--March. In addition, in much of the area, irrigation is practised during the summer so that the soil is n o t seriously deficient in water b y the time the fall rains occur. In both of these cases, loss of soluble nutrients from the r o o t zone of the soil is expected. From the standpoint of nutrient loss by leaching,, the rainfall distribution on the Pacific Coast is the most serious encountered in the United States. Loss of nitrate is tempered only by the generally low rainfall found in the more southern part of the region. Examples of such losses are the severe sulfur deficiencies of northern California (Jones et al., 1968) and Oregon (Chao et al., 1962). However, very little in the way of nitrate losses has been reported in the Northern Pacific Coast region.

184

30 •\

t! Astoria

/

o/'4

/i

cm/mo 10

IL lego "0

\ o b~e o/

•/ |

J FMAM

J JA Month

ND

SO

Fig. 20. Monthly precipitation for three Pacific Coast locations (Astoria, Oregon; Yosemite and San Diego, California).

Intermountain West. Except for the high mountains (where only grazing is practised), the precipitation in the intermountain region is too low to remove salts from soils. Examples of precipitation for three western locations are shown in Fig. 21. The peaks for precipitation occur at different times of the year in each place; May--June in Montana, July--August in Colorado, and September, October and December in Arizona. However, all peaks are small, and normal rainfall does not approach the potential evapotranspiration. Rainfall throughout the region varies from about 15 to 35 cm per year except on the mountain peaks. The fact that agriculture survives is due to the precipitation failing on the mountains, which is used as irrigation water in the high

4

/ :ouo

5

Rainfall, cm/mo

O~ O

J

3 2

,./o:o

/

~/~

o

V V"o

,,~{', /

,-o\tvlanossa/ • ~'¢" ,'~, "~,' //

\~

~

A

~-- ®',/ 2 /

,b: \ /IP h o e n i)",l/ x

'1

®" .

0 0",

\ ,

~

L L °~ el

J FMAMJ

I/" t

I

I

I°

J ASOND Month

Fig. 21. Monthly precipitation for three Intermountain West locations (Missoula, Montana; Manassa, Colorado; and Phoenix, Arizona).

185

valleys. Any leaching of soluble nutrients is due to irrigation rather than precipitation. The Great Plains. The Great Plains from Canada to Mexico have a distinctive rainfall pattern which is almost the mirror image of the rainfall on the Pacific Coast. Although rainfall amounts vary from a b o u t 40 to 75 cm per year, the pattern is represented b y all three locations in Fig. 22. Winter precipitation is almost non-existent, and summer rainfall on average is sufficient for reasonably good crop growth. The summer rainfall is caused by the collision of warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico with cold fronts from the Arctic. Because of wide differences from year to year, average rainfall can be misleading. For example, during the years from 1962 to 1975, higher than normal rainfall has been the rule and the Great Plains have prospered. The unevenness of rainfall also affects nutrient leaching from soils. Because of the summer rainfall pattern, no large losses of nitrate would be expected, b u t years of excessive rainfall move nitrate to greater depths than evaporation affects, and thereafter the nitrate moves slowly b u t steadily downwards until either an underground aquifer or an impermeable layer is reached. Thus, either groundwater or a flowing spring is affected by nitrate (Power, 1970). The Northeast. The Northeast (including the eastern cornbelt) lies entirely within the humid region of the United States. Yearly rainfall varies between 75 and 100 cm and is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year (Fig. 23). In the more western area, rainfall tends to be lower during the winter, b u t as one moves toward the Atlantic Coast, the only noticeable dip in rainfall occurs in the late fall. Because evaporation is relatively low, there is an excess of water varying from about 25 cm in Illinois to about 50 cm in New England every year. This water is available for removing nutrients from the soil.

10

o~(~nand Island

Rainfall, cm/mo

I0C 7~ Rainfall,

o(,|>oManaan

Cj

x° o.

' F ' M ' A MI j ' I j ' A S' , O ~ N D Month

,, _ ur'Dana Q

Sp~ngfield • / \e /

"

/,~" ° ®"~ °'°-~ ~ /~Youngstown "\~'o ©

2.~ C J , F~M~A~M'J JJ ~A S~O , J N D , Month

Fig. 22. Monthly precipitation for three Great Plains locations (Mandan, North Dakota; Grand Island, Nebraska; and Lubbock, Texas). Fig. 23. Monthly precipitation for three Northeast locations (Urbana, Illinois; Youngstown, Ohio; and Springfield, Massachusetts).

186

I Little R o c k a..eR . • 12.5~-o ~\?x~ e / \ aJelgn 5 10.01- ',,~ I/_ r ~ . _

~,

I/-

X £';

RoJofo,,

cm/mo 7 ,=L" ~''.asnv,, ~ ~'',e ~ - " " ~ \, /~~/ /. . / 5C 2.E Cj

I

I

~

I

I

E

k

I

I

h

FMAMJ J A S O ND Month Fig. 24. Monthly precipitation for three Southeast locations (Little Rock, Arkansas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Raleigh, North Carolina). The Southeast. The Southeast is very much like the Northeast in precipitation except that yearly rainfall is higher (100--125 cm) and that more of the rain falls in the winter (Fig. 24). There is a distinct dry period during September-November in all of the Southeast and there is a tendency for more rain to fall in the winter in the areas west of the Appalachian mountains. In this midsouth region, the warm, moist Gulf air meets Arctic cold fronts in the winter, much like they are met on the Great Plains during the summer. East of the mountains (Raleigh, North Carolina), less effect is seen. Another sharp difference between the Atlantic Coast and the Continental portion of the Southeast, is the sharp rise in shower activity away from the coast during March-May. This is analogous to the increase in rainfall in the Great Plains, and is most often due to huge thundershowers often accompanied by tornadoes. Because of the high winter rainfall, there is ample water to move soluble nutrients o u t of soils in most of the Southeast. Water available for leaching varies from a high of 50 cm to a low of 2 5 cm, about the range found in the Northeast. However, the difference is that more excess water is available in the Mississippi Valley and less along the Atlantic Coast, just the reverse of the situation in the Northeast. Florida. Florida stands b y itself climatically. It has very high rainfall which occurs almost exclusively in the summer (Fig. 25). Thus, the pattern of rainfall is much like that in the Great Plains, b u t the amounts are even greater than those in the Southeast as a whole. The low winter rainfall in Florida results from the infrequent penetration of Arctic air b e y o n d northern Florida in the winter. The high summer rainfall is a result of the evaporation of water from the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean and the rising hot air from the land surface of Florida. This effect triggers thousands of local thundershowers on summer days throughout Florida. Although the average rainfall is very

187

25 Rainfall,

/1.4ia mi -

20

o / /:#'~"X

#:~ \

lc/o/ ,,ohossoe\ ? 5 *-*/e' o

°-°~ e

J FMAMJ J SOND Month

Fig. 25. Monthly precipitation for two Florida locations (Tallahassee and Miami).

high, the year-to-year variation is also great because of the small average size of each thundershower. Since most rain in Florida occurs in the summer, the net water available for nutrient leaching is somewhat smaller than in the rest of the Southeast. However, because of the year-to-year variation in rainfall, it is difficult to predict exactly h o w much leaching will occur. Another factor which increases leaching in Florida is the generally sandy soils with low water-holding capacity.

6.10.1.2. Temperature Temperature affects nutrient losses in several ways: b y affecting the rate of oxidation of soil organic matter, b y determining the duration of plant growth and b y determining which plants will be grown. Mean annual temperatures for the 48 conterminous United States are shown in Fig. 26. This figure shows that there is a minimum of 4.5°C for the northernmost states and a maximum of over 21°C along the southern border. The Van 't H o f f rule indicates that for each 10°C rise in temperature, the rate of chemical reaction will double or triple. Jenny (1930) has shown fairly good correspondence with this rule for organic matter decomposition in soils of temperate regions. This implies that, if there is sufficient substrate present, the decomposition of organic matter and concurrent mineralization of organic nitrogen and phosphorus will proceed faster as one moves towards the south. There is one problem in this approach, however, -- the generally lower a m o u n t of organic nitrogen and phosphorus present in southern soils. In cases such as organic soils there is no question that Van 't Hoff's rule applies. Comparison of work done in Ontario, Canada by Nicholls and MacCrimmon (1974) and that done in Florida b y Hortenstine and Forbes (1972) shows that much more nitrate and orthophosphate was formed under the Florida conditions.

188

Fig. 26. Mean annual temperatures in the United States.

The length of the growing season varies from 100 days along the northern border to 365 days at the tip of Florida. Over the largest part of the United States, the growing season is 140 days or longer. In these areas, the growth of corn and other summer crops is practised. Typically, the soil is deficient in water and nutrients during the months of July, August and September, b u t during the months of May, June and October mineralization of nitrogen occurs, making losses by leaching possible if rains occur. During the winter, over the humid part of the United States, nitrate oxidized during the warm season is subject to leaching, b u t nitrification of more nitrogen occurs only infrequently. Further south, below the 15.5°C mean annual temperature line, mineralization of nitrogen can occur most of the year, and in the humid part of the country severe losses can be expected. In the extreme northern part of the country, softs freeze solid so that leaching does n o t occur during the winter. However, as soon as the ice melts in the spring, any nitrate in solution is subject to movement. Crop selection is also governed by temperature, with the effect of changing both uptake of nutrients and fertilization rates. In general, corn receives the highest rates of fertilizer, followed b y c o t t o n and wheat. Corn is grown mostly between the 4.5°C line and the 15.5°C line, b u t wheat is grown at all latitudes. The distribution of these crops is treated at length in other sections.

189

6.10.2. Soil characteristics of the various climatic regions This section will be devoted to explaining the soil differences within and between climatic regions of the United States. Major emphasis will be placed on soil properties which most strongly influence nutrient loss and/or accretion. Of necessity, this section is over-simplified so that general conclusions can be drawn.

6.10.2.1. Pacific region Soils used in agriculture in the Pacific region can be divided into three general classes: irrigated, humid region soils and Aridisols. Much more is known a b o u t the irrigated soils than a b o u t the other t w o groups because they are used intensively for high-value crops.

Irrigated soils. The huge central valley of California, parts of southern California and areas in Oregon and Washington contain soils which are used intensively for crops. Most of these soils are formed in deep alluvium (mostly old) which comes from both crystalline and sedimentary rocks in the mountains. These soils are deep, have gentle relief, moderate to high nutrient content and nearly always have groundwater beneath them. These soil areas have received high rates of nitrogen, especially over the past 30 years, and, in addition, the native nitrate was high in some areas (Dyer, 1965). Recent work b y Californian workers (Pratt and Adriano, 1973) has shown large concentrations of nitrate deep in the soil, which is moving towards the groundwater. Since water for dilution is not obtainable, there is no way to lower nitrate concentrations of groundwater for many years, even if land use and fertilizer rates are changed. In addition to problems with nitrate, there are many soils throughout the region which are high in sodium (Storie and Weir, 1953). The largest concentration of these soils is found in the Imperial Valley on the California--Sonora, Mexico border. In this valley, drainage is poor, rainfall is a b o u t 5 cm per year and irrigation water quality is generally low. Chances for improving any of these factors are remote.

Humid region soils. Along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada range, in much of northern California and along the coasts of Oregon and Washington are found soils which receive rainfall amounts of from 60 to 225 cm per year. As mentioned in the section on climate, most of this occurs during the fall, winter and spring seasons, and there is a distinct dry period during the summer. Thus, these soils tend to lose nutrients during the rainy season when evapotranspiration is low. However, because these soils have moderate to high iron oxide contents, they tend to absorb anions (Chao et al., 1962) so that losses are lower than would be expected. In addition, because of the moderate winter temperatures throughout the region, considerable growth by plants takes place, which removes some of the potentially mobile nitrate.

190

Softs of this class are used for the very important grass and legume seed production of the northwestern U.S. Nothing has been reported about nutrient cycling under this use.

Arid soils. Soils of the deserts and near-deserts (Aridisols) in the Pacific region make up a large portion of the landscape but have almost no cultivation and very low livestock density. Since the rainfall averages only about 10 cm there is little chance for movement of nutrients to occur. Most softs are not well developed and organic nitrogen contents are very low. 6.10.2.2. Intermountain region Agricultural land in the intermountain region is of three kinds: irrigated (intensive), which makes up only a small fraction of the region (Table 65); dryland wheat, important in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana; and rangeland. In addition, a large part of the area is dominated by high mountains which furnish the water for irrigation and are grazed by some cattle and sheep during the summer. The region is one of great contrast in both climate and soils, with the largest differences being caused by elevation. Irrigated soils. Most irrigated soils in the intermountain region occur in rather old alluvium from mixed crystalline and sedimentary rocks. T h e y TABLE 65 Hectares irrigated by states and percent of land area irrigated (U.S.D.A., 1973) State

Kansas Nebraska Florida Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Washington Oregon California U.S.

Area (1000 ha) 1157 616 553 409 284 212 2790 746 1118 617 1172 333 477 415 305 496 615 2932 15847

% of area irrigated

5.4 3.1 3.6 3.0 2.3 1.2 4.0 2.0 5.2 2.4 4.3 1.0 1.6 1.9 1.1 2.8 2.4 7.1

191

receive less rainfall on average and it is better distributed through the year, so that they are less weathered than the irrigated soils in California. In most cases they are calcareous, whereas many of the California soils are not. As in the Pacific region, the softs are deep and underlain b y groundwater, but, for the most part, the irrigated valleys are smaller and less intensively used than in the Pacific region. Typical crops are small grains and potatoes in the north and c o t t o n and citrus in the south. Rainfall averages 35 cm yearly in the north to a b o u t 15 cm in the south, b u t irrigation water adds from 60 to 120 cm more depending u p o n crops and growing season. Total irrigated area in each of the states is shown in Table 65. Throughout the region, salts are a problem (Thorne and Peterson, 1954) and it is likely that an increase in nitrate will occur as in the Pacific region, since fertilization has increased very markedly in the recent past.

Dryland wheat. The foothills with gentle relief and slightly higher precipitation are used for wheat, especially in the northern half of the region. Preparation is minimal, fertilization is low, and yields generally are marginal, fluctuating wildly from year to year. Cultivation appears to have a negligible effect on nutrient losses other than by increasing erosion in some years.

Rangeland. Use of rangeland is at a very low animal density. At stocking rates of one cow to 20 ha it is doubtful that the effect can be measured. Rainfall is in the neighborhood of 25 cm per year and little nutrient loss from the soft is expected.

6.10.2.3. Great Plains region The Great Plains (Fig.19) includes many diverse climatic and agricultural systems. However, one problem that is c o m m o n to the whole region is one of inadequate and erratic precipitation. Soils formed in this region generally are productive and fertile, b u t lack of water prevents full utilization of their productivity in much of the region. Soils of the order Mollisols predominate. These soils were formed from recent material (glacial till and aeolian deposits) under grassland vegetation. Precipitation ranges from 50 to 75 cm per year on average, b u t distribution and dependability from year to year are worse than in any other region o f the United States. For example, Victoria, Texas received its annual rainfall average in two days in 1967 (Thomas, 1967). This erratic rainfall has t w o consequences which favor nitrogen loss from soils under cultivation. In a dry year, nitrogen is n o t used by the crop in high amounts. If this is followed b y a wet year, nitrogen is moved o u t of the soil. Data from southwestern Iowa (Burwell et al., 1976) show this conclusively. Irrigation is practised to a considerable extent in Nebraska, Kansas and Texas (Table 65). In all three areas, it can be expected that nitrate will be moved o u t of the soil towards the ground water even farther than b y natural rainfall alone. However, the average concentration will be lower.

192

6.10.2.4. The northeastern region The northeastern region must be divided into two general soil regions. From Ohio west, the corn belt softs are generally higher in organic matter and in nutrients than soils further east. They also are more likely to be in cultivation. Fertilizer nitrogen use is many times higher (Fig. 27) because of this. In the eastern part, agriculture is important only in the middle Atlantic States.

N Ap

>3O 20-30 10 - 2 0 5 -10 < 5

"

I

I

Fig. 27. Fertilizer nitrogen use in the United States.

Corn belt. Soils in the corn belt are mostly Mollisols with some Alfisols.Most of these soilshave developed in recent material under s w a m p y conditions which no longer exist because of an extensive system of both underground and surface drainage developed during the past 150 years. These soils are characterized by fairlyshallow water tables, dark surface horizons and level topography. Cultivation and rotation with legumes provided the nitrogen which produced the vast amounts of corn grown there until 15 years ago. Johnson et al. (1975) have shown that even with the largestuse of nitrogen in the United States, the amounts of nitrogen removed in crops exceed fertilizationrates in most years. Nitrogen losses have been high since the area was settled,and they are probably rising.Data in Table 66 show that rivers draining Illinois,Missouri and Iowa were far higher in nitrate in 1907 than were streams from the Southeast.

193 TABLE 66 Average NO3-N in rivers during 1907 (Dole, 1909) State

River

NO3-N (ppm)

Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Missouri Iowa Iowa

Big Vermillion Embarrass Fox Illinois Kaskaskia Little Vermillion Missouri Des Moines Iowa

2.71 1.71 1.10 1.76 1.56 2.71 0.65 0.75 0.63

Virginia Alabama North Carolina North Carolina Virginia Kentucky

James Alabama Cape Fear Neuse Dan Kentucky

0.07 0.16 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.56

6.10.2.5. Middle Atlantic States and New England Most soils in this area are Alfisols with some Spodosols (Podzols). These softs are medium to low in nutrients, including nitrogen, but in m a n y areas have been made highly fertile by long fertilization. Because of the low density of cultivated crops, water quality deterioration due to agriculture has n o t been a general problem. However, in some concentrated agricultural regions such as Connecticut, the imports of feed and fertilizer have greatly increased both phosphorus and nitrogen according to Frink (1969). Probably the greatest potential problem in the area is sedimentation of lakes by soil erosion and resultant eutrophication of the waters. Another problem is the pollution of water by the heavy population density and its resultant effects on agriculture. 6.10.2.6. The Southeast region Soils of the Southeast are dominated by the Ultisols, with important areas of Alfisols and Inceptisols. Many Ultisols have important properties which affect nutrient cycling. Ultisols. Ultisols of the southeastern U.S. were so low in nutrients before cultivation, that m a n y of them are accumulating nutrients (on a relative basis) faster than other softs in the United States. Although fertilizer use began earlier on them than on any other soils in the U.S., the heavy use of nitrogen has occurred only in the last 25 years. A high proportion of these softs in the Piedmont and Limestone Valley have subsurface horizons high in iron oxides which adsorb anions. Phosphate is adsorbed so tightly that essentially

194

no loss of added phosphorus occurs (Ensminger, 1954); sulfate is held with intermediate tenacity (Kamprath et al., 1956) and nitrate is held only loosely. However, nitrate is held strongly enough in many softs for it to lag behind the water front as winter leaching occurs (McMahon and Thomas, 1974). Under conditions where cultivated summer crops are grown (such as continuous corn) there is probably little effect of this nitrate adsorption on the nitrate content of water percolating from these softs. That is, the systems come to a steady state. However, when winter cover crops or small grain crops are grown, there tends to be a conservation of nitrate in these soils. Where rotation between grain and pasture crop is practised, the nitrate is simply not easily lost since it is taken up by the (usually) unfertilized forage crop. Examples of the long-lasting effect of nitrogen fertilization on red softs have been found by Boswell and Anderson (1964) and b y us (G.W. Thomas, unpublished work, University of Kentucky, 1970).

6.10.2.7. Soils with unusual properties Two types of soils which strongly affect waters in areas where they are found are presented below. These effects are of interest because of the unc o m m o n l y high amounts of nutrients lost, b u t also because they represent healthful, prosperous regions where people have not suffered the supposed ravages of high nutrients in waters.

Organic soils (Histosols). Soils which contain more than 20% organic matter occur mostly on the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, the Lake States and the Pacific Coast (Buol, 1973). In every area in which they occur, rather intensive use is made o f some of them for high value crops such as sugar cane, potatoes, vegetables, corn and soybeans. These softs were formed as a result of swampy conditions, and drainage is practised in all cultivated areas. As a result of the cultivation and drainage of organic soils, the organic matter may be rapidly oxidized. Although C : N ratios are wide (about 20), the total nitrogen mineralized from such soils can be very high (Hortenstine and Forbes, 1972), at least under Florida conditions. In North Carolina where such soils are extremely acid, losses of nutrients are n o t as severe (J.W. Gilliam, unpublished work, North Carolina State University, 1975). In addition, many organic soils do not hold phosphorus very strongly, and when fertilized tend to lose phosphorus (Okruszko et al., 1962). Oxidation of organic matter causes even more loss. Organic soils do not represent a large area of the United States, but, where they are found, they can profoundly affect the surface and ground waters. High phosphate soils. In Florida, Tennessee and Kentucky are found softs formed from high phosphate limestone. In these areas, both nitrogen and phosphorus losses are high because of the exceedingly fertile softs. All three areas are predominantly in grasslands, which, generally, would be expected to temper loss of nutrients. However, the phosphorus levels are so high through-

195 o u t the soil profile that b o t h grasses and legumes thrive. At their death (in winter), large amounts of nitrate are released to the soil solution. We (Thomas and Crutchfield, 1974) found that a stream draining a high phosphate area in Kentucky averaged 0.32 ppm of dissolved phosphorus and 5 ppm NO3-N over a two-year period. Both values were higher than for any other soil area in Kentucky. Very early work of McHargue and Peter (1921) showed the same trend before any fertilizer was used. Recent work (G. Lessman, unpublished work, University of Tennessee, 1975) in Tennessee showed a phosphorus content of 0.34 ppm in r u n o f f from a high phosphate soil watershed. These values for phosphorus are so high that man-made changes do n o t generally compare with them. 6.10.3. Agricultural systems

Types of farming in the United States are changing at a rate perhaps unmatched in the rest of the world. As an example, the production of soybeans in 1945 used a b o u t 4 000 000 hectares. In 1975 there were more than 21 000 000 hectares used for soybeans (U.S.D.A., 1975). Cattle production has shown a similar growth and geographical movement. Therefore, farming regions are somewhat arbitrary and transient, b u t offer a rough guide as to what is to be expected in a given area. The major types of farming in the United States follow. General information for this section was taken from Marschner (1959). 6.10.3.1. The corn belt The so-called corn belt of the Unites States includes all of the states of Iowa and Illinois and significant parts of Nebraska, Minnesota, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana and Ohio. In this region several factors combine to make the production of corn more economical than in any other part of the country. These factors are soil, rainfall and topography. The soils of the corn belt vary from Alfisols to Mollisols but, in general, are formed on y o u n g material and have moderate to high natural fertility. However, b y far the most important quality they possess is a high water supplying capacity (Shaw et al., 1972),' which usually is a combination of good soil water storage and a contributing water table. Franzmeier et al. (1973) for example have shown that t w o of the best softs for corn production in Indiana have water tables that contribute to the soil water supply. Rainfall in the region has been discussed in section 6.10.1, b u t it is worth mentioning again that in the western edge of the corn belt summer rainfall is nearly as high as in the eastern side of the corn belt, even though total rainfall is 25 cm lower. Finally, the land surface is sufficiently level for large-scale mechanized agriculture. More than a century ago, many of the original inventions which have mechanized agriculture were made in response to the o p p o r t u n i t y presented by this productive farming region.

196

~-:~ ~ ~

i'

f

Percentage of Land in C o r n > 30 °/o 20 - 30 °/o 10-20°/o 4-10°/o Fig. 28. Percentage o f land used for corn in the United States.

Hog Density < 5 ha/hog 5-10 ha/hog ~10 ha/hog Fig. 29. Density of hogs in the United States.

197

All Cattle <5 ha/animal 5-10 halanimQl ~J >10 ha/animal r--J Fig. 3 0 . D e n s i t y o f

"

~ i

all cattle in the United States.

T h e c o r n b e l t is still t h e largest p r o d u c e r o f c o r n in t h e U.S., b u t it is also t h e largest p r o d u c e r o f s o y b e a n s . S o y b e a n s are g r o w n o n land o n c e u s e d f o r oats a n d h a y a n d t h e i r c u l t i v a t i o n was m a d e possible b y t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e horse. A t p r e s e n t , t h e c o r n b e l t is a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t w o m a j o r agricult u r a l s y s t e m s . T h e first, a n d t r a d i t i o n a l c o r n b e l t agriculture, is t h e raising o f TABLE 67 Nutrient inputs and removals in Iowa N Inputs

P (1000 rot)

K

Animal manure N-fixation

408 359

99 --

Rain Fertilizer

163

--

---

681

158

347

1611

257

663

Total

316

Removals M e a t , m i l k , eggs

106

6

25

Corn

391

56

136

Soybeans

391

13

32

Total

888

75

193

198

corn and hay and the feeding of cattle and hogs. To a large extent, this system still prevails in Iowa and around the fringes of the belt proper. Thus, Iowa leads in area devoted to corn (Fig. 28), leads in hogs (Fig. 29) and stands highest in total cattle density (Fig. 30). In addition, it ranks second in fertilizer nitrogen use. From this it is apparent that nitrogen additions to the softs of Iowa are by far the highest in the United States. Table 67 shows the inputs and removals of nutrients in Iowa. A large portion of the inputs comes from animal manures. In contrast, the corn-soybean cash crop rotation used especially in Illinois is likely to lose nutrients from the farm since most of the grain is exported rather than fed (Johnson et al., 1975). As a general rule, the second type of operation is becoming more c o m m o n as cattle are raised and fattened away from the corn belt and as hogs become relatively less important. The cash grain system has become more popular as prices of grain have risen relative to meat prices. 6.10.3.2. The Great Plains The Great Plains are similar to the corn belt topographically, and softs are just as fertile with the exception of nitrogen. What is lacking in the Great Plains is rainfall. However, since the limited rainfall is concentrated in the spring (Fig. 22) the production of wheat has been successful. Wheat is grown from Canada to Texas, mostly for export, not only from the area, b u t from the United States. Fertilizer use is moderate, b u t so are yields so that only the vast area accounts for the large wheat production. Mechanization is on a much larger scale even than in the corn belt. Other crops which are important are corn, grain sorghum, cotton, potatoes, flax, alfalfa and sugar beets. Most corn and sugar beets and much of the cotton are grown under irrigation. A recent introduction to the area is beef cattle feeding on a large scale, made possible by the lack of winter rainfall. The largest units in the world are located in eastern Colorado, western Nebraska, Kansas and the panhandle of Texas. From calf and feed grain exporting regions, these areas have changed to calf and feed grain importing regions in the past 15 years. 6.10.3.3. The Southeast The Southeast contains the old c o t t o n and tobacco belts and includes much of the general farming region of Appalachia. Like most of the rest of the United States east of the 100th meridian, however, soybeans are the most important crop in the area, followed closely b y corn. In contrast to the corn belt, much more of the land is in forest, and to an increasing extent, improved pasture. Cotton now is concentrated in the Mississippi delta (Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas and Lousiana), the high plains of Texas and in irrigated valleys of Arizona and California. Tobacco is concentrated in south-central Virginia, eastern North and South Carolina, east Tennessee and central Kentucky. Peanuts are grown most intensively in eastern Virginia and North

199

Beef Cow < 10 20 >

10 20 40 40

ha/cow ha/cow ha/cow ha/cow

[[]~ i---]

Fig. 31. Beef cow density in the United States.

Carolina, southwest Georgia and southeast Alabama and on sandy softs in central Texas and Oklahoma. The largest change in the Southeast is the beef cattle "cow-calf" enterprise which has so markedly changed the looks of the landscape. Beef cow density in the Southeast is far greater than in the west and is as great as in the Great Plains (Fig. 31). Furthermore, the trend is continuing. Most of this enterprise is a result of improved pasture and hay and, unlike the corn belt, grain plays a rather small part. In some parts of the region, cattle far o u t n u m b e r people. In one central Kentucky c o u n t y (Lincoln} there are five cattle for every person (Koepper, 1975}. Inputs and removals of nutrients in Kentucky are shown in Table 68. The total values are much lower than for Iowa, but the proportional removal is lower, especially with P and K. Kentucky would be typical of the Southwest in this respect. In addition to cattle, chickens (for frying) are concentrated in the Southeast with largest numbers in Georgia, Alabama, Florida and Arkansas. Egg production, on t h e other hand, is concentrated in the Northeast and California. Hogs are an important enterprise in the Southeast, with Kentucky and Georgia the most important states (Fig. 29). This reflects the importance of corn in the two states. In general, the Southeast produces too little corn for its livestock enterprises so that it is an importing region. Soybeans are produced in excess, however, and much of the crop is exported to Europe.

200

T A B L E 68 N u t r i e n t i n p u t s and removals in K e n t u c k y N Inputs

P (10 ~ k g )

K

Animal m a n u r e N-fixation Rain Fertilizer

134 115 117 110

32 --42

120 --95

Total

476

74

215

55 31 52 9 9

3 4 2 1 1

15 11 4 9 2

156

11

41

Removals

Meat, milk Corn Soybeans Tobacco Wheat Total

A locally important enterprise is vegetables and fruits. Florida is by far the most important state in this regard, but Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Texas also are important. Crops which are important are citrus, peaches, apples, vegetables and potatoes. Forests comprise about half the area and, since most are privately owned, provide considerable farm income. This is most important in the coastal plain from Virginia to Texas, where pine for building houses and making pulpwood is a large industry. Hardwood forests in the mountains supply t h e furniture industry. 6.10.3.4. The Northeast The Northeast comprises the dairy belt of the United States, with Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Vermont being most important (Fig. 32). These areas are mostly in grass, alfalfa and corn where farmed, but forests comprise more of the land than all other uses put together. In addition to dairying and forage, there are many smaller areas of tree fruits, some tobacco and speciality crops such as cranberries in Massachusetts and dry beans in Michigan. In contrast to the other regions, the Northeast has lost cropland and not replaced it with pasture. Some states such as New Hampshire and Maine have a very small area cleared and are almost completely in forests. Other areas, such as northern Michigan and Minnesota have been cut over for timber and now are essentially used for hunting and fishing. The westernmost states in the dairy belt differ from the eastern states both in productivity and population. Wisconsin and Minnesota have large agricul-

201

Dairy C o w Density <20 ha/cow I 20 50 h a / c o w FT/;I > 5 0 ha/cow i---1 Fig. 32. Dairy cow density in the United States. rural enterprises and are n o t being inundated b y cities. However, in states such as New Jersey, the population density is as great as in western Europe and taxes and high land prices have forced much land o u t of farming and into speculative hands. The Delmarva peninsula is an interesting small area within the Northeast. It has been farmed continuously since the 1600's and is one of the finest farm areas in the United States. It is a cash grain (corn and soybeans) area, much like parts of the corn belt, and offers a great contrast with neighboring areas. However, even in that region, dairy is of great importance. 6.10.3.5. The Intermountain West Agriculture in the Intermountain West is dependent upon water collected in the mountains both for irrigation of crops and watering of livestock. Farming tends to be of a general crop-livestock nature except in the state of Arizona. There, the climate permits intensive cotton, citrus and vegetable growing. The area irrigated is n o t large, b u t the average family farm is more prosperous than in any other state. In most of the rest of the region large-scale livestock raising or fairly large irrigated farms with cash crops are the only economic farming enterprises. Small irrigated farms are limited to small grains by the short growing season, together with small areas devoted to potatoes, vegetables and sugar beets. In general, the small family farm does n o t support families without extra income. Because the area is so vast, many cattle and sheep are raised, b u t the density is extremely low (in Nevada, for example, there is only one beef cow per 100 ha). Therefore, the effects of animals on

202 nutrient cycling are almost unmeasureable except in irrigated areas, which make up only 2--3% of the land area.

6.10.3.6. Pacific region The Pacific Coast is the most diverse farming area in the United States since it produces all the products that are found in the rest of the nation and several others in addition. The heart of this region is the central valley of California which produces all the raisins and almonds, most of the lemons, prunes, apricots, canned peaches and wine and 10% of the cotton produced in the United States. In addition, there are important areas of rice, citrus, grain and vegetables. The determining reasons for this diversity are climate and people. Of these, climate is most important. It has been noted that the Pacific Coast has a Mediterranean climate, and thus many Mediterranean plants have been introduced. The diversity is also partly due to the kinds of people who settled the region. Japanese vegetable and flower growers, Italian grape growers and Texas cotton growers are examples of the groups of agriculturalists who have moved their technologies to California. In the Northwest, a similar transference has occurred in fruit and potato growing, in the grass seed business and in forestry. Perhaps the real reason for the more organized farming in the region is the fact that it has developed later than the other regions and many of their mistakes were avoided. The results of these activities are both prosperity and problems. The problems arise from the labor needs during harvest (imported from Mexico) and from local pollution problems far worse than those found in the rest of the nation. Examples are air pollution from burning grass fields, water pollution from nitrate and the building of piles of manure within city limits.

1C~United States

8

N/° 0

mtMili°nSofof 6 Nutrient 4 per Year

1950

o~P~O~__~1 f,.~/® i ~ ® . . K20 I

l

1960

I

i

..-I

1970

Year Fig.33. Consumption of fertilizer nutrients in the United States since 1950.

203

6.10.4. Fertilizer use Introduction Use of fertilizer nutrients in the United States has increased rapidly during the past 15 years (Fig.33), but it appears t h a t in most parts of the U.S., the rate applied per unit area of cropland has stabilized at levels which reflect the climatic and soil limitations to crop yield. It appears that unless a drastic change in the relationship between crop prices and fertilizer prices occurs, there will be very small changes in the amounts of nutrients applied per unit land area. Changes in the near future probably will be associated with increases or decreases in cropland used. 6.10.4.1. Rates o f fertilizer nutrients used on specific crops Corn. Corn (Zea mays L.) is grown on approximately 25 000 000 hectares in the United States (U.S.D.A., 1975). Every state except Alaska grows a significant a m o u n t of this crop. Two states, Illinois and Iowa, grow more than a third of the corn crop (9 000 000 ha) and use 13% of the nitrogen fertilizer in the U.S. Corn as a crop uses a third of the nation's total nitrogen. The average rate of nitrogen used on corn is 115 kg ha -~ (Fig. 34) and the use

United States 12E ~ °"'o/

/1,o~°

o N ~

°\o-

100 Nutrient Rate on ~ i1~11::$;~ Corn, kg/ha 501

K20 P205

2~ L

C1967

I

I

i

1970 Year

I

i

I

1974

Fig. 34. Average rates o f fertilizer nutrients used o n corn in the U n i t e d

States.

varies only by about + 15 kg ha -1 from state to state. The phosphorus rate is about 30 kg P ha -1 and has remained at near t h a t level for the past seven years. The potassium rate on corn is 67 kg K ha -1. The percentages of the U.S. total phosphorus and potassium used on corn are 36% and 43%, respectively. From the above data, it can be seen t h a t corn is the biggest single user of fertilizer of any crop grown in the United States. This is due both to its large hectarage and to the relatively high rate of fertilization used.

204

Wheat. Wheat (Triticum sativum L.) is also an extensively grown crop in the United States. Most states have a considerable area devoted to wheat, and the total hectares in wheat production are about the same as in corn (25 000 000). Two states, Kansas and North Dakota, grow a b o u t a third of the wheat grown in the United States. As contrasted to corn, most wheat is grown in a generally drier climate and because of that and lodging problems, fertilizer use is considerably lower than with corn. Average nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium rates on wheat are given in Fig. 35. The nitrogen rate is 53 kg h a - ' , a b o u t half that on corn, and phosphorus and potassium rates are also a b o u t half as high. Because of the large area devoted to wheat, however, the total use of fertilizer nutrients is high. The percentages of the total nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium used on wheat are 15%, 22% and 21%, respectively. United States 60 Nutrient Rdte on 40

Wheot,

~.Lo--~--o~o /

N o/°---'° P~Os

~-"li=~i'--~8_---e~o---=l~==~K20

kg/h8

20 t

1967'

I

19'70

I

I

1974

Yeor

Fig. 35. Average rates of fertilizer nutrients used on wheat in the United States.

Soybeans. Soybeans (Glycine max B.) are the third most important crop in terms of cropland, and usually second or third in importance economically. Soybeans are grown mostly in the midwestern and southern corn states, but hectarage is also heavy throughout the Mississippi delta. Total hectares cropped to soybeans are 20 000 000. As in the case o f corn, a b o u t a third of the crop is grown in the t w o states of Illinois and Iowa. However, Missouri and Arkansas, neither of which are important corn states, rank third and fourth in production of soybeans. Because soybeans are legumes, they show little response to fertilizer nitrogen and very little is used. Rather high rates of phosphorus and potassium are used, however. In the East North Central States, for example, the average use of N, P and K is 12, 20 and 55 kg h a - ' , respectively. In the United States as a whole, rates are similar, with N being 15 and P and K 20 and 51 kg ha -1, respectively. The percent of total fertilizer used on soybeans is 3.5% of the N, 19% of the P and 26% of the K. The sum of fertilizer used on the three main grain crops of corn, wheat and soybeans is 52.5% of the nitrogen, 77% of the P and 90% of the K. These three crops make up 70 000 000 hectares of cropland in the United States. This is approximately 54% of the harvested cropland in the country.

205

Grain sorghum. Grain sorghum (Sorghum vulgare L.) is grown widely as a corn substitute where the annual rainfall is less than 75 cm. Most of it is grown in the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska. The total area devoted to sorghum for grain is more than 6 000 000 hectares. Fertilizer use on grain sorghum has n o t been tabulated, b u t an estimate would be 70 kg N, 21 kg P and 17 kg K h a - ' . Most soils on which grain sorghum is grown suffer from some drought every year so that yield expectations are rather lower than for corn. In addition, most of the soils are well supplied with potassium, and little yield response from that nutrient can be expected. Cotton. Cotton (Gossypium spp. L.) is grown on about 5 000 000 hectares, widely scattered from North Carolina in the east to California in the west. Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas and California are the largest producing states. Because of the diversity of climates (both imposed and natural) under which c o t t o n is grown, fertilizer use differs radically. For example, in parts of Oklahoma, no fertilizer is used, whereas under irrigation in Arizona, rates as high as 140 kg ha-' are used. Average fertilizer rates for cotton over the United States are 80 kg N, 24 kg P and 35 kg K ha-'. These figures correspond to 6% of the N, 6.5% o f the P and 5.5% of the K used nationwide. When the amounts of nutrients used on the crops of sorghum and cotton are added to those used on corn, wheat and soybeans, nearly all the K, 89.5% of the P, b u t only 63% of the nitrogen is accounted for. Hay. Hay of many different types makes up a huge area of the United States. Although very sparse information is available, bermudagrass, alfalfa and clover-grass hay make up most of the 25 000 000 hectares. Few data are available a b o u t the rates o f fertilizer applied to hay crops, b u t it is a safe conclusion that most of it contains nitrogen and phosphorus. It is also safe to conclude that the average rate of fertilizer used is very low. As an estimate, perhaps 10% of the nitrogen and 5% of the P is used on hay. Other crops. A number of other crops are important locally in the United States. Examples are sugar beets, potatoes, vegetables, sugar cane, tree fruits and tobacco. While all of these enterprises oceupy small areas, they all receive rather high rates of fertilization, especially nitrogen. Tobacco, for example makes up only 5% of the cropland in Kentucky, yet uses 20% of the nitrogen. Although exact figures are n o t available, it is probable that most of the rest of the nitrogen is used on speciality crops. A last use of fertilizer (mostly nitrogen) is for home lawns. 6.10.4.2. Rates of fertilizer on a total land basis Because of the unevenness of cropping intensity in the United States, the rates of fertilizer on a total land area are quite different. Fig. 27 is a map of the United States showing rates of nitrogen on a total land basis. The states of Indiana, Illinois and Iowa have the highest use, followed by Nebraska,

206

Kansas, Ohio and Delaware. States with very low use are most of New England, West Virginia and most of the mountain states.

6.10.5. Nutrient inputs and outputs o f agricultural systems Since farming systems in the U.S. vary from monoculture row crops to livestock alone, with all combinations in between, it is meaningless to compute nutrient budgets for an average integrated farm with row crops, forage crops and livestock. The only hope of calculating nutrient budgets is to break down the farm into its separate parts and make the computation for pure monoculture systems. Once this is done, the monocultures can be put back together in any combination desired and the appropriate nutrient budgets computed. Thus, the approach here is to consider nutrient budgets for specific crops and livestock systems which are most important in the U.S.

6.10.5.1. Annual crops Agronomists have run many experiments designed to determine optimum fertilization rates and have determined rates and amounts of nutrient uptake by various agronomic crops under a wide range of conditions. Thus, the amounts of nutrients harvested with these crops at various yield levels are relatively well known for most crops. The American Potash Institute has been instrumental in compiling data of this type from various sources and Romaine (1965) gave average N, P and K contents of 35 crops at given yield levels. Although the values given are only averages, a survey of data from different areas of the U.S. on composition of corn shows remarkable similarity in composition of the harvested product (Jordan et al., 1950; Chandler, 1960; Barber, 1964). Similar composition from various areas was also true for soybeans (Hammond et al., 1951; Henderson and Kamprath, 1970). Thus, the average composition of seed crops, in particular, can be used reliably to calculate nutrient removals by crops. There are reasonably good data available from the U.S.D.A. on the application of fertilizer nutrients in particular areas to given crops and data on average yields of these crops. This information can be combined with average nutrient composition, and the amounts of harvested nutrients and fertilizer efficiency can be computed for any selected system. This approach has been used by various authors (Stanford et ah, 1960; Frink, 1969, 1970; Welch, 1972; Gilliam and Terry, 1973) to compute the potential for water pollution from fertilizer nutrients. The unfortunate aspect of this type of calculation is that only averages are obtained and, as pointed out before (Frink, 1971), there are very severe limitations to using averages for nutrient budgets. This is particularly true if one is using these average figures to predict pollution potentials, because averages for a system can indicate no problems when there are localized areas where problems exist. However, even with their limitations, average nutrient budgets serve very well to get the proper perspective, and so they will be used in the following discussion of particular crops.

Northern Indiana

N.E. Arkansas

Central Kansas

Kern Co., Calif.

Maine

Corn (grain)

Soybean (grain)

Wheat (grain)

Cotton

Potatoes

289637

35006.

1720 s

16803

67841

Yield (kg ha -1 )

1687

179'

34 s

see t e x t (p. 208)

1121

1017

14'

135

193

301

2077

--

--

373

651

804

794

364

904

852

104

134

74

104

152

P

1174

304

64

224

202

K

N

K

N

P

Nutrients harvested (kg ha -~)

Nutrients applied (kg ha -~)

I Average yields and average fertilizer nutrients applied f r o m Worden et al. (1971). 2 Based on data f r o m Indiana by Barber (1964). Data f r o m Strickland and Harwell (1971). 4 N u t r i e n t c o n t e n t f r o m R o m a i n e (1965). s Based on data f r o m Miller (1971). 6 Seed c o t t o n yields f r o m Table 9 in Pawson (1973). 7 Data f r o m Ibach and Adams (1968).

Area

Crop

Average nutrient inputs and nutrients harvested with representative i m p o r t a n t annual crops

T A B L E 69

88

1004

-2

see t e x t (p. 208)

27

N

Difference (kg ha -1 )

91

1

6

9

15

P

-6

15

45

90

-30

K

o

208

Corn. The estimated average nutrient input from fertilizer and nutrients harvested with corn grain in the northern two thirds of Indiana are shown in Table 69. Approximately one-third of the fertilizer N used in the U.S. is applied to corn, the largest concentration of corn is in the Midwest, and Indiana data are typical of this region. The average fertility of these soils tends to increase with respect to P and K under continuous corn even when the P and K lost via water removal is considered (nutrient losses in water will be discussed in a later section. However, much of this area is on a corn-soybean rotation and a lower percentage of the area planted to soybeans is fertilized. Thus the average P and K increases of the soils are smaller in a corn-soybean rotation then they would be in continuous corn. The range of N applied to give the average rate is much greater than the range of P and K rates. Annual fertilization rates of 200 kg N ha -~ are not uncommon. This has important implications with regard to N which can be lost to drainage water. Average N inputs minus N harvested with the crop for an area will underestimate the average loss of N to drainage water or through denitrification. This will be discussed in more detail later. Soybeans. As discussed above, there is less fertilizer applied to soybeans than to corn in the U.S. This is the result of the frequently observed lack of soybean yield response to fertilization in fertile soils (Chandler, 1960). The growth of soybeans results in a loss of P and K from soils to the harvested crop when they are not fertilized, and a slight increase in P and K in fertilized soybeans. The N story for soybeans is complex and interesting and may vary greatly from region to region in the U.S. It has generally been assumed that most of the N harvested in soybeans came from N fixed by the legume bacteria. However, a recent thought-provoking paper by Johnson et al. (1975) indicates that approximately half of the N harvested in soybeans in Illinois comes from the soil. They concluded that soybeans were good scavengers for inorganic N in soils. It has long been known that available nitrogen reduced symbiotic fixation of N by legumes (Allos and Bartholomew, 1955). Others (Schertz and Miller, 1972; Mathers et al., 1975) have proposed the use of alfalfa to remove inorganic N from soil to minimize leaching losses, but the idea that growth and harvest of soybeans would decrease total soil N is new. This seems very possible in soils like those of the Midwest which can supply a relatively high amount of N to a crop. However, in sandy soils of the Southeast, the net effect of growing soybeans is likely to be no change or an increase in soil N. For example, in North Carolina Henderson and Kamprath (1970) harvested 240 kg N ha -1 in soybeans and returned 47 kg N ha -1 to the soil in the unharvested plant parts. On the soil used, the a m o u n t of N returned to the soil in the plant is at least equal to, and probably greater than, the amount of mineralized N absorbed b y the plant during the growing season. It is apparent that the amount of N fixed b y soybeans is dependent

209 on soil N status; however, the accepted figure of 105 kg N ha -~ y-~ which is frequently cited (Porter, 1975) may be a good average.

Wheat. Wheat equals corn in area harvested, with the greatest concentration of wheat land in the Great Plains area. A typical average balance for this area is given in Table 69. However, it should be pointed o u t that in contrast to the average data from the Great Plains, in many other wheat areas o f the U.S. there are more fertilizer nutrients applied than are harvested with the crop. This is particularly true for N. Cotton. Cotton is produced in all of the southern states of the U.S. under a wide range of environmental conditions. These conditions range from nonirrigated dry land in Western Texas where 250 kg lint ha -~ is a good yield, to non-irrigated land in the Mississippi delta where 750 kg lint ha -~ is expected, to irrigated land in California where yields average near 1000 kg lint ha -~. The example for c o t t o n given in Table 69 is typical of crops in the irrigated west where both fertilizer inputs and expected yields are high. This poses a problem with regard to N pollution in waters leaching below these softs and in irrigation return flows. In the arid region soils, the native soil K is high and K is added in irrigation water. Thus the balance given shows a loss of K from the soft. This situation would also exist for many of the finer-textured c o t t o n softs of the Mississippi delta where no response to K fertilizer is expected. Potatoes. Potatoes are used in Table 69 t o serve as an example for vegetable crops. These crops are, almost without exception, very heavily fertilized and a relatively small percentage of the applied nutrients is harvested with the crop. Fertilizer cost is such a small fraction of the total cost of production that large amounts of fertilizers are applied in an a t t e m p t to get maximum yields. Although the values would be slightly different, a large number of high value crops could be used in the place of potatoes in Table 70. Soils which have a history of this t y p e of crop have very high contents of both total and available P and K and the potential for water contamination by N from production of these crops is very high. 6.10.5.2. Perennial crops Fertilized grazed bluegrass pasture. Typical fertilizer application to this t y p e of pasture in western North Carolina is 168--24--46 kg ha -1 y-~ of N, P and K, respectively. Unpublished data of Gilliam indicate that approximately 151--20--150 kg ha -~ y-~ of N, P and K may be harvested by the grazing cattle in the forage. However, at least 75% of the N and P and 85% of the K passes through the animal and is excreted back to the land (Peterson et al., 1956; Azevedo and Stout, 1974). This means that a net of only 38--5--23 kg ha -1 y-1 of N, P and K is removed as animal product. Under the above fertilizer regime, much of the P and K would be expected to accumulate in the soft because, as will be discussed later, only a small

210 percentage is removed in water. The nitrogen picture is much more complex, and good data are not available to determine accurately what happens to the difference between the 168 kg N added in fertilizer plus approximately 10 kg N added in the rain minus the 38 kg ha -1 net harvested as animal product. It has frequently been estimated that 50% of the nitrogen returned in the waste is lost by NH3 volatilization (Peterson et al., 1956; Stewart et al., 1975). This is a very crude estimate, however, as admitted in informal conversations with some of the authors of cited publications. A considerable amount of the N may be incorporated into the soil organic matter. This is particularly true if the land has previously been used for cultivated crops. Giddens et ah (1971) reported substantial increases in soil organic N for rescue sod following corn in Georgia. However, after a time, the soil will tend to establish a new equilibrium level of organic nitrogen. At this time, no reliable figures can be placed upon the distribution of N excreted as waste between NH3 volatilization, denitrification, and N accumulation in the soil organic matter. Forests. Nutrient cycling is much more quantitatively defined for forest ecosystems than for annual crops. There are several good publications (Cole et al., 1967; Young and Carpenter, 1967; Carter and White, 1971; Switzer and Nelson, 1975; Wells and Jorgensen, 1975) which n o t only describe the total N, P and K contained in the standing crop b u t also give the relative distribution within the various important parts of the tree. Some studies (Cole et ah, 1967; Switzer and Nelson, 1972; Wells and Jorgensen, 1975} also give the annual transfer of nutrients from the soil to the tree and loss from the tree via litter fall and leaf washing. However, here we will limit our discussion to accumulation in the tree and potential harvest of nutrients. The amounts of N, P and K contained in several tree species are given in Table 70. The differences noted in annual accumulation not only reflect differences between species b u t also soil differences. For example, Switzer and Nelson (1975) estimate that the annual N demand of natural stands of loblolly pine in Mississippi varies from 23 to 57 kg ha -1 y-I depending upon site characteristics and cultural treatment. The same ranges for P and K were 1.3--5.2 and 11--29, respectively. The amount of nutrients harvested with the tree is given in Table 71 and represents the minimum input for continuous tree culture. As shown in Table 70 there are considerably greater quantities of nutrients cycling within the forest ecosystem but this does not represent a transfer of nutrients from one system to another. The t y p e of harvest system will have a definite influence upon the amount of nutrients harvested with the tree. The a m o u n t of nutrients harvested per year of growth would be a maximum when the whole tree is harvested at a relatively early age for silage. As the age of stands increases, the likelihood that only the stem would be harvested increases. In a North Carolina stand at 16 years, the stems contained 45% of the N, 48% of the P and 54% of the K (Wells and Jorgenson, 1975). As the age of the stand increases, the proportion of elements in the stem as compared to vege-

Miss. Miss. N.C. Wash. Maine Ala.

Loblolly pine

Switzer and Nelson, 1972 Switzer and Nelson, 1972 Wells a n d J o r g e n s e n , 1 9 7 5 C o l e et al., 1 9 6 7 Young and Carpenter, 1967 Carter and White, 1971

Source

Cole et ai.,1967

Y o u n g and Caxpenter, 1967

Carter and White, 1971

Maine

Ala.

Wells and Jorgensen, 1975

Wash.

Switzer and Nelson, 1975

N.C.

Source

Miss.

Area

9

27

37

16

403

Age (years)

complete

stem

stem

stem

partial

Tree utilization

103 20 ~ 16 37 27 9

Age (years)

23

3.4

10.3

7.2

11.6

11

6

1.12

10

11.3

12

-6.6

9.2

--4.1

0.3

2.2

0.3

1.7

0.9

0.7

Hatvested

0.69 0.45 1.8 -0.4 -0

Hatvested

Fron, soil I

0.9 0.9 1.9 6.6 0.9 2.2

P Rain input

7.5 6.2 19 12 -0

N

8.5 8.7 16 24 8.3 23

4.9 4.9 10.3 14.4 3.5 17.8

Tops

K

0.3

0.1

2

0.3

0.3

Rain input (kg ha -~ y - l )

Tops Forest floor ( k g h a -1 y - l )

Tops

Forest floor

P

N

1.9

0

1.7

0.6

0.4

From soil I

1.2 0.8 1.7 5.3 -0

Forest floor

17.8

1.6

10.5

5.6

7.3

Hatvested

K

4.0

3.0

0.82

4.0

4.0

Rain input

13.8

2.4

9.7

1.6

3.3

From soil 1

i These figures assume no loss by leaching or surface run-off which is obviously incorrect. The a m o u n t lost via these mechanisms would have to be added to the figure shown, Estimates for leaching in Miss. were 8.7, 0.6 and 2.7 kg ha -I y - l for N, P and K, respectively. Esthnate$ for Wash. were 0.6, 0.02 and 1 kg ha -I y-1. 2 These figures seem low to the authors of this publication but were included as estimates in the paper f r o m which the tree data were obtained. SThe data in Table 71 are f r o m a more productive site in Miss. than the data in Table 70.

Douglas fir White birch Cottonwood

Lobloliy pine Loblolly pine

Tree

Nutrients harvested annually with trees and sdurces of nutrients

TABLE 71

Loblolly pine D o u g l a s fir White birch Cottonwood

Area

Species

A n n u a l n u t r i e n t a c c u m u l a t i o n in r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r e s t s o f t h e U . S .

T A B L E 70

tO ~=~

212

tative parts increases. However, the annual rates of nutrient harvest would d e c r e ~ e with age because accumulation rates also decrease with age. The estimated annual demand from the soil in Table 71 assumes that no nutrients leave the forest ecosystem except by tree harvest. As will be discussed later in this paper, the amounts of N, P and K lost to runoff water are low when compared to losses from cultivated fields. However, when compared to annual demand b y the harvested crop, they are significant. For example, Switzer and Nelson (1975) estimated that 4.3 kg N ha -1 y-~ leached from their system and the annual accumulation in the harvested product was 11.6 kg N ha -I y-l.

6.10.5.3. Livestock systems The average annual inputs of N, P and K to selected livestock systems are shown in Table 72. Also shown are the amounts of these elements which are harvested with the respective products and the amounts excreted as manure. The data in this Table were obtained by computing the N, P and K fed in commercial agricultural enterprises in California, the average production and the average elemental content of the product and using the difference as being excreted as waste (Branson et al., 1973). Yeck et al. (1975) used a similar approach for N and obtained reasonably comparable values. The values are also close to those reported by Weber et al. (1968) who based their data upon amounts and composition of manure excreted. However, the variations encountered in published data are considerable and the data reported in Table 72 should be considered only as reasonable approximations. The data in Table 72 showing amounts of elements per animal excreted in manure can be combined with animal numbers for any sized system to c o m p u t e the amounts of elements contained in the waste. Computations of this t y p e have been made for the U.S. (Stewart et al., 1975) and for various areas of the midwestern U.S. (Midwest Plan Service, 1975). As will be discussed in more detail later, much of the P and K excreted b y the various animals is returned to the land as manure. However, much of the nitrogen is lost to the atmosphere as ammonia or through denitrification before it can be incorporated into the soil. There have been very few nutrient budgets calculated for integrated cropanimal systems where the efficiency of the utilization of the elements excreted in the manure is considered. Frink (1969, 1970) made calculations of this type for dairy farms in Connecticut (Table 73). His data indicate that only 16, 15 and 21% of the input N, P and K respectively were exported as product. It is interesting to compare these efficiencies with those calculated for dairy farms where only feed inputs were considered and no utilization of the manure was considered (Table 72). The efficiency of utilization of N, P and K in this system was 27, 28 and 6%, respectively. Thus with regard to efficiency of utilization of input N and P, the integrated crop-dairy animal system is less efficient than a dairy system where no consideration is given to efficiency of feed production or utilization of N and P in waste. It should be

11

39

0.43 0.27 0.83 2.6

12

56

0.82 1.10 2.12 8.7

46

166

0.39 0.83 1.29 6.1

28

44

120

0.21 0.27 0.52 1.80

5

8

28

0.09 0.03 0.15 0.28

3

3

8

Product

Intake

Excreted

Intake

Product

P (kg per head)

N (kg per head)

0.12 0.24 0.47 1.53

2

5

20

Excreted

0.20 0.29 0.53 1.94

26

21

118

Intake

0.04 0.02 0.06 0.19

1

1

12

Product

K (kg per head)

0.16 0.27 0.47 1.75

25

20

106

Excreted

1 Computations made from data contained in Weber et al. (1968), Salter and Schollenberger (1939) and Yeck et al. (1975).

Dairy cows Beef (225-475 kg) Beef (113-244 kg) Chickens Broilers Layers Turkeys Market hogs I

Class of livestock

Annual N, P and K balances for livestock systems (data, except hogs, from Branson et al., 1973)

TABLE 72

~o

214

T A B L E 73 N u t r i e n t b u d g e t s for dairy farms in C o n n e c t i c u t (after Frink, 1969) N

Input Feed Fertilizer Fixation Rainfall Total Output Milk Meat Total Difference (Input - Output)

P K (kg c o w -1 y - l )

81 50 90 4 225

18 22 --40

20 42 --62

31 5 36

5 1 6

8 1 9

189

34

51

noted that if the two systems are compared only with regard to imported N (N fixed by legumes and N in rain ignored), the N efficiency of the t w o systems is nearly identical. Frink (1971) noted a relatively large effect of farm size upon the efficiency of conversion of imported N into exported protein N. When the Connecticut farms had only 0.5 ha of land per cow, the efficiency of utilization was approximately 26%. When land area per c o w increased to 1 ha, the efficiency increased to approximately 40%. These large differences were attributed to high rates of N applied to crops on farms with smaller land area per cow in ~ttempts to get maximum production or to dispose of manure. 6.10.6. Nutrient losses via water and air

Quantitative estimates of nutrients lost from agricultural systems via water and/or air involve more assumptions and are less accurate than estimates of nutrient inputs and crop removal. Certainly, significant amounts of all three elements are removed with erosion losses from soils. Walker and Wadleigh (1968) estimated that the Mississippi River which drains 317 million ha of land carries approximately 450 million metric tons of sediment annually to the Gulf. It is simple to c o m p u t e an average yearly loss of 1.4 tons ha -1 of sediment; however, this average is almost meaningless because the range in annual sediment loss is from 0.03 to 96 tons ha -1 (Ursic, 1963). Much of the sediment loss to water is from cultivated lands which are the most fertile. The recent emphasis on water quality has resulted in a large a m o u n t of research designed to determine more accurately the quantities of nutrients lost under various situations. This is true particularly for N and P which are

215

generally considered to be of more environmental concern. However, as we hope to make clear in the following discussion, there are still large gaps in our knowledge. Nitrogen is especially a problem because significant amounts can be lost from the system via a great many pathways. Because the differences between elements are more significant than the differences between agricultural systems, the following discussion is by element rather than by t y p e of system.

6.10.6.1. Nitrogen There are very few agricultural systems in North America where N is accumulating in the soil. It is well d o c u m e n t e d that large amounts of N and organic matter have been lost from our soils as a result of cultivation of native grasslands. Although a plot of nitrogen loss vs. time shows that we are near steady state or are asymptotically approaching zero loss from soils, it is probable that a small net loss of nitrogen from cultivated soils is still occurring. If this basic assumption is accepted, then nitrogen lost from agricultural systems will be equal to or slightly greater than the N input. This means that in N-fertilized systems, the fertilizer N immobilized b y soil bacteria will be approximately equal to organic soil N mineralized. This assumption can be justified and greatly simplifies N balance considerations because mineralization and immobilization then do not have to be considered even though it is recognized that they are important soil processes. Previous sections discussed N removal with the harvested products and this section will be concerned with the fate of the unutilized nitrogen. As pointed out by Keeney and Walsh (1972) in a review article, this topic has been reviewed recently in at least ten different books, papers and symposia. 6.10.6.1.1. Nitrogen lost to surface waters Cultivated crops. Some examples of recent measurements of nitrogen losses from cultivated crops to waters are given in Table 74. These data are n o t :~tended to be a complete list of available data nor were they selected to give examples of extremes measured. However, they do indicate the range of values recently seen in the literature. One problem with evaluating literature values for an overview such as we are attempting is the non-uniform methods of measurement made b y different investigators. Some (Bolton et al., 1970) measured only the NO3-N removed b y tile drains and made no measurements of losses by surface runoff. Others (Keeney, 1973) made no measurement of organic nitrogen in surface runoff and some (Schuman et al., 1973) have only measured losses b y surface runoff. Most of the nitrogen removed by surface runoff is organic nitrogen associated with the sediment. It is possible to get significant losses of inorganic nitrogen in surface runoff if heavy rains immediately follow a surface application of fertilizer to a soil (Moe et al., 1967; Kilmer et al., 1974) b u t this mechanism of loss accounts for a small proportion of N loss from softs or of the fertilizer N applied. Viets (1971) has suggested that application of N

1Only inorganic N considered.

New Hampshire West Virginia Connecticut North Carolina Oklahoma Ontario, Canada Ontario, Canada Ontario, Canada Idaho Iowa Iowa Iowa North Carolina Oklahoma Oklahoma New York California

B o r m a n e t al., 1968 Aubertin and Patric, 1974 Frink, 1967 K i l m e r e t al., 1 9 7 4 O l n e s s e t al., 1 9 7 5 B o l t o n et al., 1 9 7 0 B o l t o n et al., 1 9 7 0 Nicholls and MacCrimmon, C a r t e r e t al., 1 9 7 1 S c h u m a n e t al., 1 9 7 3 Hanway and Laflen, 1974 B a k e r e t al., 1 9 7 5 G a m b r e l l e t al., 1 9 7 5 a , b O l n e s s e t al., 1 9 7 5 O l n e s s et al., 1 9 7 5 Jones and Zwerman, 1972 B i n g h a m e t al., 1 9 7 1 1974

Geographical area

Source

forest forest forest pasture pasture corn oats, alfalfa mixed mixed corn corn corn corn irr. c o t t o n wheat corn, wheat citrus

Crop

----23 3' -25 13 6 ---

Surface drainage

15 9 -33 -6 31 21 -. 18 64

.

Subsurface drainage

Loss (kg ha-' y-' )

Examples of nitrogen loss to surface waters from forest, pasture and cultivated lands

TABLE 74

.

-

--

-

1.8 0.8 3.4 8 6 --4 --9 -46 -.

Total

11--73 --

3--12 2--10 ----3--40 0.1--22 2--62 45--48 --

Range measured

t,~

217

fertilizers might even reduce the amount of N lost by surface runoff b y promoting a good ground cover, b u t application of N fertilizer will also tend to maintain the soil organic matter content at a higher level so that similar sediment losses will result in more organic nitrogen losses from the fertilized soils. This has been observed in North Carolina (Gambrell et al., 1975b). The availability of the organic N lost to the aquatic ecosystem in the receiving waters, and the ultimate fate of the N are poorly u n d e r s t o o d (Keeney, 1973). The N certainly can cause problems b u t it is less of a eutrophication problem than entry of inorganic N into the same system. The range of NO3-N reaching surface waters via tile drains or subsurface flow is very large as seen in Table 74. Hanway and Laflen {1974) reported that some of the tile drains that they monitored in fertilized corn fields contained essentially no nitrate. We (Gambrell et al., 1975a, b) have similar observations in North Carolina on some soils. However, there are other fields with similar management where large amounts of NO3-N are removed via subsurface drainage. The difference, as will be discussed later, is probably due to denitrification. The rate of fertilizer nitrogen applied definitely has an influence upon quantities of NO3-N leaving the field via subsurface water in many fields. Obviously the lower the percentage of applied N harvested with the crop, the greater the amount available for leaching. This effect upon the a m o u n t of N lost to water has been observed by several investigators (Bolton et al., 1970; Jones and Zwerman, 1972). One problem with using average N application rates and average N availability for leaching to calculate the water contamination is that the relationship between application rate and N availability for leaching is n o t linear. For example, there would be more N lost from the system via water or air if one field received no N and a similar field had a rate of 200 kg ha- 1 than there would be if both fields received a rate of 100 kg ha- 1. Thus the difference between average applied N and average product N shown in Table 69, underestimates the potential N delivered to water. Streams draining areas of intensive fertilizer use frequently do n o t reflect any differences in NO3-N content when compared to other streams in the same region where little fertilizer is used or to concentrations in the same stream measured many years before large amounts of fertilizer N were used (Bower and Wilcox, 1969; Thomas and Crutch field, 1974). In North Carolina, we have observed (unpublished data of Gilliam) that concentrations of NO3-N in native streams draining from areas with high concentrations of well drained cultivated soils where the tile drainage waters contain 15--20 mg NO3-N liter -1 are essentially the same as the concentrations in streams from poorly drained soils where the field drains contain very little NO3-N. There seems to be no d o u b t that fertilizer use on cultivated crops and intensive agriculture increases the input of nitrogen into surface waters. However, the magnitude of this increase and the effect that this may have upon nitrogen concentrations or biological activity in streams of the region is much less clear.

218

Forage crops. The amount of unharvested nitrogen leaving land used for forage crop production has been of much less concern and thus has received less attention. This is a result of higher percentages of applied nitrogen being harvested with the crop, less sediment loss from fields in forages and the quantities of N applied to forages being small in relation to other crops. Kilmer et al. ( 1 9 7 4 ) f o u n d an annual average of 12 kg ha -1 in drainage water leaving a fertilized bluegrass watershed in North Carolina. A similar unfertilized watershed lost 3 kg ha -1. Essentially all of the nitrogen lost was in the nitrate form from both watersheds. In the bluegrass region of Central Kentucky, Thomas and Crutchfield (1974) found much higher annual losses of NO3-N (approximately 25 kg ha-l). The high fertility of these soils probably accounts for this, since little fertilizer is used. Olness et al. (1975) reported annual losses of 2 and 10 kg ha -1 of N from t w o grazed rangeland watersheds in Oklahoma. In contrast to the North Carolina data, most of the N lost from the Oklahoma watersheds was organic N. These Oklahoma authors point o u t that the average N lost from the t w o grazed watersheds was approximately equal to the amount of N entering the watersheds in rain. Forests. The N lost to drainage waters from forested land represents the minimum loss for a particular soft or region for many reasons. There is a minimum of soft loss by erosion from forests, and in the majority o f forests, N is a growth-limiting factor. Thus, there is little inorganic N present under normal conditions. Also, much of the inorganic N present is in the reduced form which does not move as readily with percolating water as nitrate. Most work has shown that forests are N-accumulating systems in that more N is added in rain than is lost in water. Recent measurements of kg N ha -~ lost annually to surface waters have measured a range of 0.8--3.4 (Table 74). Although these values are from unfertilized forests and fertilization of forests is increasing slightly (Pritchett and Smith, 1975) work in North Carolina by Sanderford (personal communication, 1975) has detected no difference in N contents of water draining from a pine forest before and after fertilization. Animal systems. Although a large amount of research on the topic of pollution effects of animal waste is currently in progress in the U.S., there is absolutely no way that anyone can make an accurate quantitative estimate of N reaching surface water from animal wastes. Nitrogen in r u n o f f water from large beef feedlots in Nebraska has been measured (Gilbertson et al., 1970; McCalla et al., 1972) and values of 3--6% of the amount excreted were reported. Robbins et al. (1971) reported that 3% of the N defecated b y hogs on dry lots in North Carolina was found in a stream draining the area. These authors concluded that even where swine were raised on dry lots very poorly located with respect to streams, less than 10% of the waste would be removed with the drainage water. Although the above-quoted figures seem relatively quantitative, t h e y are by no means the whole story. Waste from animals fed in confinement must still be disposed of in some manner. Even after the manure is applied to the land which serves as the terminal acceptor of most animal waste, there is still

219 a danger of loss of N b y surface runoff before the N becomes incorporated with the soil. It is well recognized that manure applied to frozen soils is subject to runoff losses (Midgley and Dunklee, 1945; Stewart, 1970), and this practice is discouraged throughout the U.S. However, a significant amount of N applied in manure even during the warm season may be lost (Midgley and Dunklee, 1945) via surface runoff. Another problem leading to greater losses of N from manures to water is that many animal production units have very limited land. In the past this frequently has led to very high rates of manure application to land for disposal. These high rates invariably lead to a much higher loss of the N applied in the manure to water. The recent increase in fertilizer nitrogen prices has changed ideas with regard to manure disposal and N utilization. Before the price increases, manure was usually considered only a disposal problem. Now more farmers are interested in getting maximum utilization of the nutrients contained in the manure. This interest will lead to better management practices and consequently to less N lost to drainage waters. The above discussion is not intended to be either quantitative nor a complete description of the problem of animal waste and water quality. This has been the topic of many recent books and symposia and there are still very many unanswered questions. However, with the large a m o u n t of manpower and research m o n e y currently being spent on this problem, more definitive answers will soon be forthcoming.

6.10.6.1.2. Nitrogen lost to groundwater In spite of the large number of studies designed to determine the threat of groundwater contamination by NO3 from agricultural sources, there are very few areas where an accurate quantitative prediction can be made of the NO3 moving to groundwater. This is because there is currently no accurate way of quantifying denitrification under the wide range of soil conditions encountered within most regions. Almost everyone agrees that N is not accumulating in the soil, so total N input minus N in harvested crops minus N loss to surface water will equal N lost by denitrification plus N moving to deeper groundwater. It is the distribution between the latter two components which can be estimated only very crudely in most situations. As pointed out b y Viets (1974) in a discussion of denitrification, "We do not have balance sheets of nitrogen inputs and outputs in any situation". In some regions of the U.S. there is no apparent threat to deeper groundwater by the leaching of nitrate. In the Atlantic coastal region, Gilliam et al. (1974) in North Carolina, Peele and Gillingham (1972) in South Carolina, and Gillings (1973) in New Jersey have observed significant movement of fertilizer nitrogen applied to cultivated crops to shallow groundwater. However, the water tables in this region are relatively shallow and there seems to be little m o v e m e n t of nitrate from shallow to deeper groundwater. In North Carolina we have found that the lack of significant concentrations of nitrate in deeper groundwater is a result of several factors. There is only a small

220 a m o u n t of water movement downward in most areas due to nearly impermeable aquatards in the profile, and so most water movement is horizontal toward a stream. Also, much of the nitrate is reduced in the shallow groundwater in the field area. The fate of nitrate moving horizontally with the shallow groundwater is unknown. Gilliam et al. (1974) have speculated that much of it may be lost by denitrification under certain conditions in the lowland area where the water seeps to the land surface. Presumably the above factors are present in much of the southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain to prevent any significant nitrate concentration in deeper groundwater as a result of normal agricultural activity. In the hilly to mountainous portions of the Southeast, there is generally no true groundwater. Underground streams break out as springs and thereby contribute directly to surface water contamination. Values of NO3-N range from 0 to 6 p p m depending largely on the geology of the region. The high values are associated with limestone (Thomas and Crutchfield, 1974). In the midwestern U.S., significant amounts of nitrate have been found in transit between soil rooting zones and the groundwater. Gast et al. (1974) found in the soil profile from 14 to 50% of unutilized fertilizer N applied to corn on t w o soils over a period of 13 years. These authors presented evidence to show that the remainder was lost b y denitrification. Gentzsch et al. (1974) reported that the NO3-N content below the rooting zone in central Illinois was related to soil characteristics and agricultural activity. In poorly drained soils or soils with natric horizons, there was very little nitrate found below the rooting zone. In all other soils, the a m o u n t of nitrate found below the rooting zone was related to amount of fertilizer used or animal activity. Similar observations have also been made in Missouri (Linville and Smith, 1971) and Wisconsin (Olsen et al., 1970). Results similar to those in the midwestern states have also been made for the Great Plains and R o c k y Mountain areas. Although the fertilizer usage is much less per unit land area in the Plains region as compared to the Midwest, there are still areas of the Plains states where significant amounts of nitrate have been found moving below cultivated fields or feedlots. Stewart et al. (1967, 1972) sampled a number of sites in Colorado and reported the following averages of NO3-N in the profile: virgin grassland, 100 kg ha -1 ; dryland farming, 292 kg ha-l; irrigated farming, 566 kg ha-~; and feedlots, 1630 kg ha -~. Somewhat similar results have been reported from Kansas (Murphy and Gosch, 1972), Nebraska (Herron et al., 1968) and North Dakota (Power, 1970). These reports are also similar to the data from the Midwest where a variable b u t significant amount of the unutilized fertilizer or animal waste N could n o t be found and was presumed to be lost b y denitrification. The problem of leaching of nitrate to groundwater is greater in the irrigated areas of the western U.S. than in any other place in North America. There have been a number of investigations in California (Stout and Burau, 1967; Adriano et al., 1972 a,b; Nightingale, 1972; Pratt and Adriano, 1973; Lund et al., 1974), which have reported large amounts of nitrate between topsoils

221

and the underlying groundwater. One reason for the larger amounts of nitrogen found below the rooting zone in much of this region is that use of fertilizer is greater per unit area for the irrigated crops and much of the land utilized for agriculture is in crops which receive heavy applications of fertilizer regardless of the region where grown. Another reason is the lack of water for dilution. An example of the heavy fertilizer use and leaching loss is given b y Pratt and Adriano (1973) who reported losses of N from nine miscellaneous row crops ranging from 47 to 912 kg N ha -~ y-~ in southern California. However, these authors estimated that denitrification accounted for from 0 to 256 kg ha -~ y-1 of the N losses. As in other areas of the U.S., the amount of denitrification is related to known profile characteristics (Lund et al., 1974) b u t is very difficult to predict for all field situations. The estimated values may range from near zero percent reported b y Pratt and Adriano (1973) for some fields, to nearly 100% of the leached nitrates reported by Meek et al. (1969) in the Imperial Valley of California. In some areas of California, the concentration of dairy and other animals is so high that much concern is expressed a b o u t the leaching of nitrate and other ions from the excreted waste to the groundwater. Many of the data in Table 72 were compiled as a result of this concern. Consideration has been given to limiting the concentration of animals, based on the threat of movement of nitrate and other contaminants to groundwater, b u t no regulations have been passed. 6.10.6.1.3. Nitrogen lost to air The soil factors affecting the rate of denitrification are well k n o w n and there is currently a large amount of research effort directed toward soil denitrification investigations. However, personal conversations with a large percentage of these investigators in the last year have revealed that none is confident of accurately quantitatively estimating denitrification in most field situations. The extremes where little or no denitrification takes place or nearly all of the nitrate formed is lost b y denitrification are easy to predict. However, most soils are between these extremes and pose difficulty with regard to quantitative estimation. In the previous section, several examples were given of field estimates of denitrification obtained b y difference. These values ranged from zero to 100% of the unharvested fertilizer nitrogen applied. Nearly all of the direct measurements of denitrification have been conducted under laboratory or greenhouse conditions. Nitrogen recoveries in greenhouse crops and soil using ~SN-tagged sources range from 53 to 100% of the added N with an average reported loss of about 15% of the N (Hauck, 1969). Thus, the figure of 15% of the added N lost b y denitrification is very frequently used in computations o f N balances. In a recent informal meeting in the U.S. of researchers from the Southeast, Midwest and Far West who are working with denitrification, the figures of 10--15% were generally accepted as being as accurate as any. This would indicate that 10--20 kg N ha -~ of

222 cultivated land is lost through denitrification. These figures are obtained b y crude extrapolation of data such as those obtained in North Carolina (Gambrell et al., 1975 a,b). We measured essentially no denitrification on one moderately well drained soil and as much as 60 kg ha -1 on a poorly drained soil. It is obvious from available data that the amount of denitrification in softs is inversely related to drainage and directly related to the presence o f soil horizons which restrict water movement. It is also inversely related to such factors as proportion of the percolating water intercepted by artificial drains, as indicated by water below the drains containing a lower concentration o f nitrate than the water in the tile drain (Gilliam et al., 1974; Thomas and Barfield, 1974). The current knowledge of how to investigate all of the factors affecting denitrification in field situations is so limited that we are seemingly forced to accept the crude estimate of losses of 10--20 kg ha -1 y-l. The amount of nitrogen lost from animal waste during storage, treatment and handling has been estimated b y Vanderholm (1973) to range from 34 to 84% depending upon the treatment system used. Much of this N is lost as ammonia and very significant concentrations of ammonia have been measured in the atmosphere in the vicinity of large concentrations o f animals (Stewart, 1970; Luebs et al., 1973). Also, some of the nitrogen is oxidized to nitrate and then lost through denitrification. However, measurements of losses of nitrogen from manure from different farms under apparently similar conditions have been extremely variable. Thus, a figure of 50% of the excreted N being lost during handling and storage is usually used, although it is recognized that this is a very crude estimate (Stewart et al., 1975).

6.10.6.2. Phosphorus 6.10.6.2.1. Phosphorus lost to surface waters The concern about the contribution of P from agricultural sources to the eutrophication of surface waters has resulted in considerable attention to losses of P to drainage waters over the past few years. As pointed o u t b y Viers (1970), agronomists had not previously been concerned a b o u t loss of the very small amounts of P such as the 10--15 ppb in water (Sawyer, 1947; Luckey, 1961) necessary to get good algal growth. Since the increase in the awareness of the possibility of a problem, there have been several review articles (Stanford et al., 1960; Taylor, 1967; Holt et al., 1970; Ryder et al., 1973) summarizing the known information about P losses from soils. The review by Ryder et al. {1973) is thorough and a good overview of the current knowledge. Only a very small amount of P is lost apart from that lost with the eroding sediment. Since forested soils are usually low in fertility and erosion is low, the losses of P from forested watersheds are quite small (Table 75). The losses from range land and/or grazed forage watersheds are larger than from forested land b u t still quite low when viewed from a soil nutrient balance standpoint. The amounts of P lost from cultivated soils are extremely variable, as

New Hampshire Minnesota West Virginia Ontario, Canada Oklahoma N o r t h Carolina Iowa Oklahoma Michigan Iowa Indiana Alabama Ontario, Canada

Borman et al., 1968 Singer and Rust, 1975 Aubertin and Patric, 1974 Campbell and Webber, 1969 Olness et al., 1975 Kilmer et al., 1974 Hanway and Laflen, 1974 Olness et ah, 1975 Erickson and Ellis, 1971 S c h u m a n et al., 1973 Nelson, 1973 Scarseth and Chandler, 1938 Bolton et al.~ 1970

forest forest forest pasture pasture pasture cultivated cultivated cultivated cultivated fallow cultivated cultivated

Crop

1.06

Surface drainage

0.15

0.04

Subsurface drainage

Loss (kg ha -1 y - l )

0.02 0.09 0.12 0.08 2.9 0.21 1.10 5.5 1.0 0.7 6. 41 60 i

Total

1 These values o b t a i n e d in plot w o r k and all of the P n o t delivered to stream due to redeposition.

Geographical area

Source

Examples of phosphorus loss to surface waters f r o m forest, pasture and cultivated watersheds

T A B L E 75

----1.3--4.6 0.15--0.27 0.09--2.55 1.3--11.2 0.8--1.3 0.5--2.1 -_ 0.08--0.24

Range measured

tO b~ CO

224

illustrated in Table 75. Several authors have concluded that an average value for loss of P from cultivated lands is a useless number because of the tremendous variation between different fields and management systems. However, a large number of recent measurements have been in the range of 1--4 kg P ha-1 y-l, although one suspects that a large percentage of these measurements was not made in soils which are marginal for cultivated crops where erosion and thus P loss is the greatest. As stated earlier, when large losses of P are encountered, they are associated with large losses of sediment. There is a very good correlation between P loss and sediment loss on cultivated soils (Romkens et al., 1973). However, from a water pollution standpoint, there is a significant amount of P lost from fertilized, cultivated soils in the soluble form. Surface runoff water has been found to equilibrate rather rapidly with the surface soil so that the P concentration in the water is near the concentration in an equilibrium extract from the soil (Romkens et al., 1973). Thus a concentration of 200 ppb in solution of the water from fertile or recently fertilized soils is not u n c o m m o n (Nelson, 1973). Although an annual surface r u n o f f of 25 cm with concentration of 200 ppb would only remove approximately 0.5 kg P ha -1, this is above the concentration reported necessary for good algal growth (Luckey, 1961). It is true that this runoff water will be diluted b y runoff water from forested or grassed areas which have lower P concentrations. However, a share of the sediment carried b y the streams in agricultural areas is from the cultivated and more highly fertile soils. This sediment will tend to reach a new equilibrium with the water so that the concentration will be higher than the P concentration in the water from uncultivated areas and lower than the P concentration from the cultivated areas. Another complicating factor is that the sediment from the stream bank, etc. m a y have a high P absorptive capacity and reduce the equilibrium P concentration. This effect has been noted b y Kunishi et al. (1972). There is no d o u b t that fertilization of soils will increase the P lost to surface r u n o f f waters because the equilibrium P concentration may be increased as much as ten-fold (Baldovinos and Thomas, 1967) and the sediment lost by erosion will contain more P. If loss of P from cultivated soils is a significant problem with regard to water quality, this is going to be very difficult to control because it is difficult to conceive of reducing sediment loss to levels which would significantly reduce the equilibrium P concentration of the sediment with the drainage water. No mention has been made of loss of P to groundwater. Although obviously some P is lost by this pathway, the amounts are so small, except in unusual circumstances, from both a water quality and an agronomic viewpoint that they are insignificant. The quantities of P lost to drainage water from animal waste are significant under some conditions. As discussed in the nitrogen section, 3--10% o f the defecated waste may be lost via surface r u n o f f from some beef, dairy and hog operations. In the Midwest, much of the manure from cattle and hog opera-

New Hampshire West Virginia North Carolina Ontario, Canada Ontario, Canada Michigan Illinois Virginia

Borman and Likens, 1970 Aubertin and Patric, 1974 Kilmer et al., 1974 Bolton et al., 1970 Bolton et al., 1970 Erickson and Ellis, 1971 Kurtz, 1970 Rogers, 1941

forest forest pasture pasture cultivated cultivated cultivated cultivated

Crop

2831

Surface drainage

15

0.34 1.0

Subsurface drainage

Loss (kg ha "1 y - l )

Ii

1.7 2.7 4.9

Total

100"-5731

0.10--0.6 0.4--1.5 2--26

Range measured

1These values are for cultivated soil on slopes ranging from 5 to 25% where erosion removed 9 to 40 tons topsoil per ha, and represent the total K lost from plots. The other values given in this table represent only soluble or exchangeable K removed by water.

Geographical area

Source

Examples of potassium lost to surface waters from forest, pasture and cultivated watershed

TABLE 76

t~ t~ O1

226 tions is stored during the winter in lagoons and as much as 50% of the P may remain as sludge in the lagoon (Midwest Plan Service, 1975). With most other livestock operations, however, a large percentage of the P will eventually be returned to the land with the eventual result being essentially the same as if equal quantities of inorganic P fertilizer were added. 6.10.6.3. Potassium 6.10.6.3.1. Potassium lost to drainage waters The loss of K from agricultural systems has not received nearly as much attention in the past few years as the loss of N and P because there are no known problems caused by presence of K in waters with the exception of its minor contribution to excessive salts in some waters in the western states of the U.S. and Mexico. Even in the studies where loss of K has been measured, it has usually been a rather incidental measurement where N and P were of primary interest. Many of the estimates of leaching losses of K are based on old lysimeter work (Kurtz, 1970) and there has been little improvement on the estimates of average losses of 10--15 kg ha-' y - ' made by Truog and Jones (1938) (Table 76). Most of the recent measurements of K losses have been through tile drains or as soluble and exchangeable K in surface runoff. The total K losses reported would be much larger if the K incorporated in the mineral structure of the eroded material were included. Much of the most informative data on the fate of nutrients excreted in animal waste has come as a result of the environmental concern of the past few years. Since K has not been of environmental concern, few data have been obtained for K. The only exception to this is the potassium contained in chicken manure which has frequently caused animal problems when the waste was applied at high rates to forages. Considerable research on this topic has been conducted b y the research group of U.S.D.A.--A.R.S. at Wakinsville, Georgia. Essentially all of the K excreted b y poultry is applied to soils. Losses of potassium excreted b y other animals to waters would be similar to those of P except that more K would be leached toward the groundwater. We (Overcash et al., 1976) have found that approximately 25% of the K entering swine waste lagoons in North Carolina settled in the sludge and was not removed in the effluent. 6.10.7. Nutrient balances Classification. Eight nutrient balances were prepared as follows: Intensive arable. Reference: Thomas + Gilliam-1; corn for grain, northern Indiana, U.S.A., Table 77. Intensive arable. Reference: Thomas + Gilliam-2; soybeans for grain, northeastern Arkansas, U.S.A., Table 78. Intensive arable. Reference: Thomas + GiUiam-3; wheat, central Kansas, U.S.A., Table 79.

227 Intensive arable. Reference: Thomas + Gilliam-4; Irish potatoes, Maine, U.S.A., Table 80. Intensive arable. Reference: Thomas + Gilliam-5; cotton, California, U.S.A., Table 81. Intensive livestock. Reference: Thomas + Gilliam-6; grazed bluegrass, western north-California, U.S.A., Table 82. Extensive forestry. Reference: Thomas + Gilliam-7; loblolly pine, 40 years, Mississippi, U.S.A., Table 83. Extensive forestry. Reference: Thomas + Gilliam-8; Douglas fir, 37 years, Washington, U.S.A., Table 84.

Method of computation of nutrient flows of selected agro-ecosystems The data used in Tables 77--84 are mainly derived from sections 6.10.4-6.10.6. In particular, the following references were used:

Corn, soybeans, wheat, potatoes and cotton. The average composition of seed crops, which could be derived from the data of the authors mentioned in 6.10.5. was used to calculate nutrient removals by crops. There are reasonably good data available from the U.S.D.A. on the application of fertilizer nutrients in particular areas to given crops and data on average yields of these crops (Worden et al., 1971; Strickland and Harwell, 1971; Miller, 1971; Pawsen, 1973). This information was combined with the average nutrient composition of crops to obtain nutrients harvested with selected crops in a given year. The mineralization of soil organic fraction was estimated using data in Ibach and Adams (1968) giving yields when no fertilizer was used. The nutrients lost via water or air were estimated using data from a large number of research reports for the United States. These reports are listed in the bibliography.

Grazed bluegrass. The applied nutrients lost via surface runoff and the nutrients taken up by the grass are experimental values of Gilliam in cooperation with workers at Tennessee Valley Authority (Kil.mer et al., 1974). The nutrients passing through the animal as manure were based on reports by Peterson et al. (1956) and Azevedo and Stout (1974) that 75% of the N and P and 85% of the K passes through the animal and is excreted to the land. Other values were estimated or obtained by differences. Loblolly pine, Douglas fir. The data for the loblolly pine were taken from research by Switzer and Nelson (1972, 1975). A paper by Cole et al. (1967) provided the basic information for Douglas fir.

228

T A B L E 77 System type: Intensive arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - l )

T y p e o f farm or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f part o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 1

Corn for grain, N o r t h e r n Indiana, U.S.A.

Nutrient

N

P

K

-126

-22 ---

-111

--85 41 -126

--15 7 -22

--20 91 -111

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t of p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... b y n e t u ~ t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake trom atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9,

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

112 t -10 -41 -163

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b~ r u n - o f f . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL

15 t 1 5 6 -10 126 172

--t

22 25

--15 10 --111 136

-

+12.3

+24

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

9

---30 --0.3 -7 -37.3

3 -t

-65 --4 -91 -160

229

TABLE 77 (continued) System type: Intensive arable

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha-'

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no.Thomas and Gilliam-1

Corn for grain, Northern

Nutrient Changes in amount SUPPLIES:

8a. 9a. 10a.

11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27. REMOVALS:

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n i n soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by theplant TOTAL

N

P

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. TOTAL

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t 24. 16.

K

--

---30 ---0.3 --" 7 t -37.3

-112 t --10 50 t -172 15

---

t 15 6 t -(10) 126 -172 0

t 3 t --22 -25 12.3

--65 ---4 pm pm 91 -160 --15 10 t pro_ 111 -136 24

o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

by application and/or waste ........ by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n i n soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

Indiana, U.S.A.

o f a v a i l a b l e soil n u t r i e n t s

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in amount

y-~ )

--

(--10) 41 51 50 10 60

-----7 7 7 ~ 7

- 9

0

---

pm pm

--------0

o f soil m i n e r a l s T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n i n soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

pm pm

230

TABLE 78 System type: Intensive arable

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -I y-i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Thomas and Gilliam-2

Soybeans for grain, N.E. Arkansas, U.S.A.

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

N

P

K

-120

-37

120

-13 --13

--90 30 -120

--10 3 -13

22 15 -37

0

0

0

of plant component

SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake Irom atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3. 4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

37 --

of animal component Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... Output by losses from manure to air, before application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings ongrazed areas ....... TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in amount SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--123 --10 30 163

---19 ---0.3 3 -22.3

15

---

t 10 3 t 13 120 161 2

t 3 t t 13 16 6.3

--37 ---4 15 56 --15 10 t -37 62 -6

231

T A B L E 78 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Intensive arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 2

Soybeans for grain, N.E. Arkansas, U.S.A.

Nutrient

N

P

K

---19 ---0.3 -3 t -22.3

---

Changes in amount of available soil nutrients SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction .... Transfer by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL

24.

25. 30t. 30r.

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

--(123) --

-10 -15 t -148 15

---

t 10 3

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--15 10 t pm

t

t -. 120 -148

37 ---4 pm -15 -56

.

.

3 t -. 13 -16

0

6.3

. 37 -62 -6

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by immobilization in soil organic fraction by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

17. 28.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . TOTAL

--

-----3 3

30 30 15 13 28

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

2

3

---t --

3

----

0

0

pm pm

pm pm

t

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ....... SUPPLY-REMOVAL

--

232

T A B L E 79 System type: Intensive arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows ( u n i t s : kg ha - I y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 3

Wheat, Central Kansas, U.S.A.

Nutrient

N

P

K

-56 --56

-10 --10

-50 --50

--36 20 -56

--7 3 -10

---

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

6 44 -50 0

Changes in a m o u n t of animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f t o t a l s o i l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers . . : ................. N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

---34 t -6 20 -60 5 t 4 1 t 4 56 70 -10

---13 ---0.1 3 -16.1 --t 3 t t 10 13 +3.1

--0 --2 44 -46 --5 5 t -50 60 -14

233

T A B L E 79 ( c o n t i n u e d ) System type: Intensive arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 3

Wheat, Central Kansas, U.S.A.

Nutrient

N

P

K

--

---13 ---0.1 -3 t -16.1

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by immobilization in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

34 t --

6 -28 t -68 5

---

-

0 --2 pm -44 -46

3

--5 5

--10 -13

t pm -50 -60

t 4 1 t -( 4) 56 -70

--

t t

2

3.1

-14

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25.

26b. REMOVALS:

17. 28.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by immobilization in soil organic fraction by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

--

-( 4 )

28 4 32 -

8

Changes in amount of soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction .... T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f s o i l f r a c t i o n . . .~ . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

--

20 24

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

----

--

---

3 3 3

----t 0

3

--0

0

0

t

234

TABLE 80 System type: Intensive arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - I )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 4

Irish p o t a t o e s , Maine, U.S.A.

N

Nutrient

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

1-45 --145

-16 --16

177 --177

--80 65 -145

--10 6 -16

--117 60 -177

0

0

0

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . b y Seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

---168 t -6 65 -2-39

---101 ---0.1 6

---207 ---

107.1

270

---

--20 15

15 t 64 5

t

t 10 145 239

t t

0

3 60

5 t 16 21

-177 212

86

58

235

TABLE 80 (continued} System type: Intensive arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows ( u n i t s : kg h a - '

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 4

Irish p o t a t o e s , Maine, U.S.A.

Nutrient

N

y-' )

P

K

---101 ---0.1 -6 --107.1

--

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction . . .. Transfer by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL

--168 t ---6 -65 --239 15

---

t 64 5

t

t -(10) 145 -239

t

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

-207 --3 pm -60 -270

5

--20 15

--16 -21

t pm -177 -212

86

58

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by immobilization in soil organic fraction by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

17. 28.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. TOTAL

---(10) 65 75 65 10 75

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction .... Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ....... SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

------

---

6 6

-----

6 6

----

--

0

0

236

T A B L E 81 System type: Intensive arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -I y-1 )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d O i l l i a m - 5

Cotton, California, U.S.A.

Nutrient

N

P

K

-127 --

-19 --19

-67 -67

79 48 -127

--13 6 -19

30 37 -67

0

0

0

Changes in amount of plant component SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

127

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

Changes in amount of animal component SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3. 4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

REMOVALS:

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ........ ; ....... Output by volatilization of ammonia . ....... Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

---179 t -50 3 48 -280

---14 --t t 6 -20

---0 --50 1 37 -88

20

---

83 50 t t 127 280

t 1 t t 19 20

--10 10 t -67 87

0

0

+1

t

237

TABLE 81 (continued) System type: Intensive arable

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - ~ )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Thomas and Gilliam-5

Cotton, California, U.S.A.

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction .... T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in s o i l o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant TOTAL

30r.

N

P

K

---

---14 --t t -6 t

---

-50 1 pm -37

20

88

---

o f a v a i l a b l e soil n u t r i e n t s by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . im'gation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . b y s e e d f o r sowingTOTAL ..............

179 t -50 3 -48 t 28--0 20

t

t

--127 -280

--19 -20

--10 10 t --67 -87

0

0

+1

--

--48 48

-----6 6 6

---

t 83 50

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

17. 28.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off., TOTAL

24. 16.

1

--

48 t

t

---

48

6

0

0

--

---

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

t

o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Changes in amount

0

of soil minerals Transfer by fixation in soil mineral fraction .... Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ~. ..... SUPPLY-REMOVAL

--

238

TABLE 82 System type: Intensive livestock

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -I y-I )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 6

Grazed bluegrass, Western North Carolina, U.S.A.

Nutrient

N

P

K

-151 --151

-20 --20

-150 --150

-151 --

-150 ---

151

-20 ---20

150

0

0

0

-150 150 23

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t.

30r. 31. REMOVALS:

3.

4. 18. 26. 27.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

. . .

-151 151

---20 20

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... Out~. u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

38

5

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

--

~3 151

---15 20

--127 150

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

-113 -168 pm --

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-127 -46 ---

291

-15 -24 ---0.3 --39.3

5 98 -t 12

---0.2

----

2 151 268

t t 20 20.2

+23

+19.1

10 --

4 -177

6 t 150 156 +21

239

TABLE 82 (continued) System type: Intensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - i )

T y p e o f farm or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f part o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 6

Grazed bluegrass, Western North Carolina, U.S.A.

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a v a i l a b l e s o i l n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

19. 20.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by immobilization in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant TOTAL

21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irn'gation and floodlng ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . b y s e e d f o r s o w i n~ g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

-53 -168 pm --

-10 -24 ---0.3 -5 --39.3

10 48 -279 5 (98) -12 t -(13) 151 -279

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

-127 -46 --4 pm ---177

--

--

--

--

--

--

0.2 t --20 -20.2

6 t pm -150 -156

+19

+21

--

--------

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. lOb. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

17. 28.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-60 --(13) -73 48 2 50 +23

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fracti'on . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ....... SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

5 ----5 5 t 5 0

---0

240

T A B L E 83 System type: Extensive forestry

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - ~ )

J

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 7

Loblolly pine, 40 years, Mississippi, U.S.A.

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . u p t a k e f r o m atTmOo~ph~re . . . . . . . . . .

-20.4

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

2-0.4

-1.5 -1.5

--11.6 8.8 -20.4

--0.7 0.8 -1.5

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

0

-9.4 9.4 -7.3 2.1 -9.4 0

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1.

2. 3. 4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed f o r l i v e s t o c k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or w~te T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

-.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f t o t a l s o i l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--

-------0.3 0.8 -1.1

-(8) --11 8.8 -27.8 1

---

----4 2.1 -6.1

-1.5 1.6

--2 3 t -9.4 14.4

-0.5

-8.3

t 1 3

t

t -20.4 25.4

t

2.4

--

1

241

TABLE 83 (continued) System type: Extensive forestry

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha-'

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 7

y-' )

L o b l o l l y pine, 40 years, Mississippi, U.S.A.

Nutrient

N

P

K

----(8) --

-------0,3 -pm --0.3

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL

30r.

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction.. by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . b y s e e d f o r s o w i na g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

11 -6 --25 1

4 --2.1 -6.1

---

t 1 3

-------

--2 3

t

t -pm 20.4 -25.4

1 t -pm 1.5 -2.5

--9.4 -14.4

-0.4

-1.3

-8.3

t

Changes in amount of soil organic matter SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction by plant produe~s remaining on field . . TOTAL

17. 28.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-

8.8 8.8 6 -6 +2.8

Changes in amount of soil minerals SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil fraction ........ SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

----0.8 0.8 pm 0 +0.8

-----

242

TABLE 84 System type: Extensive forestry

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a - l y-~ )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 8

D o u g l a s fir, 3 7 y e a r s , W a s h i n g t o n , U . S . A .

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

-35.1 --

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

35.1

-6.2 --6.2

14.4

--10.3 24.8 -35.1

--1.7 4.5 -6.2

--10.5 3.9 -14.4

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

0

14.4 --

0

Changes in a m o u n t of animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1. 2.

3. 4. REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9."

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t of t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

---

-------0.3 4.5 -4.8

----4 3.9 -7.9

1 35.1 39.1

----t t 6.2 6.2

--1 1 t -14.4 16.4

-4.3

-1.4

-8.5

-pm --

-10 24.8 -34.8 1 t 1 1 t

---

243

TABLE 84 (continued) System type: Extensive forestry

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha -I y-i )

T y p e o f farm or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f part o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . T h o m a s a n d G i l l i a m - 8

D o u g l a s fir, 37 years, W a s h i n g t o n , U . S . A .

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and fiood~ng ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by weathering of soil mineral fraction . . by mineralization of soil organic fraction by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by immobilization in soil organic fraction Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

---

-------0.3 ----0.3

-pm -10 -pm --10 1

---4 pm -39 -7.9

--t t t --6.2 . . . 6.2

t 1 1 t --35.1 . . 38.1

---

.

-28.1

--1 1 t --14.4 . 16.4

-5.9

-

8.5

Changes in a m o u n t o f soil organic m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application and/or waste ........ -b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . application of manure ............ -application of litter, sludge and waste . -by i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil organic fraction -by plant products remaining on field . . 24.8 TOTAL 24.8

17. 28.

Transfer by mineralization of soil organic fraction Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-1.0 1.0 23.8

Changes in amount of soil minerals

SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

Transfer by f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l fraction . . . . Transfer by weathering of soil fraction SUPPLY-REMOVAL

--

.

.

-. . ---4.5 4.5 ---4.5

-. ----------

244 6.11. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN SOUTH AMERICA (G.St. Husz)

6.11.1. Introduction

Both the extensiveness of the area and the lack of data at present do n o t allow a very accurate description of all agro-ecosystems existing in the continent of South America. Only 5% of the total area of Latin America is used for crop production, whilst 18% is used as extremely extensive pastures (Walter and Lieth, 1960; Cole, 1965; Ganssen and Hadrich, 1965; Schmithausen, 1968; Duckham and Masefield, 1970; Husz, 1973, 1974; De Geus, 1973). Technical and economic difficulties and the lack of an adequate infrastructure prevent the introduction of fertilizers and herbicides. Climatic waterbalances and soil moisture conditions are usually unfavorable for agricultural purposes. The rural population contributes a smaller a m o u n t to the gross national product (GNP), as ought to be expected by their numerical representation. At the same time, the capital investments in the rural region are relatively lower than its share of the gross domestic p r o d u c t . The need to increase agricultural production usually has not resulted in higher productivity but merely in the extension of arable land maintained by poor agricultural techniques. Consequently per capita productivity has remained low as shown by the following relative figures for South American and other countries: France Canada U.S.A.

100 150 216

Guatemala Venezuela

16 24

Argentina Columbia

69 34

Nevertheless, improved agricultural technology and increased productivity have been reported from many regions during the last 10--20 years. 6.11.2. Methods

The lack of certain kinds of data requires a special approach for calculating nutrient balances. The idea is to use a simple model which can be applied all over the continent and to obtain comparable figures. This model should allow the primary productivity of ecosystems to be estimated and the nutrient balances to be calculated on the basis of nutrient contents and environmental situations, especially climatic and soil conditions. We started from the equation: 10 ET a yield = - - Qs" Qv KT

245

where the yield is expressed in t ha-' and year, above ground dry matter, ETa = actual evapotranspiration (mm y - ' , being determined as the sum of monthly values, which have to be determined considering the actual water balances of each month), KT = m 3 of water transpired by the plant per t dry matter produced, Qs = soil quality index, Qv = shoot index. The amounts of nutrients absorbed are then calculated by multiplication, taking into consideration the average N, P and K content of the vegetation. The actual evapotranspiration is calculated from the observations of 280 weather stations. As long as water is available, the actual evapotranspiration equals the potential evaporation; thereafter the actual amount of available soil water is taken into account. The potential evapotranspiration, ETp (mm d a y - ' ), is calculated from data of 48 stations and equals: E T p = 0.1557 × T '''s69 where T is the m e a n monthly temperature (r2 = 0.946, F 1.46 = 813.2). The data points are s h o w n in Fig. 36. The shoot index is a function of precipitation surplus or deficit.It ranges from 0.4 for a deficit of 1000 m m per year, via 0.5 for equilibrium, to 0.6 for a surplus of 1000 m m per year.

S h o o t index (Qv) = 0.5 + 10 -4 • (Ny -- ETpy) where Ny = annual precipitation and ETpy = annual potential evapotranspiration. Shoot index is the quotient of above ground dry matter and total primary dry mass produced. b ~7

•

W "

y = 01557246 r 2 : 09465 r : 09729 F~4e: 813.19 n = 48

6 5

X

1156932

•

• • / •~.~o

•

• o ~o

,o ~ / . o exe

4

x

x

3

•

Xo

•

•

.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11

1; 1~1 115 16 117 18 lCj 20 21 22 213:24 × : t°C (~Mo)

Fig. 36. The potential evapotranspiration ETp (mm d a y - ' ) as a function of the temperature

246

0~ ~

~

08

,

0.6

/

J

/

85,10-4÷162.1£~4.x _.63.1d6x2

~

~

36.9 10-4 + 142.10-4. x _ 576.10-6. ×2

/

y= :36'910-4+11610-4-x-46 9 ' 10-6' x 2

05

.

0

.

.

.

.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

V [°/o]

Fig. 37. The soil quality index Qs as a function of the soil texture and of the cation ex. change capacity (CEC) saturation degree.

Fig. 38. Soil quality indices.

247

T h e soil q u a l i t y index, Qs, is derived (Husz, 1 9 7 6 ) f r o m p r o d u c t i v i t y data. T h e c a t i o n e x c h a n g e c a p a c i t y s a t u r a t i o n degree is t h e m a i n variable, s e p a r a t e f u n c t i o n s b e i n g derived f o r sand, clay, s a n d y l o a m a n d l o a m . T h e e q u a t i o n s are: soil soil soil soil

quality quality quality quality

index index index index

(sand) (sandy loam) (loam) (clay)

= = = =

0.0051 0.0037 0.0085 0.0036

+ + + +

0.0079 0.0142 0.0162 0.0116

x x x x

-

0.000040 0.000058 0.000063 0.000047

x2 x2 x: x2

w h e r e x is t h e degree o f c a t i o n s a t u r a t i o n in %. T h e curves o b t a i n e d are s h o w n in Fig. 37. A m a p o f t h e soil q u a l i t y indices is p r e s e n t e d in Fig. 38.

6.11.3. Description of the systems N i n e a g r o - e c o s y s t e m s are c o n s i d e r e d , t w o o f w h i c h are split i n t o an arable p a r t a n d a l i v e s t o c k p a r t giving in t o t a l 12 balances calculated. T h e areas to w h i c h t h e s y s t e m s a p p l y are s h o w n in Fig. 39.

Fig. 39. Geographical distribution o f various e c o s y s t e m s . T h e numbers indicate the reference numbers.

248

6.11.3.1. Steppe and semi-desert of Patagonia Classification. Extensive livestock. Reference: Husz-1; Steppe and semi-desert of Patagonia, Table 86.

Location: East of ~he Andes, southeast of a line through 38 ° S and 71 ° W in the direction of the Gulf of San Jorge. This zone can be subdivided into three parts: the central region, the northwestern region (Sub-Andes) and southern Tierra del Fuego.

Central region Location: East of the Andes, between 38 ° and 47 ° SL; altitude, 0--1500 m. Climate and water regime: Mean annual temperature, 8--14°C; mean annual temperature amplitude, 13°C; annual precipitation, 10--20 cm. (The mean values for the three regions are: precipitation, 30.6 cm; potential evapotranspiration, 76.4 cm; actual evapotranspiration, 23.9 cm.) Soil: Plains with terraces and wide valleys. Soils not well developed as a result of dryness. In the north, aeolian sediments; near the Andes,Lithosols, partly as sandy Rhegosols, partly as calcareous Yermosols (without Argillic B horizon). In the valleys, development of saline softs (solontchaks and solonetz). In the south, tertiary marine sediments, also quarternary fluviatile and aeolian sediments. The older soils consist of reddish Yermosols with calcareous and saline horizons. Valleys are more fertile and productive than other areas (mean value for the three regions: productivity index Qs = 0.586, after improvement of the soil Qs = 0.9). Vegetation: Grass and shrub steppes: Chuquiraga avellanedae, Nassauvia

glomerulosa, Stipa humilis, Prosopis patagonica, Lycium ameghinoi, Berberis cuneata, Verbena ligustrina, Pleurophora patagonica, Haplopappus diplopappus, Grindelia chiloensis, Euphorbia portulacoides. Halophytes: Atriplex lampa, A. sagittifolia, Frankenia patagonica, L ycium ameghinoi, Prosopis patagonica. Shoot index: 0.454. Use: For all three regions, sheep.

Productivity and nutrient balance: Mean values for the three regions: calculated total dry matter production, 4672 kg ha-l; shoots, 2121 kg ha-l; roots, 2551 kg ha -1. Mean nutrient values for this t y p e of steppe vegetation (above ground): N, 0.011 kg kg -~ dry matter; P, 0.0018 kg kg -1 dry matter; K, 0.010 kg kg -1 dry matter. Although a dry matter production of 2121 kg ha -1 in well managed areas allows 5--6 sheep ha -~, the density is limited to less than 1 sheep ha -~ in this steppe due to the low nutrient content of the vegetation and the dry periods. Compared to Europe, the amount of nutrients in the excrements (urine + faeces) is low, expressed as kg per sheep per year:

N P K

Europe

Patagonia

15.0 2.5 8.9

7.9 3.8 7.2

249

Where the soil has been improved (Qs = 0.9), the production (above ground) increases to 3227 kg dry matter ha- ~ (Roemer and Scheffer, 1953; Schiller et al., 1967; De Geus, 1973; Ruhrstickstoff, 1974).

North-western region Data applicable to all three regions, see Central region. Location: Near the Andes between 38 ° and 47 ° SL. Altitude, 200--600 m. Climate: Mean annual temperature, 8--13°C; mean annual temperature amplitude, 13°C; mean precipitation, 2 0 - 6 0 cm. Soil: Intermediate region between steppes and semi-desert of central plain and grass and shrub vegetation of the Andes. Hilly landscape, soil types: Cambisols, Andosols, Rhegosols and Lithosols. Vegetation: Grass and shrub steppes: Mulinum spinosum, Nassauvia glomerulosa, N. aculeata, Berberis cuneata, Adesmia, Senecio filaginoides, Lycium tenuispinossum, Stipa patagonica, S. humilis, S. chrysophylla, Festuca monticola, Agrostis pyrogea, Deschampsia elegantula, Poa ligularis, Bromus macranthus, Danthonia. For most pastures: Juncus lesueurii, Carex gayana, C. nebularum, Acaena macrostemon. Use: Sheep. Southern Tierra del Fuego Data applicable to all three regions, see Central region. Location: South of 51 ° SL, the so-called Patagonian prairie. Altitude, 0--500 m. Climate: Mean annual temperature, 5--7°C; mean annual temperature amplitude, 5--9 C; mean annual precipitation, 20--50 cm. Soil: Tertiary marine sediment, also Pleistocene material. Well developed A-horizon, rich in undecomposed or partly decomposed organic matter and root material, partly ranker soils; in valleys also black A/C soils, comparable to Para-Rendzinas. Vegetation: Grass and shrub steppes: Mulinum spinosum, Nassauvia aculeata, Berberis cuneata, Festuca gracillima, Hordeum comosum, Poa ligularis, Agropyron magellanicum, Senecio patagonicus, Azorella.

0.0 (Import)

~;

( Export )

O0 060

23.

_

~_

[73 t

....

]T!~_c~ _

SOIL

Fig. 40. Nitrogen flow chart, grazed Patagonian steppe, system Husz-1, kg N h a - ' .

22.72

Total

N-balance

trace

7.32

15.40

Waste Fertilizers Uptake by vegetation Grazed Excrements Sold Private consumption

0.60

23.33

23.33

23.33

23.33

In

In

Out

Plant

Soil

23.32

7.92

15.40

Out

0

7.92

7.92

In

Animals

0

7.92

7.32 0.60 trace

Out

trace

In

Human

0

trace

Out

Simplified nitrogen balance, Patagonian steppe, system Husz-1 (above ground d w matter only)

TABLE 85

0

Import

0.60

0.60

0.60

Export

fj1 Q

251

Use: Sheep. Productivity and nutrient balance: Fig. 40 shows a simplified nutrient flow chart for this area; Table 85 shows the corresponding nutrient balance for nitrogen. (In a first draft of Husz' manuscript all areas were analyzed in this way, b u t because of the large amount of space required by such balances they are replaced by the usual nutrient flow tables in the final version.)

6.11.3.2. Argentinian shrub steppe (Monte) Classification. Extensive arable. Reference: Husz-2; Shrub steppe (Monte), Argentina, Table 87.

Location: Mid-Argentina, from the spurs of the Andes (northwestern part of the area) to the Gulf of St. Mathias on the Atlantic ocean (southeastern part). Altitude ranges from 0 to 1000 m. Climate: Mean annual temperature: 14--20°C; mean annual temperature range: 16°C; annual precipitation: 10--35 cm; mean value: 31.3 cm; potential evapotranspiration: 147.6 cm; actual evapotranspiration: 31.3 cm. Soil: The flattest and slightly hilly areas have soils of different age on loose sediments of a mainly sandy nature. The main soil formation can be described as " K a s t a n o z e m " (without Argillic B-horizon). It is associated with Rhegosols. These soil types are mostly calcareous. Moving southward, the humus percentage decreases. In this area, more Xerosols can be found. In the valleys, Fluvisols accompanied by Solonetz and gleyish Solonchaks occur. Productivity index, Qs = 0.69. Vegetation: Main vegetation types with characteristic shrub species: shrub steppe (Larrea divaricata, L. cuneifolia, L. nitida, Bougainvillea spinosa, Prosopis alpataco, P. strombulifera, P. globosa, Cassia aphylla, Atamisquea emarginata, Condalia microphylla, Cercidium australe, Tricomaria usillo, Monttea aphylla, Chuquiraga crinacea). Halophyte vegetation (Suaeda divaricata, A triplex lampa, A. sagittifolia, Cyclolepis genistoides, Frankenia patagonica, Salicornia ambigua, Heterostachys, Allenrolfia patagonica). Shoot index = 0.384. Use: Arable farming is impossible in the Monte without irrigation. With irrigation it is possible to cultivate wheat, corn, tobacco, vegetables and tomatoes, while special crops like grapevines can also be grown. The nutrient balance and system description refer to the non-irrigated areas. Productivity and nutrient balance: The composition of the vegetation on the extensive pastures is rather heterogeneous because of local salinity problems. The total dry matter productivity is 4095 kg ha -1 annually, b u t of the mean 2784 kg above-ground vegetation, only 30% or 835 kg can be used to feed cattle. This allows for a live weight of 116 kg cattle per ha. Phosphate is the factor limiting production. The animals have to consume 27 kg dry matter per kg live weight per year to meet their P requirements, that is, a b o u t three times as much as on well managed pastures. The potential above ground pro-

252

TABLE 86 System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a - '

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . Husz-1

y-~ )

Steppe and semi-desert, Patagonia

Nutrient

N

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

-23.3 20.4 t 43.7

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

7.9 3-5.8 -43.7

-3.8 5.1 0 8.9

-21.2 25.5 0 46.7

-1.3 -7.6 -8.9

--

0

0

---7.9 7.9

----

7.2 39.5 -46.7 0

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application . : ....................... Output by manure , ................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

----

1.3

7.2 7.2

1.3

0.6

0.4

---

0.2

---0.9 1.3

7.3 7.9 0

0

-7.3 --

-0.9 ------

---7.0 7.2 0

Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irn'gation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

2.5 35.8 -47.8

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

O u t p u t by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . . Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL

t 2.0 t t t t 43.7 45.7

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

2.2 --

+2.1

t

--

7 ---t

7.6 -8.5 ---t t t 8.9 8.9 -0.4

39.5 -46.5 --(10) t t t 46.7 56.7 -10.2

253

TABLE 86 (continued) System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -1 y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Husz-1

Steppe and semi-desert, Patagonia

Nutrient

N

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t. 30r.

Output by denitrifieation ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n i n soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n by plant production remaining on field . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in amount SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

12. Input by N-fixation by application and/or waste ........ by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ application of litter, sludge and waste . b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n by plant products remaining on field . . TOTAL

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Output by organic matter, removed by run-off., TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

K

--

--

------

-----

-2.5

t

----2.5 45 5.4 -55.4

7.0

t (1.0) 7.0 1.6 -9.6

t

--0

2.0

t

(20)

t 38 -65 --(10) t t

t t t

t t

-(10) 23.3 20.4 55.7

( )1.0 3.8 5.1 10.9

-21.2 25.5 64.7

- 0.3

-

+ 0.3

(1.0)

1.3

(8)

of soil organic matter

8b. 9b. 10b. 13b. 25. 26b.

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

P

o f a v a i l a b l e soil n u t r i e n t s

--

2.2

---

4.8

0.9 --( 1.0) 6.0 7.9

-(TO) , 30.4 47.4 45 t

---

7.0 t

45

7.0

t --1.5 1.5 t t 0

+ 2.4

+ 0.9

+ 1.5

---

( (

1.0) 1.0)

(8.0) (20.0)

0

-12.0

o f soil m i n e r a l s T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

0

254

T A B L E 87 System type: Extensive livestock

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a - '

Type o f farm or e c o s y s t e m or type o f part o f a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . H u s z - 2

Shrub steppe (Monte) Argentina

Nutrient

N

y-' )

P

K

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by net uptake from soil ........... by net uptake from soil ........... uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

-16.7 -t 16.7

-3.3 --3.3

-33.4 --33.4

--

-1.0 -2.3 -3.3

-10.0 -23.4

5.0 -11.7 16.7

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

0

33.4 0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p . u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

. • 9.

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

-. . . 5.0 5.0

--10.0 10.0

0.4

0.3

4.6 5.0

---0.7 1.0

9.8 10.0

0

0

-0.7 -----t 2.4 -3.1

-9.8 --

---

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

---1.0 1.0

0

0.2 ---

Changes in amount of total soil component SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off., Transfer by net uptake from soil by plant ..... TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-4.6 -2.5 -3 11.7 -21.8 t 2.3 t t t t

---

+28

t 23.5 -33.3

3.3 3.3

--t t t t 33.4 33.4

-0.2

-0.1

t t t t 16.7 19.0

---

255

ductivity (with soil improvement and fertilization) equals 3610 kg dry matter ha-1 y-1.

6.11.3.3. Table land, mid-Andes (Puna or altiplano) Classification. Extensive livestock. Reference: Husz-3; High table land, midAndes, 5% arable farming, 95% extensive livestock, Table 88.

Location: Situated between the t w o main crests of the mid-Andes (Peru, Bolivia), from a b o u t 5--27 ° SL. Altitude: 3400--4500 m. Climate: The mean annual temperature varies from 10 to 30°C, depending on the height and exposure. The mean annual range is 18--20°C. Annual precipitation, 10--75 cm, during the 3--4 summer months; mean precipitation: 69.3 cm; potential evapotranspiration: 91.8 cm; actual evapotranspiration: 53.4 cm. Soil: The landscape has a basin character. In large areas sediments can be found from former seas, which have disappeared as a result of tectonic movements. Everywhere the influence of volcanic ash and sand is obvious. Mollic Gleysols can be found in low-lying humid regions. In basins, salinization occurs and there is a build up of saline soils. On the flat slopes Mollic Andosols, Histosols and humic Cambisols predominate. In the basins, there are brown Kastanozems, whereas in the elevated parts Lithosols and Xerosols occur. The soils are mainly non-calcareous and mostly nutrient-poor (Ca, P). Soil productivity index, Qs = 0.425. Vegetation: Open shrub steppe, partly with "pillar" cacti and " t o l a " heath, 3400--4300 m (Fabiana densa, Psila boliviensis, Adesmia horridus cula, Junellia seriphoides, Baccharis incarum, Senecio viridus, Acantholippia hastulata, Tetrachlochin cristatum, NardophyUum armatum, Ephedra breana, Adesma spinosissima, Trichocereus pasacana, Parastrephia lepidophylla, Parastrephia phyllicaeformis). Open pastures (Pennisetum chilense, Festuca scirpifolia). Grass-steppes, > 4 3 0 0 m (Festuca ortophylla, Festuca chrysophylla, Poa gymnantha, Stipa ichu, Calamagrostis cabrera, Azoreila yareta, Apunthia atacamensis, Puya raimondis). Shoot index = 0.478. Use: Agriculture in the Puna is rather primitive, there is almost no import of fertilizers, seeds or herbicides, although it is n o t completely a self-sustaining system. Typical for the area is the weekly market where all kind of products are sold and bought, and this makes itdifficult to obtain reliable yield figures. A b o u t 5% of the area is used as arable land, partly applying fertilizers and herbicides, partly using lucerne, etc. The other 95% is used as extensive pastures with sheep, lama, and horned cattle. Phosphate is the factor limiting production. It allows only 183 kg (live weight) of animal growth ha -1, this figure being based on a P requirement of 15 g kg -1 live weight per year. On a yearly basis, o n l y 50% of the pastures are actually used: for the calculation of Table 88 therefore, only 91.5 kg live weight ha -1 is considered to be exported from the area.

256

TABLE 88 System type: Mixed farming

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g h a -~ y - i )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Husz-3

High table land, (Pura = altiplano, Paramos) 5% arable farming, 95% extensive livestock

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

N

P

K

-25.1 --25.1

-3.1 --3.1

-43.1 --43.1

0.5 11.9 0.8 11.9 -25.1

0.1 1.4 0.2 1.4 -3.1

1.5 20.6 0.4 20.6 -43.1

0

0

0

of plant component

SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products .............. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g o n field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... Output by losses from manure to air, before application~li, ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

-. . .

--0.1 1.4 1.5

0.5 11.9 12.4 1.1

0.7

t -t 11.2 12.3

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

--t 0.7 1.4

0

0

-1.5 20.6 22.1 0.4 --t 21.7 22,1 0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off., T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0.25 11.2 -t 3 t -3.0 11.9 t 29.4

0.1 0.7 -t -t

0.12 21.7 -t -t

-t 1.4 t 2.2

t

--0

t 20.6 t 42.4

t t t 25.1 28.5

t t t 3.1 3.1

--t t t t 43.1 43.1

+0.9

-0.9

-0.7

3 0.5

257 Productivity and nutrient balance: The total dry matter production is 7558 kg ha-' y - ' , of which the above-ground part equals 3613 kg. With soil improvement and manuring the above-ground part rises to 7650 kg ha -~ y-1. 6.11.3.4. Shrub and tree savanna, Brazil The whole area is used for mixed farming. A distinction is made between areas receiving fertilizers and soil improvement, and areas without fertilizers and soil improvement. Both these areas are again split into a livestock part and an arable part. Thus in total, 6 systems have been defined. Classifica rio n: Mixed farming, Reference: Husz-4; Shrub and tree savannas, Central Brazil, no use of fertilizers or soil improvement, 25% cropped land and 75% grazed area, Table 90. Mixed, arable part. Reference: Husz-5; Shrub and tree savannas, Central Brazil, arable part of system Husz-4, Table 91. Mixed, livestock part. Reference: Husz-6; Shrub and tree savannas, Central Brazil, livestock part of system Husz-4, Table 92. Intensive mixed farming. Reference: Husz-7; Shrub and tree savannas, Central Brazil, with soil improvement and fertilizers, 50% cropped land, 50% livestock area, Table 93. Intensive, mixed, arable part. Reference: Husz-8; Shrub and tree savannas, Central Brazil, arable part of system Husz-7, Table 94. Intensive, mixed, livestock part. Reference: Husz-9; Shrub and tree savannas, Central Brazil, livestock part of system Husz-7, Table 95. Location: Central Brazilian plateau, mid-Brazil, Altitude 200--600 m. Climate: Mean annual temperature: 24--27°C; average temperature range: 5°C; annual precipitation: 110--220 cm; mean precipitation: 127.2 cm; potential evapotranspiration: 330.2 cm; actual evapotranspiration: 24.9 cm. Soil: Although the landscape is geologically older, the tertiary erosion products and sediments (frequently sandstone from the upper Cretaceous) predominate at the soil surface. The tertiary sediments are extremely weathered. The soils on this material are Acric Ferrasols ~md they belong to the oldest known soil formations. The soils formed from the sandstone of the Cretaceous sediments are developed as Lithosols or ferralic Arenosols. During the Quarternary period, the old landscape was altered once again. The soils resulting from sediments which were rearranged in the youngest geological era would appear to be Cambic or Argillic B-horizons. Main soils: Orthic Acrisols together with Ferric Luvisols, Eutric Nitrosols, Chromic Luvisols and Dystric Cambisols. Productivity index Qs = 0.50. Vegetation: Savannas of the "Campos Cerrados" (characteristic sorts of trees and shrubs) and gallery woods. Use: From a climatic point of view the production potential is high. However, the precipitation of 1200 mm annually and its distribution limit produc-

258 tion. The mean shoot index is 0.478. The area is covered with savannas and gale forests; agriculture is only possible on selected areas, where the production of tropical and subtropical crops such as coffee, citrus, c o t t o n and sugar cane is possible. Intensive fertilizer dressings are used on the plantations, b u t on the areas belonging to small sociological units (families) fertilization practices vary enormously. The main products of the small farms are fruit, corn, beans, potatoes, and sweet potatoes. Livestock consists of horned cattle, pigs, horses and poultry. Productivity and nutrient balance: Nutrient balances have been prepared for the small farms; irrigated areas and plantations are n o t considered. No data for nutrient balances for separate farms are available, so that values again had to be calculated. For the system described by Husz-4 (no fertilizers, no soil improvement), Qs was taken to be 0.50, giving an above-ground dry matter production of 8266 kg ha -1 . For the system Husz-5 (with fertilizers and soil improvement), Qs was set at 0.85, giving an above-ground dry matter production of 14052 kg ha-~. To calculate the figures in the nutrient balance tables, the nutrient content of the crops was taken as: 10 kg N, 1.2 kg P and 12 kg K per 1000 kg dry matter. The percentage of plant parts remaining in the field was set at 20%, a further 57% went to the market, and the share of animal and human consumption was 22% and 1%, respectively. The actual figures for nitrogen are presented in Table 89, and the mutual relationships between the fluxes are shown in Fig. 41. An analysis of the nitrogen fluxes of system Husz-4, Tables 90--92, shows a shortage of nitrogen on the livestock area. This results from the assumption that an important part of the excrements are transferred to the arable area. If this is not done, the shortage of nitrogen occurs on the arable part of the farm. In such situations it is customary to alternate the arable land and the pastures from time to time. System Husz-5, Table 91 (see also Tables 89, 93, 94 and 95), shows a flow of nitrogen, in the form of feed for cattle, from the arable part to the pastures. The return flow (application of manure to arable land) is absent, resulting in a nitrogen deficit for the arable part of the farm, in spite of the

561 (Import)

j

(Export)

SOIL

Fig. 41. Nitrogen flow chart, small farm, central Brazil (system Husz-7). Values are in kg and refer to 0.5 ha pasture plus 0.5 ha cropped land.

1.46 35.95 45.65 97.11

Total

14.05

Uptake by vegetation Feed for cattle Crops sold Private consumption (crops) Remaining on field Grazing Uptake by livestock Livestock sold Private consumption (meat) Waste Excrements Input fertilizers 97.11

26.86

70.25

97.11

26.86

70.25

In

In

Out

Plant

Soil

97.11

26.86

15.45 40.04 0.71

Out

42.31

26.86

14.05

15.45

In

Animal

42.31

35.95

5.61 0.75

Out

1.46

0.75

0.71

In

Human

1.46

1.46

Out

45.65

45.65

Import

45.65

5.61

40.04

Export

Nitrogen balance of small farms, central Brazil (system Husz-7 ). The ratio between arable land and pastures is 1:1. Note that the values are expressed per ha total area, so that the actual values per ha arable land or pasture have to be doubled. E.g. the uptake is 140.5 kg N ha -1 (twice the 70.25 kg of the table)

TABLE 89

t,O ¢J1 ¢O

260

TABLE 90 System type: Extensive mixed farming

Summary of nutrient flows (units: kg ha-'

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Husz-4

S h r u b a n d t r e e s a v a n n a s , C e n t r a l Brazil, 25% cropped land, 75% livestock area

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

y-' )

N

P

K

t

t

t

of plant component Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

56.9 -t

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ............. Output by primary products . Transfer by plant production remaining'on'fieid ~ Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

9.5 -t

95.1 -t

56.9

9.5

95.1

2.3 40.3 11.0 3.3 -56.9

0.3 7.4 1.4 0.4 -9.5

2.8 74.4 13.7 4.2 -95.1

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

. . .

1.7 40.3 42.0

--0.2 7.5 7.7

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... Output by losses from manure to air, before application~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings on grazed areas ....... TOTAL

9.6

3.3

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

---

--

SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

19. 20. 21.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust ...................... Output by organic matter, removed by run-off., T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

22.

6.3

t 1.7 30.7 42.0

-t

0.9 3.5 7.7

1.4 68.7 76.4

0

0

0

2.3 30.6 --6.0

1.0 3.5 ----

2.2 68.7 ---t -t 4.1 t 75

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

23. 28. 30.

2.1 74.3 76.4

--

t

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t

---

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste irrigation and flooding .......... : dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

t

t --

-6.0 3.3

t

t 0.4 t

48.2

4.9

1.0 3.7 t t t t

--t t t t

--t t t t

56.9 61.6

9.5 9.5

95.1 95.1

-13.4

-4.6

-20.1

261

T A B L E 91 S y s t e m t y p e : Extensive m i x e d f a r m i n g

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha - I y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Husz-5

S h r u b and tree savannas, Central Brazil, N balance arable part o f s y s t e m Husz-4

Nutrient

N

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

t 66.1 --66.1

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

9.0 -43.9 13.2 -66.1

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t b y feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by consumption of harvested crops T r a n s f e r by grazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

. . .

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t by application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

--51.7 -t t t 5.3 13.2 -70.2

O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . , T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

t

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

3 1 t t t 66.1 70.1 0

P

K

262

T A B L E 92 S y s t e m t y p e : Extensive m i x e d f a r m i n g

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -~ y-~ )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e of p a r t of a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Husz-6

S h r u b and tree savannas, Central Brazil, N balance livestock part o f s y s t e m Husz-4

Nutrient

N

P

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t by seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by u p t a k e f r o m a t m o s p h e r e . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

-53.7 --

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r by grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by p r i m a r y p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r by seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

-

53.7 53.7 -t 53.7

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t by feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n o f harvested crops T r a n s f e r by grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

O u t p u t by animal p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Out~.ut b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

2.2 -. . .

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

53.7 55.9 12.9 -17.2 2.3 23.6 55.6 t

Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation a n d flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

2.3 23.6 --8.0 t t 7.0 -t 40.9

O u t p u t by denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . , T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

t t t t

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

t 4.0

53.7 57.7 -17.2

K

263

T A B L E 93 System type: Intensive mixed farming

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : k g ha - I y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Husz-7

S h r u b a n d t r e e s a v a n n a s , Central Brazil, w i t h soil i m p r o v e m e n t a n d fertilizers, 50% arable f a r m i n g , 50% l i v e s t o c k f a r m i n g

Nutrient

N

P

K

t

t 177.1 --

97.1

t 17.6 --17.6

16.1 26.9 40.0 14.1 -97.1

3.9 5.0 7.2 2.5 -18.6

21.3 84.3 52.2 193 -177.1

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer I n p u t by

seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake trom atmosphere .......... TOTAL

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products .............. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . Transfer by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

97.1 --

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

177.1

t

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

O u t p u t by a n i m a l p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r by d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed f o r l i v e s t o c k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l i t t e r used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

--

t . . .

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

t 15.4 26.9 42.3 5.7

3.8

0.8 36 42.5

--0.2 3.8 7.8

---

t

-t

2.8 5.0 7.8

20.4 84.3 104.7 7.1 --0.6 97.0 104.7

0

0

0.3 3.8 -11 -t -t 2.5 t 17.6

1.6 97 -59.3 --

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27. R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by I n p u t by Input by Transfer Transfer

by a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . by d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure . . . . . . . . . ... fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-fixation .................... a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

O u t p u t by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by v o l a t i l i z a t i o n o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by l e a c h i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... O u t p u t by o r g a n i c m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . , T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPI~LIES-REMOVALS

1.5 36.0 -45.7 21 t -10 14.1 t 128.3 2 18 1 t t t 97.1 118.1 10.2

t -t 19.3 t 177.2

--0 t t t 17.6 17.6

--t t t t 177.1 177.1

0

+ 0.1

264

T A B L E 94 S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive m i x e d f a r m i n g

Summary of n u t r i e n t . f l o w s (units: kg ha -1 y-~ )

T y p e o f f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f part o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Husz-8

S h r u b and tree savannas, Central Brazil, with soil i m p r o v e m e n t and fertilizers, N balance arable part o f s y s t e m Husz-7

Nutrient

N

P

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t b y seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . Input by uptake from atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

-141 --141

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

--113 28 -141

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

Changes in a m o u n t of animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

REMOVALS:

5. 6.

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by losses from m a n u r e to air, before application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b y consumption of harvested crops . . . by grazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . 19"0. T r a n s f e r by d r o p p i n g s on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t by application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. I n p u t by fertilizers . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. I n p u t by application o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . 14. I n p u t by irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . 15. I n p u t b y d r y and w e t deposition . . . . . . . . . . . 26. T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field • . 27. T r a n s f e r by seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

-91 17 --10 20 -138

O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

2 15 1 ---141 159

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-21

K

265

T A B L E 95 S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive m i x e d f a r m i n g

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha - l y - l )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m o r t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Husz-9

S h r u b and tree savannas, Central Brazil, with soil i m p r o v e m e n t and fertilizers, N-balance livestock p a r t o f s y s t e m Husz-7

Nutrient

N

P

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t b y seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by u p t a k e f r o m a t m o s p h e r e . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

-54 --54

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by p r i m a r y p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

-54 --

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

-54

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t b y feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by litter used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

Output by animal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e • application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

. . .

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

31 --54 85 11 -2 72 85 0

Changes in a m o u n t o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t by application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . I n p u t by irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t deposition . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t b y dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

2 72 -25 -10 -109 2 20 1 --

.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

.

54 77 32

K

266

fact that the fertilizers are applied to the arable area and n o t to the livestock area. Literature: Jenny, 1941, 1964; Fried and Broeshart, 1967; Stevensen, 1965.

6.11.3.5. Arid and mesophytic transitional woods Classification: Mixed livestock. Reference: Husz-10; Arid and mesophytic transitional woods, S. America, all kinds of products ; ratio pastures : cropped land = 4:1, Table 96. Location: The arid woods and transitional forms to mesophytic woods are widely spread over this continent, on low plateaus and western slopes of the Andes (northern Chile, southern Peru), at altitudes of 500--1500 m. They also occur in the central Chaco from Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, to Mar Chicita in Argentina (altitude 60--400 m), on the western edge of the Chaco (Argentina and Bolivia, altitude 100--500 m), in the eastern Chaco (altitude 60--200 m), in the area of the Parana (Paraguay and Uruguay, altitude 20-100 m), in the area between the Rio Negro and Cordoba in mid-Argentina (0--400 m), in the Caatinga area (northwestern Brazil, 0--500 m) and in the Caribbean coast area, both in the valleys of the Andes with a semi-arid character and the coast area from northern Peru to southern Ecuador. Climate: Mean annual temperature: 16--29°C; mean annual range: 14°C; annual precipitation: 30--150 cm; mean precipitation: 76.8 cm; mean potential evapotranspiration: 187.8 cm; actual evapotranspiration: 75.8 cm. Soil: Most sediments of these plateaus are weathered parts of an old mountainous area. They form the present-day soil, although the original material (mainly of a sandy nature), which is usually displaced, has been changed a great deal due to tectonic movements and weathering. On the western slopes of the Andes Orthic Ferralsols, Xanthic soils, Albic Arenosols and Plinthic Acrisols are found (altitude: 60--400 m, temperature: 16--21°C + 15, annual precipitation: 50--80 cm). Apart from the frequently occurring transition forms, the soils are mainly Acric Ferralsols, Orthic Acrisols and Ferralic Arenosols over the main part of the area, and, in the valley plains, both Ferric Luvisols and Gleysols within the reach of groundwater. The well known "Caatinga-lat sol" can be equated to an Orthic Ferralsol. In eroded areas, where ancient soils are removed, Rhodic Ferralsols and Eutric Nitrosols (= "Terra R o x a Estructurada") can be found, occurring on older geological material on solid rock {basalt). Vegetation: To describe the vegetation types, it is necessary to specify areas which can be distinguished. (a) Southwestwards from the Andes in northern Chile and in Peru. Altitude: 500--1500 m. Climate: mean annual temperature, 16--21°C + 7; precipitation 3 0 - 1 0 0 cm. Main vegetation: open arid brushwood with "pillar" cacti. Use: firewood; with irrigation: sugar-cane, cotton, rice, lucerne, maize.

267 (b) Arid woods of the Central Chaco. (The Central Chaco runs from Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, to the Mar Chiquita, Argentina.) Altitude: 100--400 m. Climate: mean annual temperature, 20--24°C; mean annual range, 15°C; annual precipitation, 50--80 cm. Main vegetation: "Algarrobowood". Use: forestry, charcoal ("Fannin"), cattle, goats, sheep, cotton, maize, lucerne. (c) Arid woods to rather fresh woods of the eastern part of the Chaco (eastern Chaco in Paraquay and Argentina). Altitude: 60--200 m. Climate: mean annual temperature, 24--25°C; mean annual range, 6°C; annual precipitation, 110--120 cm. Main vegetation: Quebracho-wood, Schinopsis balansae (Quebracho colorado diaque~o), Schinus molle (molle, pimiento), Copernicia australis (caranday), plus vegetation as in the Central Chaco. Use: as in the Central Chaco. (d) Mesophytic transitional woods of the western Chacorandes (western edge of the Chaco in Argentina and Bolivia). Altitude: 100--150 m. Climate: mean annual temperature, 19--20°C; mean annual range, 13°C; annual precipitation, 70--100 cm. Main vegetation: Tala-Mistol wood. Use: forestry, sugar-cane, maize, lucerne, potatoes, tobacco, citrus, vegetables. (e) Park landscape of Entre Rios (Parque mesopot~mico) (eastern Chaco border area in reach of the Parana, Paraguay and upper Uruguay). Altitude: 20--100 m. Climate: mean annual temperature, 17--21°C; mean annual range, 12°C; annual precipitation, 100--140 cm. Main vegetation: subtropical woods, gallery woods, semi-arid and arid woods, palm woods, savannas within reach of the groundwater, rush-moors. Use: forestry, cattle, sheep, rice, cotton, jute, tobacco, fruit, wheat, maize, oats, lucerne, ground-nuts, sunflowers. (f) Arid woods of the Espinales and transition from arid woods to Monte vegetation (mid-Argentina between Rio Negro and Cordoba). Altitude: 0--400 m. Climate: mean annual temperature, 14--18°C; mean annual range, 14°C; annual precipitation, 30--60 cm. Main vegetation: arid woods, palm woods, Monte shrub-steppe. Use: firewood, cattle, horses, lucerne. (g) Vegetation of arid valleys of the Andes (valleys of the Andes from northern Argentina to Venezuela). Altitude: 400--2000 m.

268 Climate: mean annual temperature depending on latitude and height, between 16 and 27°C; annual precipitation, 30--80 cm. Main vegetation: in Argentinian and Bolivian part: algarrobo woods and halophyte vegetation; in Peruvian, Ecuadorian, Columbian and Venezuelian part: arid woods. Use: firewood, cattle, goats, sheep, maize, wheat, rice, cotton, cocoa, fruit, vineyards. (h) Caribbean arid woods, mainly thorn bushes and cactus bushes (Caribbean coastal area of Columbia, Venezuela and neighbouring islands). Altitude: 0--500 (1000) m. Climate: mean annual temperature, 24--29°C; mean annual range, 1--2°C; annual precipitation, 30--80 cm. Main vegetation: thorn bushes, cacti, brushwoods. Use: firewood, cattle, goats, maize, cotton. (i) Caatinga (northeastern Brazil). Altitude: 0--500 m. Climate: mean annual temperature, 24--26°C; mean annual range, 1°C; annual precipitation, 30--80 cm. Main vegetation: arid woods and arid bushes of the Caatinga, gallery woods, arid grassland, savannas. Use: forestry, palm culture, palm oil, cattle, goats, sheep, hogs, donkeys, mules. (j) Agreste woods (between Atlantic coastal mountains and Caatinga). Altitude: 0 - 5 0 0 (1000) m. Climate: mean annual temperature, 25°C, mean annual range, 1°C; mean annual precipitation, 30--80 cm. Main vegetation: Agreste arid woods, palms. (k) Espinal of the mouth of the Plata (lower Parana, with delta). Altitude: 0--100 m. Climate: mean annual precipitation, 17°C; mean annual range, 12°C; annual precipitation, 80--100 cm. Main vegetation: thorn brushwoods, willow woods, tessaria woods, pithecolobium woods, saphium woods, erythrina woods, palm woods. Use: fruit culture. Productivity and nutrient balance: In this whole area forestry is important: the nutrient balance applies however to the (extensive) mixed farming which is carried out near villages. The ratio between pastures and cropped land can be taken as 4:1. The calculations are based on a mean yield of 5945 kg ha-' above-ground dry matter, and a soil productivity index Qs of 0.605. The total dry matter production is 14 940 kg ha-' without soil improvement (shoot index Qv = 0.398).

269

T A B L E 96 System type: Extensive mixed farming

Summary of n u t r i e n t f l o w s ( u n i t s : kg ha -1 y - i )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e o f p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Husz-10

A r i d + mesot~hytic t r a n s i t i o n a l w o o d s , S. A m e r i c a , all k i n d o f p r o d u c t s , r a t i o past u r e s : c r o p p e d land = 4 : 1

Nutrient

N

P

K

-40.9 --

-68.4 --

40.9

-6.9 --6.9

1.6 29.0 7.9 2.4 -40.9

0.2 5.4 1.0 0.3 -6.9

2.0 53.5 9,9 3.0 -68,4

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES :

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

s e e d s or s e e d l i n g s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake irom atmosphere .......... TOTAL

REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by Gazing of forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products .............. T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r by seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

68.4

0

0

0

--1.2 29.0 30.2

--0.2 5.4 5.6

6.9

2.4

--1.2 22.0 30.1

--0.6 2.5 5.5

+0.1

+0.1

0

1.7 21.9 -t 8 t t 15 2.4 t 49

0.7 2.5 --

1.6 49.5 --

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

5. 6.

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application~i ......................... O u t p u t by m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . T r a n s f e r by d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

feed f o r l i v e s t o c k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l i t t e r used i n d o o r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops by g r a z i n g o f f o r a g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

.

.

.

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

-1.5 53.5 55,0 4,5 --1.0 49.5 55

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by I n p u t by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure . . . . . . . . .... fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-fixation .................... a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge and w a s t e . irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . dry and wet deposition . . . . . . . . . . . b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . by seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

Output by denitrification ................ O u t p u t by v o l a t i l i z a t i o n o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by l e a c h i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... O u t p u t by organic matter, removed by r u n - o f f . , T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

t

t

t --

t t t

-t t t

0.3 t

3.0 t

3.5

54.1

5 t t t t 40.9 45.9

--t t t t 6.9 6.9

--t t t t

+3.1

-3.4

-14.3

68.4 68.4

270

6.11.3.6. Arable farming o f a tropical and sub-tropical nature, fruit and horticulture included This system can be divided into two subsystems. -- Plantation system on 80% of the total agricultural surface -- Small farm system on 20% of the total agricultural surface. Classification: Intensive arable. Reference: Husz-11; Tropical and subtropical arable farming, small farm system, Table 97. Intensive arable. Reference: Husz-12; Tropical and subtropical arable farming, plantation system, Table 98. Location: All over the continent, as far as ecological and topographical conditions and the traffic situation make it possible. The total surface involved is small (about 2%). It is distributed, with few exceptions along the coast of south and east Brazil, the Caribbean coasts and river oases in the arid zone of the Pacific coast. Climate: The climate is heterogeneous within the framework of tropical conditions and varies from a humid-warm equatorial to a sub-tropical desert climate (with irrigation). However, high temperatures of more than 25°C always last for at least 6 months, and mean temperatures do n o t fall below 14°C. Most of the time, rainfall periods and dry periods can be clearly distinguished. Mean precipitation, 156.3 cm; mean potential evapotranspiration, 203.4 cm; mean actual evapotranspiration, 146.9 cm. Soil: As a result of the widespread occurrence of this ecosystem, the softs are also very heterogeneous. However, in general, there are fertile well situated soils, under a mixture of arable farming and plantation culture. These soils are mainly on younger deposits of terraced landscapes (Riverside soils or colluvial soils) and flat-conical deposits from river systems: Eutric Fluvisols, Eutric Regosols, Ochric, Humic or Calcic Gleysols, Saline Vertisols, Eutric Planasols, Phaeozems. The oldest geological formations in southeast Brazil consist of acid crystallines (granite, gneiss, quartzite) encysted by red sandstone. They form acid, less fertile red soils (Ferric Luvisols, Humic Cambisols, or Acrisols). However, under the influence of spurs of the central Brazilian mountains (basic crystalline), weakly acid to neutral soils could be developed (Rhodic Ferrasols, Humic Ferrasols). In the neighbourhood of the coast, marine deposits also form soil (Xanthic Ferrasols and Orthic Acrisols). Mean productivity index, Qs, 0.512 (0.9 on irrigated soils). Use: The plantations cover a b o u t 80% of the agricultural area, the small farms occupy a b o u t 20%; livestock is almost absent. Productivity and nutrient balance: The plantations are very well fertilized, b u t the small farms, noticing the high yields on the plantations, also use more fertilizers than usual on such small farms in South America. The mean shoot index is 0.453 (0.56 on irrigated soils). The mean yield is 11 360 kg ha-' above-ground dry matter, and with irrigation 19 960 kg ha-'. For optimal

271

T A B L E 97 S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive arable

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg h a -1 y - l )

T y p e of f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e of p a r t o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , t e l no. H u s z - l l

Tropical and sub-tropical arable farming, small farm s y s t e m , S. A m e r i c a

Nutrient

N

P

K

t

90.9

t 18.2 -t 18.2

t 181.5 -t 181.5

34.1 -34.1 22.7 -90.9

6.8 -6.8 4.6 -18.2

68.0 -68.0 45.5 -181.5

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t of p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31. 3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

I n p u t b y seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by u p t a k e f r o m a t m o s p h e r e . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

90.9 -t

T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by p r i m a r y p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

Changes in a m o u n t o f animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

1. 2. 3. 4.

I n p u t b y feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

5. 6.

O u t p u t by animal p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e appncation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d ] o r w a s t e . T r a n s f e r by droppings on g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . TOTAL

7. 8. 9.

. . .

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t o f total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r by droppings on grazed areas . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y dry and w e t deposition . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g o n field • . T r a n s f e r b y seed for sowingTOTAL ........ ' .....

R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

34.1 . . 12.5 30.0

. t t t

12.0 22.7 11--1.3

6.8 . . 2.5 8.0 --

.

t t t

68.0 . 25.0 58.0 -t t t

4.6

45.5

21.9

196.5

--0

--10

t 20 5 t

t

t

t

t

t

t 90.9 115.9

t 18.2 18.2

t 181.5 191.5

- 4.6

3.7

+ 5

272

TABLE 98 System type: Intensive arable

Summary of nutrient flows {units: kg ha -I y-1 )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a farm or ecosystem, ref. no. Husz-12

Tropical and sub-tropical arable farming, p l a n t a t i o n s y s t e m , S. A m e r i c a

Nutrient C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

29. 30t.

30r. 31. REMOVALS:

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

N

P

K

-111 -111

-25.0 --25.0

-228 --228

t

t

t

84 27 -111

-18.7 6.3 -25.0

171 57 -228

of plant component Input by Transfer Transfer Input by

seeds or seedlings ............... b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . uptake from atmosphere .......... TOTAL

Transfer by consumption of harvested crops . . . Transfer by grazing of forage ........ - ..... Output by primary products .............. Transfer by plant production remaining on field . Transfer by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

0

0

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f a n i m a l c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1. 2. 3. 4.

REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

feed for livestock ............... litter used indoors .............. by consumption of harvested crops by grazing of forage ............. TOTAL

. . .

Output by animal products ............... O u t p u t b y losses f r o m m a n u r e t o air, b e f o r e application ......................... Output by manure .................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste . Transfer by droppings ongrazed areas ....... TOTAL

--

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS C h a n g e s in a m o u n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

o f t o t a l soil c o m p o n e n t

8, 9, 10. 11, 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer

by application of manure and/or waste . by droppings on grazed areas ....... application of manure ............ fertilizers .................... N-fixation .................... application of litter, sludge and waste . irrigation and flooding ........... dry and wet deposition ........... by plant products remaining on field . . by seed for sowing .............. TOTAL

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... Output by run-off of available nutrients ...... Output by dust .................. •. . . . Output by organic matter, removed by run-off . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

t

t --

t 94 t t 10 5 28 -137

t 15.7 -t 3.0 t 6.3 -25

t

-t 101 -t 40 5 57 -203

--0

20 5 .

t --

--35

t t

t t

t t

t

t

t

111 136

25 25

228 263

+ 1

0

-60

273

TABLE 98 (continued) S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive a r a b l e

Summary of n u t r i e n t flows (units: k g h a - I y - J )

Type of farm or ecosystem or type of part of a f a r m o r e c o s y s t e m , ref. n o . H u s z - 1 2

Tropical and sub-tropical arable farming, p l a n t a t i o n s y s t e m , S. A m e r i c a

Nutrient

N

P

K

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f available soil n u t r i e n t s SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

8a. 9a. 10a. 11. 12. 13a. 14. 15. 16. 17. 26a. 27.

Transfer Transfer Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Input by Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 30t.

Output by denitrification ................ Output by volatilization of ammonia ........ Output by leaching .................... O u t p u t b y r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . Output by dust ...................... T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... Transfer by net uptake by the plant ......... TOTAL

30r.

by application of manure and/or waste . b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . application of manure ............ fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-fixation .................... a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . irrigation and floodlng ........... dry and wet deposition ........... b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n b y p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g o n field . b y seed f o r s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

--

--

60

pm+60 ---

--

pm

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

+60

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil o r g a n i c m a t t e r SUPPLIES:

8 b . T r a n s f e r b y a p p l i c a t i o n a n d / o r Waste . . . . . . . . 9 b . T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n grazed a r e a s . . . . . . . Input by application of manure ............ 1 3 b . I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, sludge a n d w a s t e . 25. T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n 2 6 b . T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g o n field . . TOTAL 10b.

REMOVALS:

17. 28.

T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n Output by organic matter, removed by run-off.. TOTAL SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

C h a n g e s in a m o u n t o f soil m i n e r a l s SUPPLY: REMOVAL:

24. 16.

T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . SUPPLY-REMOVAL

---

60 -60

274

T A B L E 99 S y s t e m t y p e : Intensive m i x e d

S u m m a r y of n u t r i e n t flows (units: kg ha -1 y-~ )

T y p e o f f a r m or e c o s y s t e m or t y p e of part o f a f a r m or e c o s y s t e m , ref. no. Husz-13

Mixed s y s t e m , t e m p e r a t e zone, S. A m e r i c a 33% arable farming, 67% livestock f a r m i n g

Nutrient

N

P

K

t 21.5 -t 21.5

t 187 -t 187

95 29.2 10 -134

t 14.9 4.9 1.7 -21.5

1.0 132 40.1 14 -187

0

0

0

Changes in a m o u n t o f p l a n t c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

REMOVALS:

29. 30t. 30r. 31.

I n p u t b y seeds or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by u p t a k e f r o m a t m o s p h e r e . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

t34 1

3. 4. 18. 26. 27.

T r a n s f e r b y c o n s u m p t i o n o f h a r v e s t e d crops . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by primary products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n r e m a i n i n g on field . T r a n s f e r by seed for sowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

t

-t 134

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS Changes in a m o u n t of animal c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

1. 2. 3. 4.

REMOVALS:

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

I n p u t by feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . •. . . I n p u t by litter used indoors . .. . . . . . . T r a n s f e r by c o n s u m p t i o n o f harvested c r o p s . . . T r a n s f e r b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

. .

.

. 1 95 96

. .

.

. .

.

. 0.1 14.9 15

. .

. 1 122 123

O u t p u t by a n i m a l p r o d u c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 1.6 3.5 O u t p u t by losses f r o m m a n u r e to air, b e f o r e application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r w a s t e . 1 0.1 -T r a n s f e r b y droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . 85 13.3 119 TOTAL 96 15 123 SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

0

0

1 84

0.1 13.3 t 6.4 -t t t 1.7 t 21.5

0

Changes in a m o u n t of total soil c o m p o n e n t SUPPLIES:

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 26. 27. R E M O V A L S : 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 28. 30.

T r a n s f e r by application o f m a n u r e a n d / o r waste . T r a n s f e r by droppings on grazed areas . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f m a n u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y N-fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y application o f litter, sludge and waste . I n p u t b y irrigation and flooding . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t b y d r y and w e t d e p o s i t i o n T r a n s f e r b y p l a n t p r o d u c t s r e m a i n i n g on field . . T r a n s f e r by seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL

t 15 25 t t 20 10 t 155 4 15 2

----

0 119 t 49 -t t t 14 t 182

O u t p u t b y denitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t b y volatilization o f a m m o n i a . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by r u n - o f f o f available n u t r i e n t s . . . . . . O u t p u t by dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O u t p u t by organic m a t t e r , r e m o v e d b y r u n - o f f . , T r a n s f e r b y n e t u p t a k e f r o m soil b y p l a n t . . . . . TOTAL

---

t t t 134 155

t t t 21.5 21.5

6 t t t 187 193

SUPPLIES-REMOVALS

+ 0

0

-11

275 conditions (soil improvement and irrigation) a yield of 33 600 kg ha -1 seems possible. The main products are maize, rice, potatoes and sweet potatoes, sugar-cane, bananas, pineapple, coffee, cacao, pulses, tropical and sub-tropical fruits (mango, cherimoya, avocado) (Husz, 1968).

6.11.3.7. Arable farming in a temperate climate, with green fodder and meadows (intensive grasslands and dairy) Classification: Intensive mixed. Reference: Husz-13; Mixed system, temperate zone, S. America, 33% arable farming, 67% livestock farming, Table 99. Location: Eastern part of mid-Argentina from Rio Uruguay to Bahia Blanca (plain, pampa) and Uruguay and south Brazil (hill, pampa): from the east side of the Rio Uruguay to the Atlantic coast. Climate: Mean annual temperature: 14--19°C; mean annual range: 12°C; annual precipitation: 60--130 cm; mean precipitation: 93.4 cm; mean potential evapotranspiration: 148.9 cm; mean actual evapotranspiration: 91.9 cm. Soil: The pampas extend over a b o u t 500 000 km 2 and are mainly covered with quaternary deposits. They represent the present land surface and are soil-forming. The soils are loess-like silty loamy soils. Loam and clay loam occur only in basins or on river beds. The deposits are calcareous and rich in plagioclas, hornblende, pyroxenes and volcanic glass (influence of volcanic ash from the youngest geological era). The rather humid zone of the hill pampas in the north contains fine granular material. Phaeozems with an argillic B horizon have been formed, and when the texture is very fine, vertisols can be found. The argillic B horizon is absent in the western part, as it is more arid here and the texture of the basic material is coarser, so that sand dunes are sometimes formed. The Phaeozems without a B horizon can be found in combination with Rhegosols. In the lowlands mainly saltic gleys and pseudogleys occur (gleyic solontschaks). The salinization is more intensive in the eastern pampa, where the natural drainage of the soil is bad and where lakes have formed in flat places. In this area, Mollic Solonetz, Mollic Planosols and Mollic Gleysols can be found. In the south-east, softs with a hardened CaCO3-horizon are predominant, and in this area, where deposits (mostly o f aeolic origin) slightly cover this CaCO3-horizon, Phaeozems and Planosols have been formed; in the basins Solonetza. In eroded places, the CaCO3-horizon lies at the soil surface and is soil-forming; then rendzinas are developed. Soil quality index, Qs = 0.742. Use: With the exception of the plantations on the tropical and sub-tropical areas, these systems are the most intensively used ones. The yields are low and can be compared to those of Europe in the thirties. Pastures and arable land alternate as a result of a special renting system which requires lucerne to be sown at the end of a renting period of a few years. It can then be used as a pasture for 5--10 years, practically without any further application of fertilizers. Thereafter, the soil is ploughed again; maize, wheat, sunflowers and linseed are the main crops.

276 Productivity and nutrient balance: The climatic conditions favour symbiotic nitrogen fixation. For lucerne, it is estimated that from 50 to 650 kg of nitrogen ha -1 can be fixed annually. If 150 kg N ha -~ is taken as a mean and it is assumed that lucerne covers 25% of the pastures, the mean nitrogen fixation on grassland is 37.5 kg N ha -~. With 2/3 pastures and 1/3 arable land, the mean nitrogen fixation is 25 kg ha ~1. The systems appear to be in equilibrium with applications of 45 kg of fertilizer N ha -~ arable land (15 kg N ha -~ agricultural area). The shoot index Qv = 0.444. This is 10 100 kg shoot dry matter ha -~, or 12 250 kg ha -~ with soil improvement (FAO and UNESCO, 1967; Duckham and Masefield, 1970; Fried and Broeshart, 1967).

277

Chapter 7 G E N E R A L DISCUSSION

7.1. I N T R O D U C T I O N

At the start of the symposium Dr Geertsema expressed the hope that the discussions would shed more light on the possibilities of increased food production for human society without wastage of resources and energy, and without undue damage to the environment. It was also hoped that areas of well defined knowledge, matters of divided opinion, and needs for future research might be identified. In this chapter an attempt is made to assess the contribution of the symposium towards these problems. In an experimental excercise of this kind generalizations are inevitable and any tentative conclusions reached here should be carefully considered for specific systems, and reconsidered in the light of subsequent new knowledge. At the symposium, Kolenbrander presented an analysis of the relationship between farm inputs and product (consumable) o u t p u t which is an assessment of production efficiency. A modified approach is discussed in the section which follows, on nutrient balances, by Frissel and Kolenbrander, together with their conclusions regarding losses of nutrients. Floate, in the section on changes in pool sizes, has attempted to identify c o m m o n features among the set of systems, and to analyse, for those systems losing nutrients from the total soil pool, the source of that loss from the subsidiary pools within the soft. From this analysis he has attempted to draw conclusions regarding the state of soil organic matter, and the fate of applied fertilizers. The possible manipulation of systems through use of fertilizers is discussed and the section concludes with a review of the needs for further research. 7.2. T H E N U T R I E N T B A L A N C E S ; S U M M A R I Z I N G G R A P H S A N D T A B L E S

(Frissel and Kolenbrander) A summary of the inputs and consumable outputs is shown in Table 100. This table also contains a qualitative indication of the state of balance of the nutrients N, P and K. The symbols +, 0 or - indicate whether the system gains, is in balance or loses the nutrient. Details are shown in Figs. 42--52 and Tables 101 and 102. Both inputs vary over wide ranges, which made it necessary to use logarithmic scales. In the figures which relate consumable outputs, losses to the atmosphere and leaching losses to the farm inputs, lines are drawn with equal outputs or equal losses, both being expressed as a percentage of the farm input. Figures which show the consumable outputs versus the farm inputs also contain lines (the d o t t e d ones) with equal absolute losses (in kg nutrient ha- i y - 1 ). In fact, all values refer to a period of one year; this is n o t indicated in order to avoid overloading the figures.

I

.

J 0'J

0

[~ ~l

Z

alq~mnsuoa

;

N

Zo I

l~O~L

,. . n _,-Tu :

~

[~o&

s'InduT,aoq~. 0

"~'[OZ.II!'~JOJ'T

olq~mnsuoo

t

i

I

I

IZ

I

I

I

~

I Z

i

I

o

~

i

i

+

~

,~ ~

J

i

I

I

,

I

I

i

i

I

i

i

i

J

I

I

I

I

tZ

I +Z

t

t

I +

+

I ZZ

I Z

I

I

[

14-

I

~ ~

i

I

tZZ

14"

i i

I

t

I

I

I

~

I

I Z

~ ~

I

~ ~; ~: ,-~ ~o

'~

"~

I

I

I

r

I

I "~

I

l~O.T,

~u!-n=u- i~',.o~,

~

c~ c~ ~

~

~

~

~

c:>

~

~

~

~

~J

i

~ndu! ~aq~ 0

~OZl[l~lO~[

Ind~.no

olqemnsuo~

I

I

I

I

"~ ~

~

I

I

I

I

cn

I

I

oo

I

co..

I

~

I

I

I

I

~

le~Oj,

i

i

~-d

paaT t°+UORlOt~n~

I

I

I

i

i

I

I

i

I

J

,--d

I

I

r

I

i

I

t'~

I

I

I

i

I

J

I

I

I

I

"0

~ ~ ~

~

, ~ i

~,~

~

.-

__

+++

++

++++~

=, ~ o o o ~

"~ =, ~_ :~ ' ~ ' ~ ' ~ o ~ o o ~

'~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~= ~ ~

~ . . . . . .

~ o

0 ~

+

~

c~ o ,-, ~ ,-,, ~, ,..., o~, . .~, . . =.~ o ~ o.= o,.~ ~.~

zz~:zzzz~=~5=5=~z~

_

, ~= _

200

Jacquard-4 Jacquard-3 Noy-Meir + Harpaz-5 Jacquard-5 Henkens-3 Newbould + Floate-9 Thomas + Gilliam-5 Thomas + Gilliam-4 Jacquard-6 Noy-Meir + Harpaz-6 Yatazawa-4 Huszol2 Thomas + Gilliam-1 Yatazawa-2 Thomas + Gilliam-2 Yatazawa-1 Kolek-1 Husz-8 Henkens-4 Henkens-5 Yatazawa-6 Yatazawa-3 Henkens-6 Yatazawa-5 Jacquard-7

42 369

-

-

158

19 26

8

14 17 53 6

5

12 6 9 10 20 57 10 43

6 14 17

5 5 15 10 7 10 42 27 10 14 14 132 7 14 5 -

-

-

-

-

14 20.3

95 400 672 115 232 172 800 95 209 106 122 72 10 138 211 101 783 319 293 265 346 105 800

6 33 343 100 42 40 59 178 61 57 55.7 43 200

14 66.2

5 20

5

21 31 50 60 5

55 123 40 44 18 20 20 80 -

-

-

-

-

120 4.7 50 5 120 10 50

134 71 50 11 153 353 150 42 40 59 178 61 57 76.7 74 250 60 100 400 672 120 232 172 800 100 229 106 122 127 133 178 256 119 783 319 313 285 346 185 800 126 137 162 166 175 400

81 82 84 85 88 90 96 82 113

77 79 80

66

29.2 43.9 40 49

34.1 36 36

11

2.3

80

70 72

17 115 -

-

-

-

60 63

5.7

38 10.5

19 17.0 20 9.6 24 26 30

19 19.3 20 20.6 24 26 30 34.1 36 36 38 39.7 43.9 45.7 49 60 63 66 70 72 77 79 80 80 81 82 84 85 88 90 96 99 113 115 126 137 162 166 175 400 24 31.8 79.9 30 45.8 150

48 15.7 30 37.7 19 45 100

25 14 101 160

80

75 100

11

50 50 8 13 79 24 6.4

10.4

-

.

.

-

.

. -

-

-

-

.

5 56.1 50 8 .13.1 79 24.3 6.4

1 13.1

11 6.1 6.1 75 100 . 80 38 38 0.3 25.3 14 0.1 101.1 160 . 0.2 48.2 3 18.7 0.3 30.3 0.2 37.9 0.3 19.3 3.1 48.1 13.7 114 . . 87 87 1 25 18.1 49.9 0.2 81.1 1 31 0.2 50 150

0.3

0.1

5 5.1

1 2.7

.

.

.

10 18.7 15 12.1 10 21.9 18.9 . 22 25 11 22.7 31 15 70

12 14 16.8 13 10 28

11 9.5 11 4

4 4.3 7 4.7 5 5 8 6.8 7 5 5 6.5 .

47

200 200 . 400 42 207 800 . 143 101 65 62 37 74 189 . 142 89 I 206 189 I 106 ~800

. 59.3

80 100 58 149 46 49

-

-

.

4 45 4 14 4 44 34

.

75 3 50 3

.

47

2 4 4

13 12

169 5 28 14 5 4 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

.

5 5.5

. 169 147 117 220 194 110 800

147 146 69 76 41 118 223

400 76 45 50 210 800

59.3 47 200 200

13 92 100 58 2 153 50 49

-

5 53

59.3 34 16 16

5 2.3 8 20 6 2 16 68 6 25 23 43.6

29 107 58 193 154 145 480

70 171 20 70 22 131 50

18 18 64 30 117 32

M e a n i n g o f s y m b o l s u s e d i n t h i s c o l u m n ; +, s y s t e m g a i n s n u t r i e n t e l e m e n t ; 0 , s y s t e m is in s t e a d ' s t a t e w i t h r e s p e c t t o n u t r i e n t e l e m e n t ; - , s y s t e m l o o s e s n u t r i e n t e l e m e n t ; N, data not provided.

96 143 91 400 305 161 256 332 100 800

90 400 400 98 179 168 800 90 204 94 112 65

-

Damen-2

37.9

300 100 30 34 50 168 41 45.7

-

Henkeas-1 Kolek-2 Jacquard-1 Husz-4 Henkens-2 Newbould + Floate-8 Jacquard-2 Husz-ll Thomas + Gilliarn-3 Jacquard-8 Thomas + Gilliam-6 Husz-13 Husz-5 Huszo7

+

+ + + +

+

+

+ + + + 0 0 + + + +

+ 0 0 + 0 +

+ -

+ + N + + + 0 + + N + 0 + + + + + N + + + + + + +

+ N 0

+

+

+ N + ' + + +

N + + + + ~ + N + ! + 4-

}"

280

7.2.1. Nitrogen T h e o u t p u t s o f c o n s u m a b l e n i t r o g e n v e r s u s t h e f a r m i n p u t s f o r a r a b l e systems, livestock systems and mixed systems, are shown in Figs. 42, 43 and 44, r e s p e c t i v e l y . A s e x p l a i n e d in C h a p t e r 4, c o n s u m a b l e p r o d u c t s c o m p r i s e p r o d u c t s s u c h as g r a i n s , r o o t s , t u b e r s , l e a v e s (in t h e c a s e o f v e g e t a b l e s a n d t e a ) , consumable

farm

output,

kg N / h a

~00

e f f i c i e n c y 200

300 200-

arable systems ~

O0

100

66

bO°/~

/~ ~ 3 o 20

:

50

30

//

20

z

10

1

.3

I

i ....

5

I I

I

I

I

10

50

100

250

5 0 0 kg l o s s / h a

2 0 0, farm

5,0 0r . . . . .1 0 0 0 i n p u t , kg N / h a

,

10

2'0

'

, 5 0, . . . . 1. 0 0

Fig. 42. The output o f consumable nitrogen vs. the farm input of nitrogen of arable systems. Forestry systems are indicated with an arrow. The shapes o f the symbols indicate the authors, consistently used for Figs. 42--45 and 47--52. [] Newbould + Floate o Husz o Damen Thomas + Gilliam Noy-Meir + Harpaz v Henkens Yatazawa a Ulrich DWilliams Jacquard Kolek Closed symbols: system with a nitrogen fixation above 35 kg N ha -1 y - I . Open symbols: nitrogen fixation is below 35 kg N ha -~ y-1 or unknown. The full lines connect points with equal efficiencies (100 x output/input). The d o t t e d lines connect points with equal absolute losses (kg N ha -~ y - I ).

281 consumable farm output, kg N/ha 500200

200300

livestock systems

/

oo.

Y

100 66 5 0

~

/77

,o

3o

10

0.5

30 ~1o

20

/I

3

/

I

o

~'

1

io

(

.

)

/

/50

100

2o ' ~ b i ~ o

1

250

500kg

loss/ho

260 5oo10bo farm input,kgN/ha

Fig. 43. The o u t p u t of consumable nitrogen vs the farm input of nitrogen of livestock systems. F o r an explanation of the symbols and lines see Fig. 42.

hay, milk and meat, b u t n o t straw and plant residues remaining on the field. For forests, w o o d which is carried off is considered. The farm input includes fertilizers, manure and inputs via irrigation and rain, b u t also the input via biological nitrogen fixation. Systems in which biological nitrogen fixation exceeds 35 kg ha- ' y- ~ are indicated with closed symbols. Mineralization of the initial a m o u n t of soil organic matter is n o t considered as a farm input. Fig. 42 shows that the o u t p u t of all arable systems is between 30 and 100% of the input, the only exception with a considerably lower o u t p u t being the system Newbould and Floate-6 (Meathop Wood) which appears to have a very high nitrogen fixing capacity (100 kg N ha- ' y- 1 ~. Up to a farm input of 150 kg N ha- 1 y- ' , the o u t p u t efficiencies are often close to the 66% efficiency curve. For inputs above 150 kg N hay-~, the outputs are scattered around the 50% efficiency curve, indicating slightly lower efficiencies at higher farm inputs. Fig. 43 shows the same type of graph for the livestock systems. Scattering of data points is much wider than for arable systems. A b o u t half of the points are within the efficiency range of 10 to 30%. A few systems have a better efficiency (Husz-6, Jacquard-1 and -3). Eight systems have efficiencies

282

between 3 and 10% and one system reaches an efficiency of no more than 1%. This system, Damen-1, describes the livestock part of a Dutch farm in 1800. The low efficiency can be explained by the fact that the main task of that part of the farm was not food production, but production of manure which amounted to 35 kg N ha- ' y- ' The absolute nitrogen losses of livestock systems are much higher than those of arable systems. In three cases the losses are even higher than 500 kg N ha- 1 y- 1 (Jacqaurd-6, Henkens-3 and -4). The surprising fact that these systems have efficiencies similar to systems with much lower inputs, can partly be explained by the fact that the input is mainly in the form of feed (158 and 369 kg N ha- 1 y- 1 for systems Henkens-3 and-4, respectively). Fig. 44 shows the results of the mixed systems. As could be expected, the results are intermediate between those of arable and livestock systems; extreme values are missing. A remarkable exception is system Husz-4 with an efficiency of 200% (input 11 kg N ha- ' y- ' , o u t p u t 20.6 kg N ha- ~ y- ~ ). Underestimation of the biological nitrogen fixation (estimated at 5 kg N ha-~ y-1 ) or mineralization of soil organic matter can explain this high efficiency.

consumable farm output~ kg N/ha 500-

efficiency

200

100

I

300200-

m i x e d systems

/

o

I

/,"/

66 50 a/o ///

I

//}~'~.//f/'~ 3o ///~ / / 20

lOO

20

/

lo

7"

,/.,/

// o/ /

/i

0 " 5 t4

/ , /

"C "

I

- /

/!

! /i

Hi

"50

I J

I 1 J/', /' /i i/

/

/,~

I

y

100

I

ii i

l

250

,

I'', ', i

,

5 0 0 kg loss/ha

/

.... ~b

20 ' ' s b " i ~ o

200 Sdo' iO'oo farm input, kgN/ha

Fig. 4 4 . The o u t p u t o f c o n s u m a b l e n i t r o g e n vs t h e f a r m i n p u t o f n i t r o g e n o f m i x e d syst e m s . F o r a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e s y m b o l s a n d lines see Fig. 4 2 .

283

nitrogen leached kg N/ha leaching 200

100

100

66 50

30

20

10°lo

o,,

30-

,

5 ' ' ' lb

r 20

'

'Sb'

' '1~

' 260

3

~00'

' 10100

form input kg N/ha Fig. 45. The leaching o f nitrogen vs the farm i n p u t o f nitrogen. The full lines connect

points with equal leaching percentages (100 x leaching/farm input). Leaching values below 1 kg N h a - ' y - ' are grouped near the abscissa and indicated with < 1. The shapes

of the symbols indicate the authors; see also Fig. 42. Closed symbols: nitrogen fixation above 35 kg N ha-' y - ' . Open symbols: nitrogen fixation below 35 kg N ha-' y-' or unknown.

Nitrogen leaching data are shown in Fig. 45. They range from 1 to 100% of the farm input and rise to 90 kg N ha- 1 y- ~. Highest values are reported for the systems Thomas and Gilliam-5, Kolek-1 and Yatazawa-3 and -6 (products: cotton, mixed farming products, vegetables and tea, respectively). From a few systems, reported leaching losses are below 1 kg N ha- ~ y - ' . For some other systems no leaching data are given. These are all grouped near the abscissa of Fig. 45 and indicated with < 1 . A careful study of the original data, on which Fig. 45 is based, shows that the leaching data of Jacquard (symbol ~ ) are rather rough estimates and probably are less reliable than the other leaching data for farm inputs below 200 kg N ha --~ y- 1. The data of the systems Henkens-3 and -4 (symbols v on the extreme right-hand side of Fig. 45) are difficult to compare with the other data because the share of imported feed proteins for cattle is so high. If the mentioned values are disregarded, it appears that leaching losses for farm inputs below 150 kg N ha -~ y-1 are scattered around the 10% leaching curve, while for inputs above 150 kg N ha- 1 y- 1, they are scattered around the 20% leaching curve. Biological nitrogen fixation does n o t seem to influence the leaching percentage. Although for a particular site the a m o u n t leached per ha is, from a pollution point of view, decisive, this need n o t be true if the food production is considered o n a world-wide scale. On the latter basis, the ratio kg N leached: hg N in consumable output is more important. These ratios are listed in Fig. 46. The extreme ratios belong to the extensive livestock systems. For inputs

284

ratio

N, leached N,consumable output

3tt3oo 20-

251t9•,

~5

o

18-

•

16 14 e 12 o 10

o

08

•

o ,p

o

ooO

•

04

o

o

02

o°ooo

~ T

o o '

'

';

oo

.... 1'o

oo '

~, o o

'

¢

o

0.6

oo °

o

• o

o

' ~;o'",';oo nitrogen f a r m input, k g N / h o

r s ; ' " i ; o

Fig. 46. The ratio of leached N: consumable output N vs the farm input o f nitrogen. Ratios derived from leaching values below 1 kg N ha-' y - ' are grouped near the abscissa and indicated with < 0.1. Circles: arable systems; diamonds: livestock systems. Closed symbols: nitrogen fixation above 35 kg N ha -1 y - I . Open symbols: nitrogen fixation below 35 kg N ha-' y - ' or unknown.

above 150 kg N ha- 1 y- 1, almost all ratios are between 0.3 and 0.7. The nitrogen fixation systems Williams-l, Damen-1 and Newbould + Floate-7 show much higher ratios than other systems with comparable farm inputs. There is no indication that systems with high farm inputs show systematically higher ratios than systems with low farm inputs. Even if the data points based on the data of Jacquard and Henkens-3 and -4 are n o t considered, Fig. 46 does not provide a different pattern. Nitrogen losses to the atmosphere are shown in Table 101 and Fig. 47. Table 101 shows the losses by volatilization of ammonia as well as those by denitrification. It should be noted that fewer data are available for this source of loss than for leaching and even when figures are available they are often best estimates only. Fig. 47 presents the combined effect of both processes. Open symbols indicate that volatilization of ammonia dominates, and closed symbols that denitrification dominates. For a number of systems no or very low losses to the atmosphere were reported. These systems are grouped near the abscissa and indicated with < 1. For most of the livestock systems, losses are between 20 and 66% and volatilization of ammonia dominates. For arable systems m o s t losses axe between 3 and 30% and denitrification dominates. The highest loss reported for volatilization of ammonia equals 98 kg N ha- 1 y- 1 (system Thomas + Gilliam-6), the highest value for denitrification equals 192 kg N ha- 1 (system Henkens-4), N 2 0 production

285

TABLE

101

Losses by denitrification

and volatilization

System

System input, exclusive N-fixation (kg ha -1 )

Noy-Meir + Harpaz-1 Husz-2 Husz-1 Damen-1 H u s z -3 Kolek-2 Williams Thomas + Gilliam-8 Husz-9 Thomas + Gilliam-7 Husz-6 Husz-10 Newbould + Floate-7 Henkens-1 Henkens-2 Newbould + Floate-8 Husz-ll Thomas + Gilliam-3 Thomas + GUliam-6 Husz-13 Husz-5 Damen-2 Henkens-3 Newbould + Floate-9 Thomas + Gilliam-5 Thomas + Gilliam-4 Yatazawa-4 Husz-12 Thomas + Gilliam-1 Yatazawa-2 Kolek-1 Thomas + Gilliam-2 Yatazawa-1 Husz-8 Henkens-4 Henkens-5 Yatazawa-6 Yatazawa-3 Henkens-6 Yatazawa-5

of ammonia

Input by N-fixation ( k g h a -~ )

5 3 2.5 23 3 66.2

5 2.5 2.2 80 3 4.7 65

-10 41 11 9.2 15 153 14 33 343 42 40 178 61 57 43 572 115 232 172 209 106 122 72 211 10 138 101 783 319 293 265 346 105

1 Denitrification (kg ha -1 )

Volatilization (kg ha -I )

----

5 2.3 2 46 3 10.42 43 -20 -4 5 12 14 17 14 20 -98 15 3 -55 18 ---20 --243 --15 80 ------

16 -9.1 --

-25 8 8 8 150 120 120 10 -----31 -5 --20 --55 44 123 40 18 --20 20 -80

1 5 1 ---49 51 --5 5 4 -20 169 -20 15 30 -15 30 47 15 70 2 192 71 30 30 71 20

From 23 systems no losses by denitrification or volatilization reported. Unaccounted l o s s e s l i v e s t o c k s y s t e m 3 4 . 5 k g N h a -~ . 3 Unaccounted losses livestock system 23 kg N ha -2 .

of ammonia

have been

286

to atmosphere,kg N/ha

IOSS

1000

loss to atmosphere 200

100 % 66

500

011 s y s t e m s

so

300

30

200

20

100-

1o

5O 30-

3

20-

52 32

1-

__

l . . . . . .

,%~

<1 i

5

. . . .

i

10

z .

.

°5a°°'2a ,

i

20

,

.

.

.

~Y° ,

i

50

. . . .

.

.

.

??? ,

100

.

.

. ,

.

.

. i

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. ,

,

i

. . . .

,

200 500 1000 form input,kgN/ha

Fig. 47. The losses of nitrogen to the atmosphere vs the farm input of nitrogen. The full lines connect points with equal percentages of loss. Systems with losses of 1 kg N ha -1 y-i or less are grouped near the abscissa and indicated with < 1. The shapes of the symbols indicate the authors; see also Fig. 42. Closed symbols: denitrification dominates. Open symbols: volatilization of ammonia dominates. Arable systems are indicated with an arrow.

and N2 p r o d u c t i o n have n o t b e e n distinguished by a n y author. S i n c e polluting e m i s s i o n , if a n y , o f the a m m o n i a released w o u l d be rather diffuse and hardly l o c a l i z e d , t h e ratio N, loss of ammonia to atmosphere: N, consumable output is t e n t a t i v e l y used as a p a r a m e t e r t o e s t i m a t e environm e n t a l i m p a c t s . T h e s e ratios are s h o w n in Fig. 48. L i v e s t o c k s y s t e m s , especially t h o s e w i t h a high N f i x a t i o n , s h o w high ratios. All arable s y s t e m s have ratios b e l o w 0.6. T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e that s y s t e m s w i t h a high farm i n p u t s h o w higher ratios than s y s t e m s w i t h l o w farm inputs. Table 1 0 2 s h o w s an analysis o f s y s t e m s w i t h a high level o f n i t r o g e n fixation.

Livestock p a r t m i x e d s y s t e m E x t e n s i v e livestock Forest Intensive livestock E x t e n s i v e livestock E x t e n s i v e livestock Intensive livestock Intensive livestock Intensive m i x e d (legumes) Intensive m i x e d Intensive arable Intensive mixed Intensive arable Intensive arable Intensive arable

Damen-1 Williams N e w b o u l d + Float~-6 N e w b o u l d + Floate-7 Henkens-1 Jacquard-1 Henkens-2 Jacquard-2 Jacquard-3 Jacquard-4 Yatazawa-2 Kolek-1 T h o m a s + Gilliam-2 Yatazawa-1 Yatazawa-5

* U n a c c o u n t e d losses livestock s y s t e m 23 kg N per ha.

Type of system

System

Analysis o f s y s t e m s w i t h high N f i x a t i o n

T A B L E 102

80 65 100 150 120 50 120 50 60 50 55 44 123 40 80

N fixation (kgha -1) 23 -6 153 14 -33 100 -200 72 211 10 138 105

Other inputs (kgha -1) 1 5.8 9 17 19 20 24 30 63 60 88 98 90 96 175

Consumable output (kgha -j)

13 30 11 50 12 50 50 50 19 78 10 20 3

5

16 ---49 51 ---30 47 15 70 20

17 ----24* ----

Denitrified (kgNha -1)

46 43 -12 14

L e a c h e d Volatilized (kgha-~)(kgNha -1)

b~ 0V

288 N,Ioss of ammonia to a t m o s p h e r e N,consumable output

33o,0,58

~4;

:46

26 2.42.2 2.01.8

o

1.6

o

1.41 1.21

to~ 0.8 0.61

v o

0.41

vv

o .... lb

'2b

v

o

o o

Q2'5

• °

'

"~° o

"

5 0' . . . . 100 ' '26o farm

.5. .0. .0. . 1000 input, kg N / h a

Fig. 48. The ratio of ammonia loss to the atmosphere:consumable output N vs the farm input of nitrogen. Systems of which the ammonium losses are below 1 kg N ha -1 y-I are not considered. The shapes of the symbols indicate the authors; see also Fig. 42. Closed symbols: nitrogen fixation above 35 kg N ha -1 y-~. Open symbols: nitrogen fixation below 35 kg N ha -~ y-1 or unknown. Arable systems are indicated by an arrow pointing towards the symbol.

7.2.2. P h o s p h o r u s

T h e o u t p u t o f c o n s u m a b l e p h o s p h a t e versus the farm i n p u t is s h o w n in Fig. 49, and d a t a p r o v i d e d in Table 100. It is r e m a r k a b l e t h a t f o r farm i n p u t s l o w e r t h a n 1 kg P ha- 1, the o u t p u t is o f t e n higher t h a n the i n p u t (systems: Henkens-1, D u t c h dairy f a r m ; U l r i c h - l , -2 and -3, all t h r e e forests; T h o m a s + Gilliam-7 and -8, b o t h forests; N e w b o u l d + Floate-6, w o o d l a n d ) . In all these systems n o P fertilizers are used. Most p r o b a b l y t h e y indicate a s t e a d y mineralization f r o m soil, supplying some 1--2 kg P ha- 1 y - 1. Because the o u t p u t s are m e a s u r e d m o r e a c c u r a t e l y t h a n the i n p u t , it is, h o w e v e r , also possible t h a t inaccuracies are involved. F o r the extensive systems described b y Husz and Noy-Meir + Harpaz, o f t e n n o i n p u t d a t a are available. F o r the systems which use fertilizers, the o u t p u t ranges f r o m l 0 to 100% o f the i n p u t ; f o r m o s t o f t h e m the o u t p u t is l o w e r t h a n 50%. T h e t w o systems with the highest p h o s p h a t e o u t p u t (25 a n d 3 1 kg P h a -1 ) are H e n k e n s - 5 and -6, b o t h

289

consumable farm output, kg P/ha IO0

efficiency 200

50

all s y s t e m s

100 66 50 °/o

"/

.o,o,.o _ _ 1 ~

Y

a

a//~/// <1 ',2

/ ~ ::

.5

~

~

~ 0

6

i'o

80 kg loss/ha

20

5o

loo

260

farm input, kgP/ha

Fig. 49. The output of consumable phosphate vs the farm input of phosphate. The shapes of the symbols indicate the authors: see also Fig. 42. The full lines connect points with equal efficiencies (100 × output/input). The dotted lines connect points with equal absolute gains or losses (kg P ha -1 y - i ). Systems for which the farm input is below 0.1 kg P ha -1 y - I are grouped near the ordinate and indicated with < 0.1.

Dutch arable farms with crop rotations. The 100% efficiency which is reached here is caused by the large phosphate dressings of the last decades, so that the top layer of the soft no longer fixes and all phosphate is available for uptake by the crop. The livestock system Henkens-4 (Dutch dairy farm, input 87 kg P ha- 1, o u t p u t 22 kg P) has a much lower efficiency. This is because the phosphate input is higher than required; this surprising p h e n o m e n o n is caused by the fact that the phosphate supply takes place via supplemental feed and manure and n o t at all via fertilizers. The supplemental feed contains more phosphate than is required for the pastures of the farm. Many of the other low efficiencies must probably be attributed to phosphate fixation by the soils. For a few other systems the cause of the high efficiency is unclear. Phosphate leaching is below 1 kg P ha -1 in all systems, and below 0.1 kg P ha- ~ in almost all systems. The highest leaching losses reported are: Yatazawa-1, 0.9 kg P ha- ~ ; N e w b o u l d + Floate-9, 0.5 kg ha- 1 ; N e w b o u l d + Floate-1, -2 and -3, 0.4 kg ha- 1. There is no discernible relation between phosphate leaching and phosphate fertilization. Losses due to run-off are only reported for a few systems. For the systems Thomas + Gilliam-1, -2,

290

-3, -4 and -5 run-off losses are respectively 3, 3, 3, 5 and 1 kg P ha- 1, and so considerably higher than the leaching values. Fig. 50 shows the N:P ratios of the consumable output. In general the ratios are in agreement with c o m m o n values (grain 4.9, potatoes 5.0, beets 4.1--4.2, hay 7.7, clover 9.7, fodder maize 5.3, sugar beet tops 8.3, fodder beet tops 11.4, milk 6.3, animals (as a whole) 4.3, -- Kolenbrander, personal communication). A few ratios deviate substantially, especially those of the systems Husz-1 and -2 (symbols • in lower left c o m e r of Fig. 50). In his system description Husz mentions a clear reason for these low ratios; both systems, are extremely phosphate deficient.

c o n s u m a b l e f a r m output, kg N / h a 500

N/P ratio15 10 7

3o0 2

~, j ; Y / / 2 3

200

2O

lo

/

3 2 1

.3

.1 .5 ' '.; .... ~

5 ' ;

'io'

{o'

5d"4oo

consumable f o r m o u t p u t , kg P / h a

Fig. 50. The output of consumable phosphate vs the output of consumable nitrogen. The shapes of the symbols indicate the authors; see also Fig. 42. Closed symbols: livestock systems; open symbols: arable systems. The full lines connect points with equal N :P ratios.

7.2.3. Potassium

The o u t p u t of consumable potassium versus the farm input is shown in Fig. 51, as well as in Table 100. For both high and low input values there are efficiencies which are higher than 100%. This can be explained by the supply of potassium via weathering or by inaccurate data. Because systems with inputs of 5 kg or less, besides their consumable o u t p u t also show considerable leaching, as in Fig. 52, weathering seems most probable. Fig. 52 even gives

291 consumable f a r m o u t p u t , k g K / h a 500

efficiency 200

300-

011

lOO

66 ~I©

systems

)

2OO 100 5O 30

i i

't

o

i

20

10

5

°, i ol 5

1

5 3 2

1

1

I

.52

I I I

.3-

.2 <2

~ 40 :l~_ ~

I 100

250 kg IOSS/hG

_ o

o potassium

farm

inDut, kgK/ha

Fig. 51. The output of consumable potassium vs the farm input of potassium. The shapes of the symbols indicate the authors, see also Fig. 42. The full lines connect points with equal efficiencies (100 X output/input). The dotted lines connect points with equal absolute gains or losses (kg K ha-' y-' ). Systems with potassium outputs below 0.2 kg ha-' y-' are grouped near the abscissa and indicated with < 0.2.

the impression that the leaching at low farm inputs is independent of the farm input. Six of the systems with inputs of 100 kg or more show efficiencies considerably lower than 30%. Losses range from 120 to more than 700 kg ha- * y- 1. It is not possible to explain these losses in terms of leaching. Therefore, it must be assumed that these amounts have been fixed (adsorbed) by the soil. These amounts are: Thomas + Gilliam-4, Irish potatoes, Maine, 73 kg K ha- * y- 1 ; Henkens-4, Dutch dairy farm, 124 kg K ha- ~ y- * ; Kolek-1, Slovakian lowland farm, 153 kg K ha- * y- *, Jacquard-8, French irrigated arable farm, 125 kg K ha- ~ y- * ; Yatazawa-6, tea, Japan, 25 kg K ha- * yand Yatazawa-4, mixed fruits, Japan, 34 kg K ha-* y-*. In the systems Jacquard-3, -4, -5, -6 and -7 with dressings of 200, 200, 400, 800 and 800 kg K ha- *, respectively, almost all K seems to be fixed, the fixed amounts being 172, 1 7 2 , 3 7 0 , 756 and 378 kg K ha- 1 y - , .

292

potassium

leached,

kgN/ha

-

100-

-

leaching

200

//Y///./? '

i

2

,

,

,,,,

;

,

~b

6650

30

20

10°/o

.Z / ,

2b

lOO

,

r

'"'"

50

100

2So . . . .5.0.0. . . farm

input,

1000 kgK/ha

Fig. 52. The leaching of potassium vs the farm input of potassium. The full lines connect points with equal leaching percentages (100 x leaching/farm input). The shapes of the symbols indicate the authors; see also Fig. 42.

7.3. CHANGES IN SOIL POOLS (Floate)

It has been suggested that some generalizations a b o u t changes in the amounts of nutrients in the organic, mineral and available soil pools, brought about by agricultural practice may be possible by an analysis of data presented at the symposium. Very few data were presented on the amounts of nutrients entering and leaving the soil mineral pool, probably because there is little reliable information available on rates of weathering from soil minerals, and the proportions of applied fertilizers removed from soil by fixation. Table 103 summarizes the data presented to the symposium. These data are insufficient for general conclusions to be drawn b u t they suggest some loss of K from soil minerals in the absence of added fertilizer, and fixation of applied P fertilizer by the soils of certain agro-ecosystems. The data for changes in the soil organic pool are summarized in Table 104, which shows that o f 38 systems for which data are available, only three are losing any major nutrient and 26 are increasing in one or more of those nutrients*. The only farming systems losing nutrients from the organic pool *It should be noted that the total number of systems referred to in the text may differ from the sum of the number of systems in each category listed in Table 104 and the following tables. This arises because fertilizers do not always include all three major nutrients, and because systems or pools may be gaining one nutrient while simultaneously losing another.

293

T A B L E 103 C h a n g e s in t h e soil m i n e r a l p o o l C h a n g e s in soil m i n e r a l p o o l

N

P

K

Number of systems with data Number of systems no change N u m b e r o f s y s t e m s + gain N u m b e r o f s y s t e m s - losses M e a n gain (kg h a -~ ) M e a n loss (kg h a -~ )

-------

11 5 3" 3 24.9* 1.3

12 2 2* 8 1" 15

*All gains o c c u r r e d in s y s t e m s w i t h a d d e d fertilizers.

T A B L E 104 C h a n g e s in t h e soil organic p o o l C h a n g e s in soil organic p o o l

N

P

K

Number of systems with data N u m b e r of s y s t e m s n o c h a n g e N u m b e r o f s y s t e m s + gain Number of systems -losses M e a n gain (kg h a -~ ) M e a n loss (kg h a -~ )

38 13 22 3 35 9

31 16 14 1 7.6 1.0

23 15 8 0 30 --

are those for corn and wheat in the U.S.A. All other systems either exhibit a steady state or gain on average 36 kg N, 7.6 kg P and 30 kg K ha- ~ yMean values are probably of little significance, but the important conclusion from this examination of the data is t h a t over 90% of the systems reported are either in steady state or the nutrient c o n t e n t of the organic pool is increasing, while only in a few exceptional systems is the nutrient c o n t e n t decreasing and then only at the low rate of less than 10 kg ha- 1 y- ~. Because amounts of this order can readily be replaced in a grassland phase of cultivation with N-fixation by legumes, the concern about exhaustion of organic reserves in soils does n o t seem to be supported by the facts presented to this symposium. The gains which are recorded for the organic pool are apparently associated with losses from the available nutrient pool. The summary data in Table 105 show that of the 37 systems for which data are available, a total of 21 systems are losing one or more major nutrients from the available nutrient pool. These losses are smaller from the 10 systems to which no fertilizer is applied, than from those few systems which lose nutrients despite the application of fertilizers. The remaining 15 systems to which fertilizer is applied show mean gains of 146 kg N ha- 1 , 2 6 . 4 kg P ha- 1, and 41 kg K ha- 1.

294

TABLE 105 Changes in the available soil p o o l

Total number of systems with data Number of systems no change Number of systems + gain Number of systems - loss Mean gain (kg ha -1 ) Mean loss (kg ha -1 ) Mean fertilizer added (kg ha -1 )

Without fertilizer

With fertilizer added

N

P

K

N

18 7

14 4

14 2

P

K

19 7

18 1

18 0

2

0

3

6

11

12

9

10

9

6

6

-2.9

2 8

146

26.4

37

5.7

6 41 11

25 11

176

31

72

The data also show that w i t h o u t added fertilizers m o r e than half of the systems show n e t losses from the available pool. Such losses obviously cann o t be sustained indefinitely in any stable system but it is n o t possible to state h o w long the y can be sustained w i t h o u t i nform at i on on the size of the pool. It is therefore n o t possible to state from the data available to this symposium the length o f time for which nutrients can be supplied to crops w i t h o u t limiting growth. In any case it is probable that the losses are exaggerated by lack o f good data on rates o f mineralization from organic reserves, and on rates of release by weathering: both are probably underestimated by m a n y authors. F o r those systems to which fertilizers are applied, the numbers which show gains, losses or no change for available N are evenly divided: m ore than half o f these systems show ne t gains in available P and K. It is worth noting t h a t the mean gain of 146 kg N ha- 1 is probably greatly exaggerated by the unidentified losses which, because of the m e t h o d of calculation em pl oyed, are included in the quantity. This analysis o f changes in the amounts o f nutrients within the three comp o n e n t soil pools is instructive with regard to the sources o f loss and site of gain, but from the whole ecosystem standpoint it m ay be m ore i m p o r t a n t to examine the changes in the total soil pool. S u m m a r y data from such an examination are given in Table 106. This table includes all 67 systems for which N data were available: for 56 of these systems, data were also available for P and K. In 39 of the systems N was added as fertilizer a n d / o r manure while 34 also received P or K. Of the total 67 systems, 45 are shown to lose one or more major nutrients, and o f these, 17 lose nutrients despite the application o f fertilizers. However, this analysis conveys a somewhat distorted picture because n o t all three major nutrients were applied to all systems (see f o o t n o t e to page 292). The data in Table 107 show the details of nutri-

295

TABLE 106 Changes in the total soil pool

Number of systems with data Number of systems: no change Number of systems: + gain Number of systems: - losses Mean gain (kgha -1 ) Mean loss (kg ha -I )

Without fertilizer N P K

With fertilizer added N P K

28 22 22 9 1 0 11 0 3 8 21 19 20 -1 9 2.4 11

39 34 6 4 21 24 12 6 150 29.5 24 15.7

34 0 18 16 39 24

173

65

Mean fertilizer added (kg ha -1 )

27.5

TABLE 107 Major nutrient losses from the total soil pool in relation to fertilizer additions N Total number of systems showing net loss from soil Number of systems to which each nutrient was not applied as fertilizer Number of systems showing loss of each nutrient despite fertilizer additions

P

K

20 27 35 9 25 27 11

2

8

e n t losses c o m p a r e d with fertilizer additions. I t m u s t be c o n c l u d e d t h a t insufficient fertilizer is applied t o m a k e g o o d the removals in c r o p s and b y o t h e r losses o f n i t r o g e n in 11 systems, o f p h o s p h o r u s in t w o systems, and o f p o t a s s i u m in eight s y s t e m s : it is possible t h a t s o m e a u t h o r s , b y o m i t t i n g returns in r o o t s have u n d e r e s t i m a t e d the supplies to the soil pool. I t is w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t o f the 17 s y s t e m s w h i c h a p p e a r t o be in n u t r i e n t deficit despite fertilizer additions, 13 are arable f a r m s or arable parts o f systems, three are m i x e d arable--livestock farms, and o n l y one is a livestock system. I t is, h o w e v e r , i m p o r t a n t f o r the l o n g t e r m stability o f all f a r m i n g systems t h a t soil losses s h o u l d n o t e x c e e d gains. This analysis has d r a w n a t t e n t i o n to the fact t h a t m a n y extensive, and s o m e intensive s y s t e m s a p p e a r to be in soil n u t r i e n t deficit. T h e r e are insufficient d a t a t o be able to c o n c l u d e t h a t the s u p p l y o f n u t r i e n t s f o r these s y s t e m s will b e c o m e critical, b u t there is a clear n e e d f o r m o r e reliable d a t a f o r the less well k n o w n sources o f n u t r i e n t s u p p l y and loss, and possibly a case f o r increasing fertilizer applications in s o m e systems.

296

7.4. EXCHANGE OF NUTRIENTS BETWEEN ATMOSPHEREAND VEGETATION-SOIL (Rosswall) 7.4.1. Introduction Exchanges of compounds between the vegetation--soil system and the atmosphere play a major role in the functioning of ecosystems, the major transport being that of carbon fixed by photosynthesis in the form of carbohydrates and released by respiration as carbon dioxide. The regulation of the productivity of an ecosystem is thus to an important degree dependent on atmospheric parameters such as carbon dioxide concentration and light, but also the nutrient cycles are controlled by processes involving the atmosphere. The major part of nutrients is cycled in the vegetation--soil compartment of any terrestrial ecosystem; on a global scale the exhanges of, for example, nitrogen to and from the atmosphere amount to only 15% of the transfers of nitrogen between vegetation and soil (Rosswall, 1976). If the circulation of nitrogen through the soil micro-organisms is taken into account, only less than 5% of the annual nitrogen flow in the global terrestrial system passes through the atmosphere. Nitrogen is the only nutrient which occurs in the atmosphere in any appreciable amount, but in the form of molecular nitrogen, which is only available to certain bacteria and blue-green algae. Sulphur has been added to the atmosphere increasingly in recent years through combustion of fossil fuel in industrial regions, resulting in increased amounts in dry and wet deposition. It is probable that sulphur would have to be added as fertilizers to some agricultural areas, if the system started to receive smaller quantities of sulphur from the atmosphere as a result of e.g. new rules being brought into force concerning the emissions of sulphur dioxide through combustion~ The importance of air and precipitation as sources of nutrients has been pointed out in several reviews (see for example Tamm, 1958, Eriksson, 1966). There are, however, only minor transfers of nutrients other than nitrogen and sulphur between the atmosphere and the vegetation--soil, and e.g: phosphorus and potassium will not be considered in this section. It should be noted that additions of sea spray may add important amounts of certain nutrients in coastal regions. Nutrients are also lost to the atmosphere from the soil, but although sulphur can be lost in the form of various organic sulphides or as hydrogen sulphide under anaerobic conditions, the only important transfer of nutrients to the atmosphere, apart from wind erosion, is the loss of nitrogen, as N2 or N2 O, through denitrification of nitrate by soil micro-organisms and as NH3 through volatilization. 7.4.2. Nutrient additions from the atmosphere The most important addition of nutrients to agro-ecosystems from the

297 atmosphere is through symbiotic nitrogen fixation by Rhizobium bacteria in association with leguminous crops. In 1972, 123.7 X 106 ha of grain legumes in the world produced 113.6 × 106 tons of seed. Similarly, forage legumes are important and, excluding meadows and grasslands, 135 X 106 ha are cultivated with these crops in the world (Evans, 1975). Legumes can fix up to 500 kg N ha- 1 y- 1 (Vincent, 1974), and agricultural legumes have been calculated to be responsible for 25% of the global terrestrial biological nitrogen fixation (Burns and Hardy, 1975). Free-living, nitrogen-fixing micro-organisms can also be important in some agro-ecosystems; i.e. blue-green algae in rice crops (Venkataraman, 1975) and bacteria (Spirillum lipoferum) in the rhizosphere of C4-grasses in tropical areas (DSbereiner, 1977). Generally the additions of nitrogen from the atmosphere through wet and dry deposition to agro-ecosystems are small with regard to the needs of the crop (Table 108). On a global scale, however, the amount of NH3/NH4 -N added from the atmosphere through wet and dry deposition to the terrestrial system has been estimated at 6--12 kg N ha -~ as compared to an addition of 9 kg ha- ~ through biological nitrogen fixation (calculated from SSderlund and Svensson, 1976). The additions of nitrate-N and organic-N are smaller (Table 109). It can be seen that on the average fertilizers contribute only 8--14% of the annual additions of nitrogen to the vegetation--soil complex. There are, however, large local and regional differences with regard to the use of nitrogen fertilizers, and this spatial variability also applies to many other parts of the nitrogen cycle; the data are presented only to put in perspective the nonfertilizer additions of nitrogen to the terrestrial ecosystem from the atmosphere. As a regional example of nitrogen inputs from the atmosphere as compared to man-made additions, Miller and Smith (1976) have made a nitrogen balance study for the Southern San Joaquin Valley in California. This is an intensively cultivated region with 50% of the total area under irrigation; cotton is grown on 26% of the area, barley on 19% and grapes on 12%. About 21% of the total nitrogen additions were directly from the atmosphere (Table 110) and thus contributed a significant amount, but this was largely due to the growth of legumes (16.6%). There are also important local transfers of nitrogen from the atmosphere to the soil. Ammonia has a short turnover time in the atmosphere and a large part of the ammonia volatilized from the soil under vegetation will be readsorbed by the canopy before reaching the open air (Denmead et al., 1976). Ammonia given off from grazed pastures (Denmead et al., 1974) and feedlots (Hutchinson and Viets, 1969) can efficiently be adsorbed by the soil and vegetation of local fields. Additions of nitrogen by wet and dry deposition can be important in some ecosystems and the productivity may depend on them, although they are numerically small One example of this is the ombrotrophic tundra mire described by Rosswall et al. (1975). Tamm (1953}, investigating the

Grain, barley Grain, oats Straw, barley Straw, oats Hay, lucerne Timothy

Crop needs

Stockholm Hamburg London Paris

Atmospheric additions

15 12 4--5 7.--9 29 9

1.6 2.0 2.1 1.6

P

2.2 3.4 12--18 10--15 118 18

4.4 19.0 6.9 6.7

Ca 0.8 3.3 2.5 2.3

NO3 5 16 13 13

dry

78 71 21--34 35--40 302 56

1.6 4.2 4.3 1.8

wet

NH4

Nitrogen

7.4 23.5 19.8 17.1

tot. N 4.5 14.6 11.1 7.5

wet 11 75 78 41

tot. S

6.7 6.7 5.6--9.0 12.3--16.8 22.4--32.5 6.3

6 60 67 33

dry

Sulphur

18 17 44--56 85--135 251 67

1.8 2.0 2.1 1.6

K

Annual additions of plant nutrients (kg ha -1 ) from the atmosphere through dry and wet deposition (data from Tar,in~, 1958; Eriksson, 1966) and nutrient needs of crops in kg h a - ' y - ' (from Prince and Ross, 1972)

TABLE 108

¢v a0

t~

299

TABLE 109 Additions of nitrogen compounds from the atmosphere to the global terrestrial ecosystems (149 × 108 ha). Average amounts (kg ha -1 y - ' ) calculated from SSderlund and Svensson (1976). All values estimated for 1976 Compound

Rate (kg h a - , y - , )

% of mean total

NH3/NH 4

6--12 9.3 3.5 0.4 1.6

19--38 29 11 1 5

Biological N 2 fixation Industrial N 2 fixation for fertilizers Industrial N2 fixation, other purposes than fertilizers N 2 -fixation through combustion (1976) NOx (NO3)

2--6

6--19

Organic nitrogen Total

0.7--7 24--40

2--20

TABLE 110 Estimated additions (103 kg N y - i ) of nitrogen to vegetation/soil of the southern San Joaquin Valley, California (1.8 × 10 s ha) in 1971 (based on Miller and Smith, 1976) Inputs

103 kg N y - '

F r o m the atmosphere Precipitation A m m o n i a sorption Symbiotic N 2 -fixation Non-symbiotic N 2 -fixation Sub-total

% of total flux

690 6000 46500 5010

0.2 2.1 16.6 1.8

58200

20.7

5040 10090 50910 118830 37160

1.8 3.6 18.2 42.4 13.3

222030

79.3

280230

100.0

Man-made additions Municipal Industrial Manure Fertilizer Water Sub-total Total

n i t r o g e n e c o n o m y o f a f o r e s t m o s s (Hylocomium splendens), p r e d i c t e d t h a t a large part of the nitrogen demand of this species must be supplied from the atmosphere. With regard to sulphur, good crop yields may require 20--50 kg S ha- ' y- ' according to Prince and Ross (1972) and, using data on the rate of

300 absorption of atmospheric SO2 by barley leaves, they concluded that an average air concentration of 40 ~ g m- 3 SO2 would supply 20 kg S ha- 1 y- i In most parts of Europe the concentration is, however, only 10--20 ~g SO2 m- 3 (Granat et al., 1976) and in nonindustrialised areas much less. Atmospheric additions through dry deposition thus seem to be able to supply 5--10 kg ha- 1 y- ~ of the total crop need for sulphur. However, this may be a considerable overestimate, for SimOn and Jansson (1976b) have shown in p o t experiments in the field with oats that only 1.1--2.3 kg S ha -~ were absorbed by the plants from the atmosphere. Wet deposition of sulphur adds an additional 11 kg ha -1 y-~ in W. Europe at present (Granat et al., 1976).

7.4.3. Nutrient losses to the atmosphere Nitrogen is the only nutrient which can be lost to the atmosphere from the soil--vegetation system in appreciable amounts, and this loss occurs as ammonia, nitrogen oxides and molecular nitrogen. The losses of nitrogen c o m p o u n d s to the atmosphere from the sites considered in this report are presented in Table 101. Most systems from which nitrogen is considered to be lost to the atmosphere have losses of 10--50% of the farm input. Ammonia is lost through volatilization, a process which is highly dependent on the pH. Large amounts of ammonia are lost from manure (e.g. Lauer et al., 1976) and important losses can also occur after the addition of urea or ammonia fertilizers (e.g. NSmmik, 1967). Denmead et al. (1974) compared ammonia losses from grazed and nongrazed pastures and found that grazing increased ammonia losses. It should also be noted that gaseous nitrogen products escape from animals and nearly 12% of the nitrogen consumed has been estimated to be lost during digestion (Dean et al., 1975). With regard to the losses of molecular nitrogen and nitrogen oxides, these are brought a b o u t through biological (end products N~ and N2 O) and sometimes chemical (NO and NO~ ) processes. Biological denitrification, which reduces nitrate to gaseous end-products, is an anaerobic process and may be of great significance, for example in waterlogged soils or if nitrate concentrations are high at the time of heavy rainfall. Loss rates from nitrogen fertilizers have been reported to vary between 1 and 75% (Cast, 1976), b u t an average loss of nitrogen from fertilizers through denitrification seems to be 10--15% (Broadbent and Clark, 1965). The data in Table 101 show that in the present survey, 2--39% of the input of nitrogen to the system was lost through denitrification. As a percentage of the fertilizer input, the losses were even greater (2--73%, mean of 22%; Tables 100, 101). It should be added, however, that actual measurements of losses due to denitrification in the field are almost non-existent. Recent interest in the rates of denitrification of nitrogen added as fertilizers in agriculture is due to the possibilities of a large-scale production of nitrous oxide (N2 O). The release of N2 O has important implications for the stratospheric ozone layer, as nitrous oxide (N2 O) is converted to nitric oxide

301 (NO) which in turn, together with nitrogen dioxide (NO2), reacts with ozone ( 0 3 ) resulting in a catalytic destruction of ozone according to the formula: O( l D) + N2 O -> 2NO NO

+ 03 --> NO2

+ 02

03 + h v -> 0+02 NO2 +O--~NO+O2 Net results: 203 -~ 302 (Crutzen and Ehhalt, 1977). ( 0 ( 1 D) is atomic oxygen in an electronically excited state, which is produced from ozone and radiation; ), ..< 310 nm). It has been estimated that a global increase in nitrous oxide production by 20% will decrease the total ozone by 4% (Crutzen, 1974) and this, in turn, would result in an 8% increase in skin cancer (Grobecker et al., 1975). With the data available at present it is difficult to make a rigorous assessment of the magnitude of the impact on the ozone layer of nitrous oxide produced from nitrogen fertilizers. The problem is, however, receiving considerable attention, and WMO has r e c o m m e n d e d further studies on the nitrogen cycle (WMO, 1976). Only by a better understanding of all the facets of the global nitrogen cycle can the importance of N2 O production from fertilizers be evaluated. N2 O also contributes to the "greenhouse e f f e c t " by reducing the escape of thermal heat to the outer atmosphere, and it has been estimated that a doubling of the N 2 0 concentration will result in an increase by 0.7°K in the global surface temperature (Wang et al., 1976). There is a lack of data on in situ rates of denitrification and on the proportion of N2 O v s N2 in the end p r o d u c t from all types of soil. It can be hoped that recently published results on the inhibition of nitrous oxide reduction by acetylene (Balderston et al., 1976; Yoshinari and Knowles, 1976) will lead to the development of new techniques for determining denitrification rates in natural environments. Sulphur is also lost from soil to atmosphere under anaerobic conditions through the reduction of sulphate to gaseous Hydrogen sulphide. Bloomfield (1969) reported that 20--40% of the sulphate added to two topsoils was released as hydrogen sulphide. Sulphur gases are also evolved from animal manure, b u t the total amounts seem to be small (Banwart and Bremner, 1975). On a global scale, the release of gaseous sulphur c o m p o u n d s is in the order of 7.5 kg S ha- ' y- 1 (Sim~m and Jansson, 1976a). Most of this does, however, originate from swamps and marshy areas and it seems as if decomposing terrestrial plant litter supplies only 0.1--0.3 kg S ha- 1 y- 1 (Granat et al., 1976). In addition, 0.1--0.3 kg S ha- 1 y- 1 is lost in the form of organic sulphur c o m p o u n d s from soils (Hitchcock, 1975). The release of or-

302

ganic volatile sulphur compounds from agricultural soils seems to be very small (Banwart and Bremner, 1976). It has been shown that gaseous SO2, H2 S, NO~ and NH3 can be used as sole sulphur and nitrogen sources for higher plants (Failer, 1972). 7.4.4. Vegetation--soil as sinks and sources o f air pollutants

The importance of vegetation and soil as a sink for atmospheric pollutants has been pointed o u t by several authors (e.g., Hill, 1971; Smith et al., 1973; Munn and Phillips, 1975; Ghiorse and Alexander, 1976). These sinks are important n o t only for cleaning the atmosphere, b u t also because many of the pollutants can be used as nutrients by plants and micro-organisms (e.g. SO2 and NH3 ). Sulphur dioxide enters plant leaves through the stomata and at low concentrations photosynthesis can be stimulated (Knabe, 1976). Higher concentrations, however, cause both acute and chronic injuries to the vegetation (op. cit.). From data presented by Hill (1971), it can be calculated that vegetation around SO2 -emitting smelters in Sudbury, Ontario, could remove ca. 1 kg S ha- 1 day- ~ over an area of 225 ha. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is emitted during combustion and cm~ reach high concentrations, as for example in the Californian South Coastal Basin. As NO2 is rapidly converted to nitrate in plant cells, it can be used as a nitrogen source and the uptake of NO2 by alfalfa in the Los Angeles area could average as much as 0.28 kg N ha- ' day- x {Hill, 1971). N o t only vegetation b u t also soils absorb pollutants/nutrients (e.g. Smith et al., 1973; Ghiorse and Alexander, 1976) such as NH3, SO2, NO2. The vegetation could in some instances also act as a source of air pollutants. Miller and McBride {1975) when reviewing the effects of air pollutants on forests, pointed o u t that photochemically reactive hydrocarbons are emitted by the worlds' forests in the order of 175 × 106 tons y- ' , whereas man emits only 27 × 106 tons. It should be noted that the processing of phosphate rock for fertilizer production liberates particulate fluorides that can reduce crop yields (Rich, 1975). 7.5. MANIPULATIONS (Frissel)

There are many opportunities for man to manipulate or control nutrient cycles in agricultural ecosystems as described in Chapter 3. Because the data presented here deal almost entirely with the three main elements used in fertilizers, discussion was centred on several aspects of the use of fertilizers. These included (a) where in the world should fertilizer best be applied? (b) are fertilizers more effective in crops or livestock systems? (c) h o w can fertilizer efficiency be improved? and (d) which of the three major elements should receive most attention?

303

7.5.1. Future application of fertilizers The discussion was limited to agro-technological possibilities; political aspects -- for instance, h o w such a planning should be realized -- were n o t discussed. It was considered that one key question is: where s h o u l d w e apply fertilizers in the future, in developed countries or in developing ones? The idea on which this question is based is that developing countries, with their agricultural production at a lower point on the "diminishing returns curve" than developed countries, may obtain a higher fertilizer efficiency than the developed countries. The answer to the question also depends, without doubt, on the goal which is strived for; social, economical or environmental arguments will probably provide different answers. Apart from that, the question is n o t quite clear; does developing refer to a certain climate or land use, or to the a m o u n t of mechanization available, or to the economic structure which must be available to transport and sell the products? Therefore it is better to re
-

-

-

304 tropical areas, S. America), Newbould + Floate-9 (winter wheat, U.K.) and Thomas + Gilliam-1 (corn, northern Indiana). All these systems are characterized by a high technological skill, and they cover many climatic types. The conclusion m a y probably be that nitrogen dressings up to 120 kg N ha-' for developing countries can safely be recommended, if, and only if, the other production-limiting factors are eliminated. Most soils which were never supplied with fertilizers are phosphate-deficient; thus phosphate is the factor limiting crop production. Many soils fix phosphate, and so only a small fraction of the fertilizer becomes available for the crop. Soils in temperate climates usually fix less phosphate than soils in warmer climates. Besides, many soils in temperate climates have received large fertilizer dressings in the past, so that the top layers of these soils (with a low fixing capacity) are almost saturated with phosphate and thus provide good phosphate fertilizer efficiencies. The systems Henkens-1 and -2 (Dutch arable farm with crop rotation) demonstrate this effect. Other examples are Husz-12 (tropical and sub-tropical products, S. America) and Thomas + Gilliam-5 (cotton, California) which suggest that in the sub-tropical and tropical regions too, a 100% efficiency for phosphate can be obtained. A general conclusion may perhaps be that because phosphate is often production-limiting in developing countries, phosphate dressings are recommended. Because of the high fixing capacity, the efficiency will be lower than in developed countries for a long period. On soils which have never received fertilizers, potassium is probably almost never limiting for crop production (compare Fig. 52 and its discussion). If production is increased by fertilization with N and P, the need for K also increases. In general the efficiency for K is rather good; however, K-fixation by clay minerals necessitates much higher dressings in particular cases, as can be expected from the farm output. The fixation depends on the type of soil minerals. Apart from the availability of the elements, the type of soil minerals formed depends almost exclusively on the climate. Due to the formation of the potassium-fixing clay minerals illite and vermiculite in temporate climates, efficiencies in these climates are relatively low for clay soils; sandy soils show no potassium fixation. The picture for the tropics is almost identical, no fixation on sandy soils, considerable fixation on laterite soils. For nitrogen there is yet another way of comparing the efficiency of fertilization in developed and developing countries. For this comparison a distinction first has to be made between arable areas and livestock areas. The reasoning is that on arable land the efficiency of nitrogen fertilizers is as a rule often around 50% and, provided appropriate techniques are used, is independent of the a m o u n t supplied. Thus the conclusion must be that it is immaterial whether fertilizer is applied in developing or in developed countries. However, for livestock areas the situation is different. This is because, if limited amounts of nutrients are available, as in the developing countries, they are applied almost exclusively to arable land, while in some developed countries, especially in north-western Europe, grassland is also treated with

305 a fertilizer dressing. Thus one might conclude that a comparison has to be made between the nitrogen efficiency on arable land in the developing countries and the nitrogen efficiency on grassland in developed countries. The efficiency with which grass takes up nitrogen fertilizers is a b o u t 60%; the efficiency of the nitrogen transfer between grass and animal products is, however, low, so that the overall efficiency between fertilizer and animal products is only 15%. (For actual values see Fig. 43; for farm inputs ranging from 100 kg N to 780 kg N per ha all outputs are between 5 and 22% of the farm input). Because there is no appreciable build-up of soil organic matter (see also section 7.3), 85% of the nitrogen must have been lost by leaching, denitrification or volatilization of ammonia. Therefore, in terms of feed production a much better efficiency can be expected for fertilizers applied in developing countries than on grassland in developed ones. We have n o w touched, however, on a problem of much wider scope. Should we, in order to reduce pollution, or to feed more people, reduce the consumption of animal products? A discussion of this problem is, however, outside the scope of this paper. At the m o m e n t it is n o t even relevant, for it is possible to produce enough food for the entire world provided agriculture gets a chance to apply both industrial and biological nitrogen fixation to the best of its knowledge. The second question -- should fertilizers be used preferentially on the most productive areas within a region, or should they be spread o u t over the entire area? -- is much easier to answer. The fertilzer efficiency is highest on the most productive soils, and so we should give preference to fertilizer application on such softs and also try to remove the fertility defects. In this way the area required for crop production is reduced, together with labour and mechanization costs and the use of pesticides and herbicides. The area no longer required for food production can be used for recreation, roads, or for any other purpose. Unfortunately, social and economic arguments prohibit such a development. Each country or group of countries is forced to be self-supporting to a certain extent. Within countries with a controlled e c o n o m y this policy is, however, usually fully accepted, e.g. at the International Fertilizer Congress in Moscow (Artjuschin, 1976) it was announced that the U.S.S.R. will give priority to the fertilization of productive soils. A country like Israel distributes its water in the same way, available water goes to the most productive soils first; only when these soils are irrigated, are other soils also irrigated.

7.5.2. Relative importance o f N, P and K Most participants were relucant to answer the question which of the elements N, P or K is the most important one, as far as crop production is concerned. They are all of equal importance, all three can be crop production limiting and they share this property with Ca, the trace elements and water.

306

More interesting is the question which of the three elements will run out first in the future. Potassium provides no problem in this respect, leaving the choice between nitrogen and phosphate. The atmosphere contains vast amounts of nitrogen; industrial fixation is only a question of energy and/or price of the energy. Bioligical fixation occurs and can, without doubt, be improved. A comparison of the production costs of the two ways of fixation did not provide a clear picture. The thermodynamic energy content of 1 kg NH3 is 24 MJ. Chemical industry, due to all kind of losses, needs 78 MJ to produce one kg NH3 (Pimental et al., 1973). Biological fixation is still more expensive; estimates g o t o 480 MJ per kg N (Becking, 1971). The N-fixing micro-organisms, however, use photosynthetic products which may get lost if they are n o t used by these micro-organisms. Nitrogen fixation does not decrease the yield of the plant; as Rosswall pointed out, the micro-organisms cannot compete with the plant, the plant takes what it needs. On a radiation basis a plant--Rhizobium symbiosis uses 5.9 mg C in the nodule to fix 1 mg N, and 6.2 mg C to reduce nitrate-N in the root (Minchin and Pate, 1973). Therefore there is little to choose between sources at this stage in the cycle. Thus there should be little loss of yield in fixing nitrogen biologically. On a rather hypothetical cost of production basis 'biological nitrogen' costs 2--4 U.S.A. cents per kg N, 'chemical nitrogen' costs 14 U.S.A. cents per kg N (Hardy and Havelka, 1975). However, a farmer will only grow a legume if it is profitable, e.g. at present U.S.A. prices of corn (yield 2500 kg per ha) at 10 cents per kg and soybeans (yield 750 kg per ha) at 20 cents per kg, the price of soybeans would need to be about 30 cents per kg for it to be profitable to grow it instead of COrn.

The availability of phosphate is also a question of its price. At the present price levels phosphate will run out first, but the earth's crust contains large P sources which are mineable, from an economic point of view, if prices are increased further. A third viewpoint may be to which element priority should be given as far as research is concerned. The general idea is that the well known sequence N, P, K, is applicable. This publication has shown that the nutrient balance of nitrogen has still m a n y blank spaces. Protein deficiency is apparent in the developing world, and the possibilities of making biological fixation more feasible and economically practicable are challenging. For phosphates, the low efficiency is a subject which needs much attention. As far as pollution is concerned, the release of phosphates by run-off, and the leaching from heavily contaminated areas, e.g. sewage fields, feed lots (not particularly agro-ecosystems and therefore not listed here) may pose a problem. Phosphates in surface water are often the factor limiting eutrophication and should therefore be controlled as much as possible. For potassium, fixation by soil minerals is a particular problem.

307 7.6. RESEARCH NEEDED IN THE FUTURE (Frissel)

7.6.1. Missing data Transfers. As mentioned in section 6.1, all nutrient balances have blank spaces, and parts of the values listed are only indicative. Table 111 provides a rough indication of the needs for further investigations on nutrient fluxes. It is a summarizing table and, as such, an oversimplification. Pools. Some authors have supplied data for the nutrients stored in the different pools. Most authors did not, probably because the editor did n o t ask for it. There is no d o u b t that the amounts stored within the pools must be known to evaluate the importance of fluxes such as mineralization rate, etc.

Different systems. For extensive livestock systems the main inputs are weathering, and input by rain and by nitrogen fixation, all three factors being n o t t o o accurately known. An advantage is that the consumable outp u t is low, the systems are therefore very near a steady state, and this facilitates the preparation of a nutrient balance. However, the outputs which are important for evaluating the impact of this type of system on the environment, such as leaching and release of N 2 0 through denitrification, are almost unknown. The information available on extensive arable farming and extensive forestry is more complete, although for these systems too, N 2 0 losses are unknown. The mixed (self-sustaining) systems received considerable attention, and the fact that they are almost closed systems is a great help in collecting the data. Because of their importance for world food production and the abundance of these systems, more information is required on: input by rain, (and therefore h o w nutrients are introduced into the atmosphere), weathering, immobilization, mineralization, denitrification and losses of volatile ammonium. For all intensive systems the inputs are largely controlled by fertilizers and therefore well known. The uncertainties are especially leaching, volatilization of ammonia and denitrification.

Data collecting. There was a general concensus among the participants that good cooperation between specialists of several disciplines is required to obtain reliable and complete nutrient balances. Part of the input and o u t p u t data are within the direct field of interest of agriculturists, as for instance, yields and fertilizers. Other data, which are n o t soil-specific, as for instance, the input by rain, may be obtained from the literature. But data such as weathering require the help of a weathering specialist, who, in turn, can only supply help if he knows exactly the composition of the soil minerals, rain pattern and temperature. And even in this situation, as Schuylenborgh pointed out, a prediction is still difficult.

308

T A B L E 111 Needs for further investigations on nutrient fluxes 1 Flux 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

17. 18. 19. 20.

20. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

I n p u t by feed for livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n p u t by litter used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by consumption of harvested crops .......................... Transfer b y grazing o f forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output of animal products ..................................... O u t p u t b y l o s s e s f r o m a n i m a l s a n d / o r m a n u r e in s t a b l e s a n d / o r f e e d l o t s ( t h u s f r o m a n y t h i n g b e f o r e it r e a c h e s t h e s o i l ) Output of manure ........................................... Transfer by application of manure and/or waste ....................... T r a n s f e r b y d r o p p i n g s o n g r a z e d areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by application of manure .................................. I n p u t b y application o f fertilizer . . . . . . . . ~ ........................ Input by nitrogen fixation ...................................... I n p u t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f litter, s l u d g e a n d w a s t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Input by irrigation, flooding and infiltration .......................... N o t e : c a p i l l a r y rise is n o t i n c l u d e d I n p u t b y d r y a n d w e t d e p o s i t i o n (rain, d u s t , b i r d droppings) ................................................ Note: Nutrients taken up directly by trees from r a i n o r a t m o s p h e r e are a c c o u n t e d f o r in i t e m 31 T r a n s f e r b y w e a t h e r i n g o f soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y m i n e r a l i z a t i o n o f soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output of primary products .................................... Output by denitrification ...................................... Output by volatilization of ammonia ............................... Note: including volatilization from manure, droppings a n d fertilizers ( t h u s f r o m a n y t h i n g a f t e r it r e a c h e s t h e soil) Output by leaching .......................................... Note: net effect (leaching m i n u s capillary rise) O u t p u t o f available n u t r i e n t s b y r u n - o f f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Note: "surface leaching" included Output by dust ............................................. T r a n s f e r b y f i x a t i o n in soil m i n e r a l f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T r a n s f e r b y i m m o b i l i z a t i o n in soil o r g a n i c f r a c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by plant products (including litter) r e m a i n i n g o n t h e field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer b y seed for s o w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Output by run-off of organic matter ............................... I n p u t by seed or seedlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transfer by uptake of nutrients by the plant .......................... Input by nutrients from dry or wet atmosphere ~ .......................

i + + Considerable research required. + Research required. R e a s o n a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n c a n be o b t a i n e d f r o m e x i s t i n g s o u r c e s . - - S u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n c a n be o b t a i n e d f r o m e x i s t i n g s o u r c e s .

- - + - ........

+ + + - - + -

+

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + - - + + -

309 Data banking. Husz explained the importance of data banking. Ecological scientists, trying to analyse agro-ecosystems need field parameters. Without such parameters, neither an ecologist, nor an agriculturist is able to give advice if he is asked for it. Rosswall, agreeing with the need for the data, rejected nevertheless the idea of data banking. It is dangerous to deliver data without any further information to people who cannot judge the worth of them. Most participants seemed n o t to favour the idea of a data bank, as far as typical ecological data (e.g. leaching vs. fertilization) are concerned. For well defined chemical or physical data (e.g. the cation exchange capacity, pH, rainfall and temperature), data banking may be very valuable. Newbould preferred cycling studies on long-term single ecosystems. In his opinion, the way to achieve progress is n o t by setting up a multitude of soil sampling and plant sampling stations. He proposed selecting 4 or 5 agro-ecosystems that cover the world situation, and examining them carefully by multidisciplinary approaches. Such investigations will open the way to more detailed model studies. 7.6.2. More refined models An important part of the discussion was focused on the availability of nutrients added in the form of fertilizers or organic material. To the modern techniques applied to study this problem belong the use of radioactive or stable tracers and the mathematical modeling technique. Tracers have the advantage that a labelled c o m p o u n d (provided it is correctly labelled) can be measured very accurately. They also allow the investigation of the way by which nutrients are lost. As discussed, nitrogen fertilizer efficiency studies show that a b o u t 50% of the fertilizer is taken up by the vegetation. Studies with is N often show much lower efficiencies. The IAEA Technical report No. 121 (1970) which discusses nitrogen fertilizer uptake by maize, shows a wide range of efficiencies, the mean efficiency being around 30%.(The reduction of a report of 78 pages into one value is, of course, an oversimplification.) IAEA Technical report No. 108 (1970) on rice fertilization shows that the efficiency depends greatly on the type of fertilizer, mean values ranging between 15 and 40% (again oversimplified). Average values for wheat range from 20 to 40% (IAEA Technical report No. 157, 1974). Such low values are n o t always reported. Westerman and Kurtz (1974) report efficiencies between 50 and 100% for Sudan grass. Nevertheless, it seems that in general the recovery from ,s N experiments is considerably lower than could be expected from the balance studies described. This can only be explained by a delayed availability of the fertilizer, i.e. part of the fertilizer is taken up in the organic matter of the soil and becomes available during the following years. Consequently the crop in a particular year uses part of the nitrogen which was supplied during the foregoing years. This difference between the efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer applied only once, or applied annually is important and should be considered

310

when setting up nutrient balance studies. The same reasoning is true for organic additions to a soil, b u t delays in nutrient availability for organic c o m p o u n d s are easily recognized.

Simulation models The model described in Fig. 3 is, in fact, based on time intervals of one year, while many processes are actually dynamic processes. Mathematical models, so-called simulation models, are usually able to describe such dynamic processes with sufficiently small time intervals, for instance with intervals of days or hours. Fig. 53 shows a model in which the soil nitrogen pool is split into many more pools (Frissel et al., 1977). Nitrogen is present in the form of ammonium ions, nitrite ions or nitrate ions. The main organic pools are biomass, humus, straw and manure. Transfers between the pools are described by microbiological or chemical processes. Interactions between different pools and flows are included by feedback control relations. The mineralization and immobilization in this model are described by rate functions; for each particular type of c o m p o n e n t (straw, humus, manure, beet tops) another function is used. The rates of mineralization and immobilization depend on the time which has elapsed since the application of the organic matter and on the C/N quotient. Usually, N is taken up by the organic matter for C/N quotients above 20, and N is made available for C/N quotients below 20. The C/N quotient is calculated for

~

m;ner;iliP/

~'-Jbio(ogicatxatio

o

/W demtrlflcatl0n leoching Fig. 53. Simulationmodelto describethe behaviourof nitrogenin soil.

°air

311

....

.or,o°

A..,.°,°°?V 10'okel

6-c°.0o°

. ....

/I

.ootizot,o°

I I ~II

Immobilization fixation nitrilication 1

leaching

Fig. 54. Alternative split up of soil organic matter.

each time interval again. Correction factors take care of the influence of temperature, moisture content and 02 concentration. Lack of detailed data on such functions and the fact that for an ' u n k n o w n ' organic c o m p o u n d first a decomposition rate function has to be determined, form a serious limitation for this type of model. An alternative model, shown in Fig. 54, overcomes part of these limitations. All decomposable components which form the active organic pool (straw, manure, beet tops) except the biomass, are split into their components which are proteins, sugars, cellulose and lignin. The core of this model is the growth of biomass using the separate components as substrates. If proteins are used as substrate there is an excess of nitrogen available because the substrate is n o t only used for growth b u t also as a source of energy. If the efficiency with which the micro-organisms use proteins is, for instance, 40%, then 60% of the nitrogen of the proteins is made available. However, growth on the other substrates (lignin, sugar and cellulose) also depends on the nitrogen which stems from the protein source (or from other nitrogen sources such as fertilizers). If there is no nitrogen available the synthesis of biomass stops. Thus, whether nitrogen is made available or is taken up by the soil organic matter fraction, depends on the ratios between the different components (protein, cellulose, sugars and lignin), the rates with which these components are used for the synthesis of biomass, the efficiencies of these syntheses and the availability of other nitrogen sources. The reason that nitrogen stored in the biomass is considered separately, is because the biomass

312

pool controls to a large extent the biological transfer reactions, and is thus needed in the calculations. The model described has already been tested by a single field experiment (Van Veen, 1977), b u t has certainly not y e t reached a stage where it can be used for predictive purposes. Clay minerals are included in the model because they fix ammonium ions; interaction between the presence of clay minerals and biological transfer rates, as proposed at the symposium by Filip could n o t y e t be included in the model. Discussion of these types of model is certainly outside the scope of direct interest of a symposium like this one. Yet there must be consistency between data sets required for simulation models and nutrient balances as used in this publication. Therefore, close contacts between investigators working at different levels on nutrient models seems recommendable.

313

Chapter 8 SUMMARY (CONCLUSIONS) (Newbould, Frissel and Floate)

The cycling of the plant nutrients N, P and K in agro-ecosystems was investigated by means of nutrient balances. It was assumed that nutrients are stored in the pools: plants; animals; nutrients immediately available in the soil; non-immediately available nutrients in soil organic matter; and soil minerals. Thirty-one fluxes were used to describe the inputs, outputs and transfers within the systems. Agro-ecosystems were grouped according to their nutrient o u t p u t (per ha) and type of management; the most characteristic nutrient element is nitrogen; outputs are expressed in units of kg N consumable produc t (consumable by man and/or animals). F o r extensive livestock and extensive arable systems the o u t p u t varies between 0.4 and 20 kg N ha- 1. For mixed self-sustaining systems, outputs up to 113 kg N haarable land were reported, for intensive systems the highest o u t p u t mentioned is 400 kg N ha- l. From an ecological point of view the mixed self-sustaining systems are the most complicated ones. Because many of the important crops do n o t fix nitrogen biologically, such systems depend on a nitrogen catchment area. The catchment area often consists of pastures with legumes, enabling nitrogen to be fixed and transferred to the arable system via the manure produced by the livestock. The mean o u t p u t of mixed self-sustaining systems depends mainly on the ratio pastures:arable land. For the paddy soil--homegarden system (south-east Asia) the irrigated paddy soil serves as the nitrogen cathment area; nitrogen is fixed by azollas and blue-green algae. All systems which use more than 20 kg fertilizer per ha annually are classified as intensive systems. Agro-ecosystems were described from: the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Germany, France, Czechoslovakia, Israel, Japan, Australia, the U.S.A. and South America. Some of the nutrient balances axe rather synthetic, others are derived from measurements carried o u t on particular farms. A description of h o w data for the nutrient balances were obtained is included. Results are summarized in graphs and tables.

Warning: Consideration o f the summarizing graphs and tables only, may result in generalizations which are misleading. Verify conclusions by consulting the original nutrient balances. Many questions of importance to world agriculture and to the maintenance of the quality of environment and landscape were considered in the discussions (Chapter 7) before the summarizing data as presented in sections 7.1 and 7.2 were available. The editor has re-examined views expressed in

314 the discussions in the list of the summarizing data. It is concluded that no new information has emerged to alter entrenched views on the relative importance of future work on N, P and K; of sensitive systems where leaching losses and pollution might occur; and of the efficiency of fertilizer use. The suggestion from some systems that the phosphorus in fertilizer is used with 100% or greater efficiency obviously reflects either a complete lack of data on weathering and mineralization or the use of imprecise data (compare section 7.2.2.). F e w new data on the role of organic matter, and particularly its mineralization to release nitrogen and phosphorus, were presented. Although most systems appear to be gaining rather than losing nutrients in the organic pool, it was n o t possible to resolve the very diverse views on the role and importance of organic matter to long term agricultural and natural ecosystem stability. Views on the optimum use of fertilizers for arable or grass systems or in the developing as opposed to the developed world, were hardly supported by data presented here. Likewise, little new stimulus was given to new procedures of schemes of fertilizer use to further enhance world food production. What then has the symposium achieved? (a) It enhanced understanding of nutrient cycles, h o w they function and at what rate, and h o w they are controlled. (b) It brought together a vast amount of data which have only been analysed superficially at present. It is likely that a much more detailed analysis than has been possible in the time available will merit considerable effort in the future. (c) The collation and discussion of the data in a unified scheme have clearly identified areas with little or very imprecise data and have indicated those areas urgently requiring further research to understand processes as well as to provide data (section 7.6.1.). (d) It showed that nutrient losses to the environment due to high farm inputs exist for all types of systems and are often proportional to the farm input. Because high farm inputs can almost~only be realized by high fertilizer dressings, losses to the environment are often proportional to the fertilizer use. However, with the available data, it could n o t be proved that the ratios N, leached: N, consumable output and N, volatilized as ammonia: N, consumable output are proportional to the farm input, so that for a given quantity o f food which has to be produced it is n o t proven that losses to the environment are related to the intensity by which nitrogen fertilizers are used (section 7.2.1.). (e) Despite the imperfection of the data, there is sufficient homogeneity in the balances obtained over a wide variety of ecosystems, particularly as they vary in intensity of use or sophistication, to indicate that future studies of this type or further amplification of the present data will be worthwhile. Such studies should permit more precise assessments of relative fertilizer efficiency, of possible polluting situations, of comparisons between different parts of the world, than has hitherto been possible.

315

(f) The realization that balances of the type calculated here represent the status quo or a retrospective picture of events only. The true situation is dynamic and it is to be hoped that the construction of simulation models will proceed in harmony with the collection of data, for they offer a real chance of forecasting events. For this to be achieved it is necessary to have the missing data, to have findings from the research considered necessary (see section 7.6.2.), and to have knowledge of c o m p a r t m e n t (pool) sizes and transfer rates over the whole range of time scales, which was n o t possible at the meeting. Finally, the predictions of such models will need to be validated in practice, either on single ecosystems or catchment areas or on average regional or world situations. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their gratitude for the stimulating remarks made by the chairmen of the symposium, Dr. It. G.H. Bolt and Dr. Ir. A. van Diest and by Dr. Z. Filip and Dr. R.G. Woodmansee. The editor wishes to acknowledge especially the help he received from his colleague Ir. P. Poelstra: Ir. Poelstra t o o k care of many duties the editor should have done thus allowing him time to prepare this manuscript.

317

Chapter 9 REFERENCES The reader's attention is drawn to the fact, that the references are divided into the following sections: Agro-ecosystems; Plant nutrition; Animal nutrition; Transport in the water phase; Energy balance; Other references. If a reference is not found in the section where it was expected, please consult another section. AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS

References cited Adams, S.N. and McAUister, J.S.V., 1975. Nutrient cycles involving P and K on livestock farms in Northern Ireland. J. Agric. Sci. Camb., 85: 345--350. AFF (Editor), 1966. Dozyo-hiryo bunya niokeru Gizyutsu-shuroku, 76 (in Japanese) AFF: Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Research Council of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Japan. AFF, 1969. Water pollution and agri crops, 5 8 3 , 5 9 0 (in Japanese) A F F : Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Research Council of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Japan. Allen S.E., Carlisle, A., White, E.J. and Evans, C.C., 1968. The plant nutrient content of rain water. J. Ecol., 56: 497--504. Allison, F.E., 1955. The enigma of soil-N balance sheets. Adv. Agron., 7: 213--250. Allison, F.E., 1966.The fate of N applied to soils. Adv. Agron., 18: 219--258. Anonymous, 1961. Handboekje voor de Landbouwvoorlichter. Proefstation voor de Akker- en Weidebouw, Wageningen, pp. 52--53. Anonymous, 1967. Handboekje voor de Landbouwvoorlichter. Proefstation voor de Akker- en Weidebouw, Wageningen, pp. 120--121. Anonymous, 1973a. Handboek voor de Akkerbouw, Deel II: Technisch bedrijfsverband en bedrijfssynthese. Publ. No. 10, Proefstation voor de Akker- en Weidebouw, Lelystad, pp. 31--32. Anonymous, 1973b. Voedernormen voor de landbouwhuisdieren en voedernormen der veevoeders. Centr. Veevoederbur. in Nederland, Wageningen, p.32. Anonymous, 1975. Nora betreffende de relatie landbouw en natuur-en landschapsbehoud. Staatsdrukkerij, 's-Gravenhage. Anonymous, 1976. Studie betreffende het vaststellen van maxima per hectare voor mesten gierverspreiding op landbouwgrond. Insitute for Soil Fertility, Haren (Gr.). Arnold, C.W., McManus, W.R. and Bush, I.G., 1964. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb., 4: 392. Aubertin, G.M. and Patric, J.H., 1974. Water quality after clear-cutting a small watershed in West Virginia. J. Environ. Qual., 3: 243--249. Azevedo, J. and Stout, P.R., 1974. Farm animal manures: an overview of their role in the agricultural environment. Calif. Agrie. Exp. Stn, Ext. Set. Man. No. 44. Beck, J. and Frissel, M.J., 1973. Simulation of nitrogen behaviour in soils. Simulation Monogr., PUDOC, Wageningen. Bingham, F.T., Davis, S. and Shade, E., 1971. Water relations, salt balance and nitrate leaching losses of a 960-acre citrus watershed. Soil Sci., 112: 410--417. Birse, E.L., 1971. Assessment of climatic conditions in Scotland. 3. The bioclimatic subregions. The Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen. Bormann, F.H., Likens, G.E., Fisher, D.W. and Pierce, R.S., 1968. Nutrient losses accelerated by clear-cutting of a forest ecosystem. Science, 159: 882--884.

318

Boswell, F.C. and Anderson, O.E., 1964. Nitrogen movement in undisturbed profiles of fallowed soils. Agron. J., 56: 278--281. Branson, R.L., Ayers, R.S. and Meyer, J., 1973. Contribution of nitrate and other salts from livestock wastes to groundwaters. Report, Univ. Calif. Water Quality Task Force Committee of Consultants to the California State Water Resources Control Board. Bromfield, S.M., 1961. Sheep faeces in relation to the phosphorus cycle under pastures. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 12: 111. Bunnell, F.L., MacLean, S.F. and Brown, J., 1975. Barrow, Alaska. In: T. Rosswall and O.W. Heal (Editors), Structure and Function of Tundra Ecosystems. Ecol. Bull. (Stockholm) 20, pp. 73--124. Swedish NSRC. Buol, S.W. (Editor), 1973. Soils of the Southern States and Puerto Rico. Southern Coop. Series Bull., 174. Campbell, F.R. and Webber, L.R., 1969. Agriculture's contribution to the fertilization of Canal Lake. J. Soil Water Conserv., 24: 139--141. Carter, M.C. and White, E.H., 1971. Dry weight and nutrient accumulation in young stands of cottonwood (Populus deltoides Bartr.) Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Cir. No. 190. CAST, 1976. Effect of increased nitrogen fixation on stratospheric ozone. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa, 32 pp. (mimeographed). Civil Eng. Soc. Japan, 1972. Investigation on future water quality of Lake Biwa. 1971 Report (in Japanese). Civil Eng. Soc. Japan, 1973. Investigation on future water quality of Lake Biwa. 1972 Report (in Japanese). Cole, D.W., Gessel, S.P. and Dice, S.F., 1967. Distribution and cycling of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and calcium in a second growth Douglas fir ecosystem. In: H.E. Young (Editor), Symposium on Primary Productivity and Mineral Cycling in Natural Ecosystems. Univ. Maine Press, Orono, Maine, pp. 197--232. Cooke, G.W., 1976. A review of the effects of agriculture on the chemical composition and quality of surface and underground waters. In: Proc. ADAS/ARC Conf., Agriculture and Water Quality. MAFF Tech. Bull. 32, HMSO, London (in press). Coppenet, M., 1975. Bilans des dl~ments fertilisants sur les exploitations d'~levage. Fourrages, 62: 119--132. Crisp, D. T., 1966. Input and output of minerals from an area of Pennine moorland. J. Appl. Ecol., 3: 327--348. Crutzen, P.J., 1974. Estimates of possible variations in total ozone due to natural causes and human activities. Ambio, 3: 201--210. Crutzen, P.J. and Ehhalt, D.H., 1977. Atmospheric ozone, the nitrogen cycle and nitrogen fertilizers. Amb io, 6: 112--117. De Boer, P.B., 1975. Een halve eeuw intensief grasland gebruik. Motivering, ervaringen en resultaten. Bedrijfsontwikkeling, 6: 215--217. Denmead, O.T., Simpson, J.R. and Freney, J.R., 1974. Ammonia flux into the atmosphere from a grazed pasture. Science, 185: 609--610. Denmead, O.T., Freney, J.R. and Simpson, J.R., 1976. A closed ammonia cycle within a plant canopy. Soil Biol. Biochem., 8: 161--164. Dilz, K. and Woldendorp, J.W., 1960. Distribution and nitrogen balance of 15 N-labelled nitrates applied on grass soils. In: Proc. Eighth Int. Grassland Congress. DSbereiner, J., 1977. New opportunities for exploitation of biological nitrogen fixation as an alternative nitrogen source without environmental hazards. Ambio, 6: 174---177. Donald, C.M. and Williams, C.H., 1954. Fertility and productivity of a podzolic soil as influenced by subterranean clover and superphosphate. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 5: 664. Duckham, A.N. and Masefield, G.B., 1970. Farming Systems of the World. Praeger Publishers, New York -- Washington. Eadie, J. and Maxwell, T.J., 1975. Systems research in hill sheep farming. In: G,E. Dalton (Editor), Study of Agricultural Systems. Applied Science Publications, London, pp. 395--413.

319

Eadie, J., Armstrong, R.H. and Maxwell, T.J., 1977. Responses in output achieved in improved systems of sheep production in the two hillenvironments. Part 1. In the Eastern Cheviots. Proc. Int. Hill Land Conf., Morgantown, U.S.A., October 1976 (in press). Erickson, A.E. and Ellis,B.G., 1971. The nutrient content of drainage water from agricultural land. Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn., Res. Bull. No. 31. Eyal, E., Benjamin, R.W. and Tadmor, N.H., 1975. Sheep production on seeded legumes, planted shrubs and dryland grain in a semiarid region of Israel.J. Range Manage., 28: 100--107. Floate, M.J.S., 1970. Plant nutrient cycling in hillland. Hill Frog. Res. Org., 5th Report, 1967--70, pp. !5--34. Frink, C.R., 1967. Nutrient budget: rational analysis of eutrophication in a Connecticut lake. Environ. Sci. Technol., 1: 425--428. Frink, C . R , 1969. Water pollution potential estimated from farm nutrient budgets. Agron. J., 51: 550--553. Frink, C.R., 1970. The nitrogen cycle of a dairy farm. In: Relationship of agriculture to soil and water pollution. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York, pp. 127--133. Frink, C.R., 1971. Plant nutrients and water quality. Agric. Sci. Rev., 9: 11--25. Frissel, M.J., Van Veen, J.A. and Kolenbrander, G.J., 1977. The use of submodels in the simulation of nitrogen transformations in soil. Proc. Symp. Agrochemicals in Soils. Jerusalem (in preparation). Gachon, L., 1974. R~flexions sur l'utilisation des engrais. B.T.I., 295: 839--849. Gambrell, R.P., Gilliam, J.W. and Weed, S.B., 1975a. Denitrification in subsoils of the North Carolina coastal plain as affected by soil drainage. J. Environ. Qual., 4: 311-316. Gambrell, R.P., Gilliam, J.W. and Weed, S.B., 1975b. Nitrogen losses from soils of the North Carolina coastal plain. J. Environ. Qual., 4: 317--326. Gentzsch, E.P., Runge, E.C.A. and Peck, T.R., 1974. Nitrate occurrence in some soils with and without natric horizons. J. Environ. Qual., 3: 89--94. Gilbertson, C.B., McCalla, T.M., Ellis, J.R., Cross, O.E. and Woods, W.R., 1970. The effect of animal density and surface slope on characteristics of runoff, solid wastes and nitrate movement on unpaved beef feedlots. Nebraska Agric. Exp. Stn., Bull. SB-508. Gilliam, J.W. and Terry, D.L., 1973. Potential for water pollution from fertilizer use in North Carolina. North Carolina Agric. Ext. Set. Cir. No. 550. Gilliam, J.W., Daniels, R.B. and Lutz, J.F., 1974. Nitrogen content of shallow ground water in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. J. Environ. Qual., 3: 147--151. Gillings, O.J., 1973. Nitrate leaching in soil on Rutgers Agricultural Research Center at Adephia, New Yersey. M.S. Thesis, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick. Gore, A.J.P., 1968. The supply of six elements by rain to an upland peat area. J. Ecol., 56: 483--496. Harpaz, Y., 1975. Simulation of the nitrogen balance in semi-arid regions. Ph.D. Thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Hayman, D.S., 1975. Phosphorus cycling by soil micro-organisms and plant roots. In: N. Walker (Editor), Soil Microbiology. Butterworths, London, Chapter 4. Heady, H.F., 1975. Rangeland Management. McGraw Hill, Maidenhead, pp. 73--87. Heal, O.W., Jones, H.E. and Whittaker, J.B., 1975. Moor House, U.K. In" T. Rosswall and O.W. Heal (Editors), Structure and Function of Tundra Ecosystems. Ecol. Bull. (Stockholm), 20. Swedish NSRC. Henkens, Ch.H., 1972. Fertilizer and the quality of surface water. Stikstof, No. 15, pp. 28--43. Henkens, Ch.H., 1976. Voedingsstoffen- of mineraalbalansen. Stikstof, Nos. 83--84, pp. 355--362. Hill, A.C., 1971. Vegetation: a sink for atmospheric pollutants. J. Air. Poll. Contr. Ass., 21: 341--346.

320

Holt, R.F., Timmons, D.R. and Latterell, J.J., 1970. Accumulation of phosphates in water. J. Agric. F o o d Chem., 18: 781--784. Hood, A.E.M., 1976. The leaching of nutrients from intensively managed grassland at Jealott's Hill. Proc. ADAS/ARC Conf., Agriculture and Water Quality. M A F F Tech. Bull. 32, HMSO, London. Hortenstine, C.C. and Forbes, R.B., 1972. Concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and total soluble salts in soil solution samples from fertilized and unfertilized Histosols. J. Environ. Qual., 1: 446--449. H r b ~ , V., 1974. Nitrates in drainage waters and fertilizers. Vodohospod. Spravodajca, 1 7 : 3 - - 1 0 (in Czech). Husz, G., 1974. Standortsuntersuchungen als Grundlage einer agro-Skologischen Produktionsplanung. Habilitationsschrift, Universitiit fiJr Bodenkultur, Vienna, Austria. Hutchinson, G.L. and Viets, F.G., Jr., 1969. Nitrogen enrichment of surface water by absorption of ammonia volatilized from cattle feedlots. Science, 166: 514--515. Jacquard, P., 1972. M~thode des graphes appliqu~e au probl~me de la fertilisation azot~e. Bull. A.F.E.S., 4/5: 215--235. Johnson, J.W., Welch, L.F. and Kurtz, L.T., 1975. Environmental implication of N fixation by soybean. J. Environ. Qual., 4: 303--306. Jones, G.D. and Zwerman, P.J., 1972. Rates and timing of nitrogen fertilization in relation to nitrate-nitrogen outputs and concentrations in the water from interceptor tile drains. Search Agric., Geneva, N.Y., 2: 1--32. Kallio, P., 1975. Kevo, Finland. In: T. Rosswall and O.W. Heal (Editors), Structure and Function of Tundra Ecosystems. Ecol. Bull. (Stockholm) 20, Swedish NSRC. pp. 193--223. Keeney, D.R., 1973. The nitrogen cycle in sediment-water systems. J. Environ. Qual., 2: 15--29. Keeney, D.R. and Walsh, L.M., 1972. Available nitrogen in rural ecosystems: sources and fate. Hortic. Sci., 7: 219--223. Kilmer, V.J., Gilliam, J.W., Lutz, J.F., Joyce, R.T. and Eklund, C.D., 1974. Nutrient losses from fertilized grassed watersheds in western North Carolina. J. Environ. Qual., 3: 2 1 4 - 2 1 9 . Koepper, J.M., 1975. Kentucky Agricultural Statistics, 1974--1975. USDA and Kentucky Dept. Agric. Kovda, V. and La Rivi~re, J.W.M., 1976. Preamble to: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulphur -- Global Cycles. B.H. Svensson and R. SiSderlund (Editors), SCOPE Report 7. Ecol. Bull. (Stockholm) 22, Swedish NSRC, p.9. Kunishi, H.M., Taylor, A.W., Heald, W.R., Gburek, W.J. and Weaver, R.N., 1972. Phosphate movement from an agricultural watershed during two rainfall periods. J. Agric. F o o d Chem., 20: 900--905. Low, A.J., 1973. Nitrate and ammonia nitrogen concentration in water draining through soil monoliths in lysimeters cropped with grass or clover or uncropped. J. Sci. F o o d Agric., 24: 1489--1495. Lush, R.H., 1952. Pasture Production and Management. Blakiston Co. Inc., New York. Martin, N.J. and Holding, A.J., 1976. Nutrient availability and other factors limiting microbial activity in blanket peat. In: O.W. Heal and D.F. Perkins (Editors), The Ecology of some British Moors and Montane Grasslands. Springer Verlag, Berlin (in press). Martin, A.E. and Ross, P.J., 1968. A nitrogen balance study using labelled fertilizer in a gas lysimeter. Plant Soil, 28: 182--186. Mathers, A.C., Stewart, B.A. and Blair, B., 1975. Nitrate-nitrogen removed from soil profiles by alfalfa. J. Environ. Qual., 4: 403--405. McHargue, J.S. and Peter, A.M., 1921. The removal of plant-food by natural drainage waters. Kentucky Agric. Exp. Stn., Res. Bull. No. 237.

321

Midgley, A.R. and Dunklee, D.E., 1945. Fertility runoff losses for manure spread through the winter. Vermont Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 523. Miller, R.J. and Smith, R.B., 1976. Nitrogen balance in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. J. Environ. Qual., 5: 274--278. Moe, P.G., Mannering, J.V. and Johnston, C.B., 1967. Loss of fertilizer nitrogen in surface run-off water. Soil Sci., 104: 389--394. Mort, G.O., 1974. Nutrient recycling in pastures. In: D.A. Mays (Editor), Forage Fertilization. Am. Soc. Agron./Crop Sci. Soc. Am./Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wisconsin. Miiller, G., 1966. Der Einfluss der Mineraldtingung auf den biologischen Kreislauf der Stoffe landwirtschaftlich genutzten Bibden. Sitzungsberichte, B. XV, Heft 15. DAdLW, Berlin. Munn, R.E. and Phillips, M.L., 1975. Crops and forests as sources and sinks for air pollutants. In: L.P. Smith (Editor), Progress in Plant Biometeorology. Biometeorology, IC: 311--331. Murphy, L.S. and Gosch, J.W., 1972. Nitrate accumulation in Kansas groundwater. In: Soil Nitrogen Cycle. WRSIC 72-208. Kansas Water Resources Research Inst., Manhattan. Nelson, D.W., 1973. Losses of fertilizer nutrients in surface runoff. Fert. Solutions, May/ June: 10--13. Nicholls, K.H. and MacCrimmon, H.R., 1974. Nutrients in subsurface and run-off waters of the Holland Marsh, Ontario. J. Environ. Qual., 3: 31--35. Nightingale, H.I., 1972. Nitrates in soil and ground water beneath irrigated and fertilized crops. Soil Sci., 114: 300--311. Olness, A., Smith, S.J., Rhoads, E.D. and Menzel, R.G., 1975. Nutrient and sediment discharge from agricultural watersheds in Oklahoma. J. Environ. Qual., 4: 3 3 1 - 3 3 6 . Parnas, H., 1975. Model for decomposition of organic material b y micro-organisms. Soil Biol. Biochem., 7: 161--169. Peele, T.C. and Gillingham, J.T., 1972. Influence of fertilization and crop on nitrate content of groundwater and tile drainage effluent. Clemson Water Resources Research Inst., Rep. No. 33. Pratt, P.F. and Adriano, D.C., 1973. Nitrate concentrations in the unsaturated zone beneath irrigated fields in southern California. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 37: 321--322. Rawes, M. and Welch, D., 1969. Upland productivity of vegetation and sheep at Moor House National Nature Reserve, Westmorland, England. Oikos, Suppl. 1 1 : 7 2 pp. Rich, S., 1975. Interactions of air pollution and agricultural practices. In: J.B. Mudd and T.T. Kozlowski (Editors), Responses of Plants to Air Pollution. Academic Press, New York-San Francisco-London, pp. 335--360. Richardson, H.L., 1938. The nitrogen cycle in grassland soils: with special reference to the Rothamsted Park Grass experiment. J. Agric. Sci. Camb., 28: 73--121. Romkens, M.J.M., Nelson, D.W. and Mannering, J.V., 1973. Nitrogen and phosphorus composition of surface runoff as affected b y tillage method. J. Environ. Qual., 2: 202--295. Ross, P.J., Martin, A.E. and Henzell, E.F., 1968. Gas lysimetry as a technique in nitrogen studies on the soil: plant:atmosphere system. Trans, 9th Int. Congr. Soil Sci., Vol II, pp. 487--494. Rosswall, T., 1976. The internal nitrogen cycle between micro-organisms, vegetation and soil. In: B.H. Svensson and R. S6derlund (Editors), Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulphur - - G l o b a l Cycles. SCOPE Report 7. Ecol. Bull. (Stockholm), 22: 157--167. Rosswall, T. and Heal, O.W., (Editors), 1975. Structure and Function of Tundra Ecosystems. Ecol. Bull. (Stockholm), 20. Swedish NSRC. Rosswall, T., Flower-Ellis, J.G.K., Jonsson, S., Ryd6n, B.E. and Sonesson, M., 1975. Stordalen (Abisko), Sweden. In: T. Rosswall and O.W. Heal (Editors), Structure and Function of Tundra Ecosystems. Ecol. Bull. (Stockholm), 20: 265--294. Swedish NSRC.

322 Ryder, M.L. and Stephenson, S.K., 1968. Wool Growth. Academic Press, London, 508 PP. Ryder, J.C., Syers, J.K. and Harris, R.F., 1973. Phosphorus in runoff and streams. Adv. Agron., 25: 1--45. Satchell, J.E., 1971. Feasibility study of an energy budget for Meathop Wood: In: Produc tivity of Forest Ecosystems. Proc. Brussels Symp. 1969. Ecology and Conservation~ 4: 619--630. Schertz, D.L. and Miller, D.A., 1972. Nitrate-N accumulation in the soil profile under alfalfa. Agron. J., 64: 660--664. Schuman, G.E., Burwell, R.E., Piest, R.F. and Spomer, R.G., 1973. Nitrogen losses in surface runoff from agricultural watersheds on Missouri Valley land. J. Environ. Qual., 2: 299--302. Schuman, G.E., Spomer, R.G. and Piest, R.F., 1973. Phosphorus losses from four agricultural watersheds on Missouri Valley loess. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 37: 424--427. Seligman, N.G., Van Keulen, H. and Goudriaan, J., 1975. An elementary model of nitrogen uptake and redistribution by annual plant species. Oecologia (Berlin), 21: 243-261. Shaw, K., 1958. Studies on nitrogen and carbon transformation in soils. P h . D . Thesis. Univ. London. Shimshi, D., 1971. Interaction between irrigation and plant nutrition. In: Proc. 7th Colloq. Int. Potash Inst. Bern, pp. 111--120. Simpson, J.R., 1962. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 13: 1059. SSderlund,R. and Svensson, B.H., 1976, The global nitrogen cycle. In: B.H. Svensson and R. S6derlund (Editors), Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulphur - - Global Cycles. SCOPE Report 7. Ecol. Bull. (Stockholm), 22: 23--73. Spedding, C.R.W. and Diekmahns, E.C. (Editors), 1972. Grasses and Legumes in British Agriculture. Commonw. Agric. Bureaux, Bull. 49. Farnham Royal, Great Britain. Stewart, B.A., Viers, F.G., Jr., Hutchinson, G.L., Kemper, W.D., Clark, F.E., Fairbourn, M.L. and Strauch, F., 1967. Distribution of nitrates and other water pollutants under fields and corrals in the Middle South Platte Valley of Colorado. U.S.D.A., ERS 41-134. Stewart, B.A., Viets, F.G. Jr., Hutchinson, G.L. and Kemper, W.D., 1972. Nitrate and other water pollutants under field and feedlots. Agric. Res. Serv. F o r t Collins, CO. Soil and Water Conservation Res. Div., Soil Nitrogen Cycle. WRSIC 72-208. Stra~kraba, M. and Proch~zkov~, L., 1974. The sources of nutrients coming from agriculture and the methods of preventing eutrophication. In: Anon., The Influence of Chemization in Agriculture and Forestry. SVTS, Bratislava, pp. 210--225 (in Slovak). Svensson, B.H. and SSderlund, R. (Editors), 1976. Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulphur - Global Cycles. Scope Rep. 7, Ecol. Bull. (Stockholm), No. 22. Swedish National Research Council~ Stockholm. Switzer, G.L. and Nelson, L.E., 1972. Nutrient accumulation and cycling in loblolly pine (Pinus taeds L.) plantation ecosystems: the first twenty years. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 36: 143--147. Tadmor, N.H., Eyal, E. and Benjamin, R.W., 1974. Plant and sheep production on semiarid annual grassland in Israel. J. Range Manage., 27 : 427--432. Tamm, C.O., 1953. Growth, yield and nutrition in carpets of a forest moss (Hylocomium splendens). Medd, Statens Skogsforskningsinstitut, 43(1): 1--140. Tansley, A.G., 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16: 284--307. Thomas, G.W. and Crutchfield, J.D., 1974. Nitrate-nitrogen and phosphorus contents o f streams draining small agricultural watersheds in Kentucky. J. Environ. Qual., 3: 46--49. Van der Paauw, F., and Ris, J., 1963. Nawerking van een bemesting met stikstof, Landbouwvoorlichting, 20 (3): 149--154.

323

Van Dyne, G.M. and Abramsky, Z., 1975. Agricultural systems models and modelling: an overview. In: G.E. Dalton (Editor), Study of Agricultural Systems. Applied Science Publishers, London, pp. 23--106. Van Keulen, H., 1975. Simulation of water use and herbage growth in arid regions. Simulation Monogr., PUDOC, Wageningen. Van Veen, J.A., 1977. The behaviour of nitrogen in soil; a computer simulation model. Thesis, ITAL, Wageningen. Vercoe, J.K., 1962. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anita. Prod., 4: 160. Welch, L.F., 1972. More nutrients are added to soil than are hauled away in crops. Ill. Res., 14: 3--4. White, E.J. and Harrison, A.F., 1977. The distribution and cycling of nitrogen, potassium, calcium, and magnesium, with a comparison of the behaviour of these elements and phosphorus. In: J.E. Satchell (Editor), Studies on English Oak, Woodland. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Chapter 20. Whitehead, D.C., 1966. Nutrient minerals in grassland herbage. Mimeo No. 1/1966. Commonw. Bur. Past. Fld. Crops, Hurley, Great Britain. Widdowson, F.V. and Penny, A., 1973. Yields and N, P and K contents of the crops grown in the Rothamsted Reference Experiment 1956--70. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1972, Part 2, pp. 111--130. Wilkinson, S.R. and Lowrey, R.W., 1973. Cycling of mineral nutrients in pasture ecosystems. In: G.W. Butler and R.W. Bailey (Editors), Chemistry and Biochemistry of Herbage. Academic Press, London, pp. 247--315. Williams, C.H., 1968. Aust. J. Soil Res., 6: 131. Williams, C.H., 1970. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci., 36: 199. Williams, C.H. and Donald, C.M., 1957. Changes in organic matter and pH in a podzolic soil as influenced by subterranean clover and superphosphate. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 8: 179. Williams, C.H. and Lipsett, J., 1960. The build-up of available potassium under subterranean clover pastures on a podzolic soil. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 11: 473. Williams, R.J.B., 1976. Chemical composition of rain, land drainage and bore hole water from Rothamsted, Brooms Barn, Saxmundham and Woburn Experimental Stations. Proc. ADAS/ARC Conf., Agriculture and Water Quality. MAFF Tech. Bull. 32, HMSO, London. Young, H.E. and Carpenter, P.M., 1967. Weight, nutrient element and productivity studies of seedlings and saplings of eight tree species in natural ecosystems. Maine Agric. Exp. Stn, Tech. Bull., No. 28.

References recommended Anstett, A., Lemaire, F. et Bats, J., 1965. Les exportations des esp~ces l~gumi~res en maraichage de pleine terre. B.T.T., 200: 1--9. Azzi, G., 1956. Agricultural Ecology. London. Ballay, D. et Catroux, G., 1974. Possibilit~s de limitation des nuisances et des pollutions dues aux ~levages porcins. Ann. Agron., 25: (2/3): 351--381. Barat, J. et Chantioux, R., 1958. Prairie temporaire et prairie permanente en pays d'nerbage charolais. B.T.I., 128. Blanchet, R., 1973. Fertilizer use and ecological factors. In: Semaine d'Etude dur l'emploi des fertilisants et leur effet sur l'accroissement des r~coltes, n o t a m m e n t par rapport a la qualit~ e t a l'~conomie. Pontif. Acad. Sci., Scripta Varia, 38: 363--401. Blanchet, R. et Marty, J.R., 1973. Pr~visions de plans de fertilisation a l'~chelle de diverses rotations en culture irrigu~e ou non. Bull. A.F.E.S., 3: 137--150. Bokhari, U.G. and Singh, J.S., 1975. Standing state and cycling of nitrogen in soil-vegetation components of prairie ecosystems. Ann. Bot., 39: 273--286.

324

Burford, J.R., Greenland, D.J. and Pain, B., 1976. Effects of heavy dressing of slurry and inorganic fertilisers applied to grassland on the composition of drainage waters and the soil atmosphere. Proc. ADAS/ARC Conf., Agriculture and Water Quality. MAFF Tech. Bull. 32, HMSO, London, (in press). Catroux, G., Germon, J-C. et Craffin, Ph., 1974. L'utilisation du sol comme syst~me ~purateur. Ann. Agron., 25 (2/3): 179--193. Catroux, G., Germon, J.C., Heitz, F. et Bidan, P., 1974. L'dpandage des eaux r~siduaires de sucreries. Ann. Agron., 25: (2/3): 307--337. Clair, A., 1974. Pollution de la nappe aquif~re profonde par les chlorures ~ la sulfite de la raise en service de l'autoroute A-6 dans l'arri~re cSte de la CSte-d'Or. Ann. Agron., 25(2/3): 483--497. Coppenet, M., 1974. L'~pandage du lisier de porcherie. Ses consequences agronomiques. Ann. Agron., 25 (2/3): 403--423. Darcheville, M. et Crohain, A., 1975. La fumure phospho-potassique rationnelle et son application d divers syst~mes d'exploitation. In: Un probl~me d'actualit~: la fumure phospho-potassique. Coll. Information Scientifique, Gembioux, pp. 20--31. Davies, E.B., Hogg, D.E. and Hopewell, H.G., 1962. Extent of return of nutrient elements by dairy cattle; possible leaching losses. Trans. Joint Meet. Commns. IV and V, Int. Soc. Soil Sci. N.Z., 715-20, pp. 715--720. De Brichambaut, C.P. and Wall~n, C.C., 1963. A study of Agro-Climatology in Semi-Arid and Arid Zones of the Near East. Technical Note, No. 56. No. 141 T.P. 66. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva. Dermine, E., 1969. La culture fruiti~re intensive en l'absence de travail du sol. In: Culture sans labour. Coll. Information Scientifique, Gembloux, pp. 156--164. Duckham, A,N., 1963. Agricultural Synthesis: The Farming Year. London. Dumas, Y., 1973. Elements d'~cologie et potentialit~s de production. In: Elements d'~cologie des herbages d Pangola (Digitaria decumbens Stent.) dans divers Milieux d e s Antilles Franqaises. Agron. Trop., 28 (9): 819--845. Egunjobi, J.K., 1969. Primary productivity and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. Tuatara, 17: 49--66. Gachon, L., 1973. Influence du syst~me cultural l'~conomie de l'azote en sol argilocalcaire de Limagne. Sciences du Sol. Bull. A.F.E.S., 3: 177--197. Gouny, P., 1964. Probl~mes agronomiques en Camargue. Ann. Agron., 15 (2): 193--204. Gouny, P. et Cornillon, P., 1968. Les sols et la fertilisation des cultures mara~'chbres de primeur en Provence occidentale. Bull. A.F.E.S., 4: 17--27. Halm, B.J., Stewart, J.W.B. and Halstead, R.L., 1971. The phosphorus cycle in a native grassland ecosystem. Proc. Symp. on the Use of Isotopes and Radiation in Research on Soil-Plant Relationships. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 571-586. Heal, O.W. and Perkins, D.F. (Editors), 1976. The ecology of some British moors and montane grasslands. Springer Verlag, Berlin (in press). Hedin, L., Kerguelen, M. and De Montard, F., 1972. Ecologie de la Prairie Perrnanente Fran~aise.Masson et Cie Ed0, Paris, 230 pp. Jacquard, P., Croisier, L. et Monnier, G., 1969. Etude des effets r~siduels des cultures fourrag~res sur les cultures arables. I. Effets r~siduels de la luzerne sur le bl~ et le mai~. Ann. Agron., 20 (4): 371--433. Johnson, A.E., 1976. Additions and removals of N and P in long term experiments at Rothamsted and Woburn and the effect of the residues on total soil N and P. In: Proc. ADAS/ARC Conf., Agriculture and Water Quality. MAFF Tech. Bull. 32, HMSO, London. Johnson, V.W. and Kristjanson, B.H., 1964. Programming for Land Reform in the Developing Agricultural Countries of Latin America. Land Economics, 40: 353. Klimo, E., 1974. Biogeochemical cycling of nutrients in lowland forest ecosystem in southern Moravia. In: Function, Productivity and Structure of Lowland Forest Ecosystem, V~Z, Brno, pp. 117--137 (in Czech).

325

La Buanec, B., 1975. Potentialit~ agricole des milieux tropicaux. Influence des facteurs chimique du sol autres que l'azote dans les potentialit~s du complexe plante-sol-climat. In: Les recherches en agronomie d I'IRAT de 1969 ~ 1974. Agron. Trop., 30(2): 138--147. Lefevre, G., 1971. Bilan de l'azote dans l'exploitation. Cycle sup~rieure d'agronomie, L'azote dans l'agriculture. Mim~o, 80--104. May, P.F., Till, A.R. and Downes, A.M., 1968. Nutrient cycling in grazed pastures. I. A preliminary investigation on the use of 35 S gypsum. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 19: 531-543. Mays, D.A. (Editor), 1974. Forage Fertilisation. Am. Soc. Agron./Crop Sci. Soc. Am. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wisconsin. McDonald, I.W., 1962. The N intake and excretion of grazing animals. In: CSIRO Committee of Div. of Tropical Pastures (Editor), A review of Nitrogen in the Tropics with Particular Reference to Pastures. Commonw. Bur. Past. Fld Crops, Bull. 4 6 , 1 8 6 pp. Mettauer, H., 1973. Contribution ~ l'~tude de l'~cologie des prairies permanentes en Alsace. Stn d'Agronomie, Colmar, mim~o, 24 pp. Miller, R.B., 1968. Flows and cycles of macro- and micro-elements in a forest soil and its environment. Trans. 9th Int. Congr. Soil Sci., pp. 323--329. Nye, P.H., 1961. Organic matter and nutrient cycles under moist tropical forest. Plant Soil, 13: 333--346. Nye, P.H. and Greenland, D.J., 1960. The soil under shifting cultivation. Commonw. Bur. Soils, Tech. Comm. 51. O'Callaghan, J.R. and Pollock, K.A., 1976. A. land spreading trial with pig slurry. In: Proc. ADAS/ARC Conf., Agriculture and Water Quality. MAFF Tech. Bull. 32, HMSO, London. Ovington, J.D., 1962. Quantitative ecology and the woodland ecosystem concept. Adv. Ecol. Res., 1: 103--192. Perigaud, S., 1963. Contribution agronomique ~ la raise en valeur de la Brenne (sols hydromorphes). Th~se, Clermont-Ferrand. Pichot, J., Charoy, J., Burdin, S. et Nabos, J., 1974. L'enfouissement des pailles de rail (Pennisetum) dans les sols sableux dunaires. Agron. Trop., 29 (10): 995--1005. Preston, D.A., 1965. Changes in the Economic Geography of Banana Production in Ecuador. Inst. Br. Geographers, Trans. and Papers. Pub. No. 37. Richardson, S.J., 1976. Animal manures as potential pollutants. In: Proc. ADAS/ARC Conf., Agriculture and Water Quality. MAFF Tech. Bull. 32, HMSO, London. Roseveare, G.M., 1948. The Grasslands of Latin America. Imperial Bureau of Pastures and Field Crops. Aberystwyth, Great Britain (now Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham, Bucks., Great Britain). Rychnovsk~, M., 1972. Ecosystem study on grassland biome in Czechoslovakia. PT-PP/ IBP Rep. No. 2, Brno, 98 pp. Salette, J.E., 1962. Observations de quelques sols de rizi~re en Camargue. Bull A.F.E.S. 412. Salette, J.E., 1970. Les cultures fourrag~res tropicales et leurs possibilit~s d'intensification. Fourrages, 43: 91--107. Salette, J.E., 1971. Intensification prospects of forage production in the wet tropics. In: Colloque sur l'intensification de la production fourrag~re en milieu tropical humide et son utilisation par les ruminants. INRA, Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, pp. 47--51. Sawyer, C.N., 1973. Phosphorus and ecology. In: Environmental phosphorus Handbook. Wiley, London, pp. 633--648. Spedding, C.R.W., 1969. The agricultural ecology of grassland. Agric. Prog., 44: 7--23. Spedding, C.R.W., 1971. The nutrient cycle. In: C.R.W. Spedding (Editor), Grassland Ecology. O.U.P. London, p. 103. Swartzman, G.L. and Van Dyne, G.M., 1972. An ecologically based simulation optimisation approach to manure resource planning. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

326

Talineau, J.C. et Hainnaux, G., 1974. Programme d'~tude des interactions sol-plantes fourrag~res en milieu tropical humide. Station de Bouak~. Premiers r~sultats. Interpr~tations et conclusions concernant le facteur sol. ORSTOM, Centre d'Adiopodoum~, Doc. de Travail, mim~o, 72 pp. Till, A.R. and May, P.F., 1973. Nutrient cycling in grazed pastures. J. Anim. Sci., 37: 813--820. Trocm~, S. et Gras, R., 1966. L'entretien du sol en arboriculture fruiti~re: r~sultat d'un essai sur pommier. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 886--896. Ulehlov~, B., 1974. Distribution of mineral elements in some seminatural alluvial meadow ecosystems. Rostl. V~roba (Praque), 20: 533--541. Ulrich, B., Mayer, R., Khanna, P.K. and Frenzel, J., 1973. Modelling of bioelement cycling in a beech forest of Solling district. Gottinger Bodenkundliche Berichte, 29: 1--54. Ulrich, B., M a y e r , R . and Pavlov, M., 1971. Investigations on bioelement cycling in beech and spruce stands including input/output analysis. In: T. Rosswall (Editor), System Analysis in Northern Coniferous Forests. IBF Workshop, Sweden, 1971. Swedish NSRC, Stockholm. U.S.D.A., 1964. A graphic summary of World Agriculture. Misc. Publ. No. 705. U.S. Dept. Agric., Washington, D.C. Velly, J., 1975. Fertilisation d'entretien dans le cadre de syst~mes de cultures., In: Les Recherches en Agronomie ~ I'IRAT de 1969 ~ 1974. Agron. Trop., 30(2): 154--162. Whyte, R.C., 1960. Crop Production and Environment. London. PLANT NUTRITION

References cited Adriano, D.C., Pratt, P.F. and Takatori, F.H., 1972a. Nitrate in unsaturated zone of an alluvial soil in relation to fertilizer nitrogen rate and irrigation level. J. Environ. Qual., 1: 418--422. Adriano, D.C., Takatori, F.H., Pratt, P.F. and Lorenz, O.A., 1972b. Soil nitrogen balance in selected row-crop sites in southern California. J. Environ. Qual., 1: 279--283. Allos, H.F. and Bartholomew, W.V., 1955. Effect of available nitrogen on symbiotic fixation. Soil Sci. Am. Proc., 19: 182--184. Artjuschin, A.M., 1976. In: Proceedings of the International Fertilizer Congress, Moscow, p. 86. Bajer, J., 1973. The Alphabet of Plant Nutrition. SZN, Praha, 409 pp. (in Czech). Baker, J.L., Campbell, K.L., Johnson, H.P. and Hanway, J.J., 1975. Nitrate, phosphorus and sulfate in subsurface drainage water. J. Environ. Qual., 4: 406--412. Baldovinos, F. and Thomas, G.W., 1967. The effect of soil clay content on phosphorus uptake. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 31: 680--682. Balderston, W.L., Sherr, B. and Payne, W.J., 1976. Blockage by acetylene of nitrous oxide reduction in Pseudomonas perfectomarinus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 31: 503--508. Barber, S.A., 1964. Meet nutrient needs. Better Crops Plant F o o d , May/June: 28--33. Becking, J.H., 1971. Biological nitrogen fixation and its economic significance. In: Nitrogen-15 in Soil--Plant Studies. IAEA, Vienna, pp. 189--222. B~zik, J., 1975. Investigations of manuring efficiency on irrigated soils in southwest Slovakia. Internal Res. Rep., Inst. Irrigation, Bratislava, 40 pp. (in Slovak). Bolton, E.F., Aylesworth, J.W. and Hore, F.P., 1970. Nutrient losses through tile drains under three cropping systems and two fertility levels on a Brookston clay soil. Can. J. Soil Sci., 50: 275--279. Bormann, F.H. and Likens, G.E., 1970. The nutrient cycle of an ecosystem. Sci. Am., 223: 92--101.

327

Bower, C.A. and Wilcox, L.V., 1969. Nitrate content of the upper Rio Grande as influenced by nitrogen fertilization of adjacent irrigated lands. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 33: 971--973. Broadbent, F.E. and Clark, F.E., 1965. Denitrification. In: W.V. Bartholomew and F.E. Clark (Editors), Soil Nitrogen. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wisc. pp. 344--359. Burns, R.C. and Hardy, R.W.F., 1975. Nitrogen Fixation in Bacteria and Higher Plants. Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 189 pp. Carter, D.L., Bondurant, J.A. and Robbins, C.W., 1971. Watersoluble NO3 -nitrogen, PO4 phosphorus, and total salt balance on a large irrigation tract. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 35: 331--335. Chandler, W.V., 1960. Nutrient uptake by corn in North Carolina. North Carolina Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. No. 143. Chao, T.T., Harward, M.E. and Fang, S.C., 1962. Absorption and desorption phenomena of sulfate ions in soils. Soil Sci. Soe. Am. Proc., 26: 234--237. Church, B.M., 1975. Use of fertilisers in England and Wales, 1974. Rothamsted Experimental Station Rep. 1974, Part 2, pp. 195--199. Clement, C.R., 1961. Benefit of leys -- structural improvement or nitrogen reserves. J. Br. Grassld., Soc., 16: 194--200. Clement, C.R. and Williams, T.E., 1964. Leys and soil organic matter. I. The accumulation of organic carbon in soils under different leys. J. Agric. Sci. Camb., 63: 377--384. De Geus, J.G., 1973. Fertilizer Guide for the Tropics and Subtropics. 2nd Edn. Centre d'Etude de l'Azote, Ziirich. Dyer, K.L., 1965. Interpretation of chloride and nitrate distribution patterns in adjacent irrigated and nonirrigated Panoche soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 29: 170--176. Edinburgh School of Agriculture, 1969. Fertilizer Recommendations. Edinburgh School of Agriculture, p. 13. Ensminger, L.E., 1954. Some factors affecting the absorption of sulfate by Alabama soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 18: 259--264. Eriksson, E., 1966. Air and precipitation as sources of nutrients. In: Handbuch der Planzenern~'hrung und Diingung. Vol. 2: 774--792. Evans, H.J. (Editor), 1975. Enhancing Biological Nitrogen Fixation. The National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 52 pp. FAO and UNESCO, 1967. Meeting of the Soil Correlation Committee for South America. •World Soil Sources Rep. No. 30. Floate, M.J.S., 1970. Mineralization of N and P from organic materials of plant and animal origin and its significance in the nutrient cycle in grazed upland and hill soils. J. Br. Grassld. Soc., 25: 295--302. Floate, M.J.S., 1970. Decomposition of organic materials from hill soils and pastures. III. The effects of temperature on the mineralisation of C, N and P from plant materials and sheep faeces. Soil Biol. Biochem., 2: 187--196. Fried, M. and Broeshart, H., 1967. The Soil--Plant System. Academic Press, New York and London. Gambrell, R.P., Gilliam, J.W. and Weed, S.B., 1975a. Denitrification in subsoils of the North Carolina coastal plain as affected by soil drainage. J. Environ. Qual., 4: 3 1 1 316. Gambrell, R.P., Gilliam, J.W. and Weed, S.B., 1975b. Nitrogen losses from soils of the North Carolina coastal plain. J. Environ. Qual., 4: 3 1 7 - 3 2 6 . Gasser, J.K.R., 1962. Investigations on rice growing in British Guyana. II. Field experiments of test effects of fertilizers, lime and cultivations on yield composition and nutrient uptake. J. Soil Sci., 13 (2). Gast, R.G., Nelson, W.W. and MacGregor, J.M., 1974. Nitrate and chloride accumulation and distribution in fertilized tile drained soils. J. Environ. Qual., 3: 209--213. Giddens, J., Adams, W.E. and Dawson, R.N., 1971. Nitrogen accumulation in fescuegrass sod. Agron. J., 63: 451--454.

328

Halliday, D.J., 1948. A guide to the uptake of plant nutrients by farm crops. Jealott's Hill Res. Stn, Bracknell~ Great Britain, Bull. No. 7. Hammond, L.C., Black, C.A. and Norman, A.G., 1951. Nutrient uptake by soybeans on two Iowa soils. Iowa Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. No. 384. Hanway, J.J. and Laflen, J.M., 1974. Plant nutrient losses from tile-outlet terraces. J. Environ. Qual., 3: 351--356. Hauck, R.D., 1969. Quantitative estimates of N cycle processes: review and comments. Paper presented at meeting on Recent Developments in the Use of 15 N in Soil-Plant Studies Sponsored by joint F A 0 / I A E A Div. Atomic Energy in F o o d and Agriculture. Sofia, Bulgaria. Henderson, J.B. and Kamprath, E.J., 1970. Nutrient and dry matter accumulation by soybeans. North Carolina Agric. Exp. Stn., Tech. Bull. No. 197. Herron, G.M., Terman, G.L., Dreier, A.F. and Olson, R.A., 1968. Residual nitrate nitrogen in fertilized deep loess-derived soils. Agron. J., 60: 477--482. H r b ~ , V., 1974. The observation of nitrate mobility. In: Anon. The Influence of Chemization in Agriculture and Forestry. SVTS, Bratislava, pp, 147--165 (in Czech). Husz, G., 1968. Ergenisse eines Feldversuches iiber die Wirkung verschiedener N-Diingerkombinationen auf Ertrag yon Zucker rohr. Bodenkultur, 19(3): 213--227. Husz, G., 1973. Kalibedarf und - Versorgung von Zuckerrohr in Abh~ingigkeit seiner hydroklimatischen Standortsbedingungen. Z. Zuckerind., 23(10). Husz, G., 1976. The soil quality index. (In preparation). IAEA, 1970. Rice Fertilization. Tech. Rep. Ser., IAEA, Vienna, No. 108. IAEA, 1970. Fertilizer Management Practices for Maize. Tech. Rep. Ser., IAEA, Vienna, No. 121. IAEA, 1974. Isotope Studies on Wheat Fertilization. Tech. Rep. Ser., IAEA, Vienna, No. 157. lbach, D.B. and Adams, J.R., 1968. Crop Yield Response to Fertlizer in the United States. U.S.D.A. ERS Statistical Bull. No. 431. Jenkinson, D.S., 1971. The accumulation o f organic matter in soil left uncultivated. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report, 1970, Part 2, pp. 113--137. Jenny, H., 1930. A study on the influence of climate upon the nitrogen and organic matter content of the soil. Missouri Agric. Exp. Stn., Res. Bull. No. 152. Jenny, H., 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. MacMillan, New York, London. Jenny, H., 1964. Bodenstickstoff und seine Abh~ingigkeit yon Zustandsfaktoren. Z. Pflanzenern~'hr. Diing. Bodenk., 109(2): 98--112. Jones, M.B., Martin, W.E. and Williams, W.A., 1968. Behavior of sulfate sulfur and elemental sulfur in three California soils in lysimeters. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 32: 535--540. Jordan, H.V., Laird, K.D. and Ferguson, D.D., 1950. Growth and nutrient uptake in corn in a fertilizer-spacing experiment. Agron. J., 42: 261--268. Kamprath, E.J., Nelson, W.L. and Fitts, J.W., 1956. The effect of pH, sulfate and phosphate concentrations on the absorption of sulfate by soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 20: 463--466. Kolenbrander, C., 1974. Efficiency of organic manure in increasing soil organic matter content. Trans. 10th Int. Congr. Soil Sci., 2: 129--130. Klapp, E., 1956. Futterbau und Futterwirtschaft in Chile zwisehem dem 30. und 42. slidlichen Breitengrad. Bonn. Geogr., 17: 87. Kurtz, L.T., 1970. The fate of applied nutrients in soils. J. Agric. F o o d Chem., 18: 773-780. Lammers, H.W., 1973. Hoeveel mest op bouwland. Bedrijfsontwikkeling, 4: 313--315. Linville, K.W. and Smith, G.E., 1971. Nitrate content of soil cores from corn plots after repeated nitrogen fertilization. Soil Sci., 112: 249--255. Masaryk, ~., 1973. Nutrient dynamics in the mat with different nutrient supplies Progr. Res. Rep., Agric. Univ., Nitra, 111 pp. (in Slovak).

329

Nutman, P.S., 1971. Perspectives in biological nitrogen fixation. Sci. Prog. (Oxford), 59: 55--74. Okruszko, H., Warren, G.F. and Wilcox, G.E., 1962. Influence of calcium on phosphorus availability in a muck soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 26: 68--71. Olsen, R.J., Hensler, R.F., Attoe, O.J., Witzel, S.A. and Peterson, J.A., 1970. Fertilizer nitrogen and crop rotation in relation to movement of nitrate nitrogen through soil profiles. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 34: 448--452. Peterka, N., 1973. Increasing fertilization intensity and its influence on nutrient uptake by the different field crops cultivated on different soil types. Internal Res. Rep., Inst. Plant Nutr. Prague, 454 pp. Pfaff, C., 1963. Das Verhalten des Stickstoff im Boden nach langj~/hrigen Lyzimeterversuchen. Acker und Planzenbau, 117 (11): 77--79. Pieri, C., 1975. Etudes de lysim~trie et acidification des sols. In: Les recherches en agronomie ~ I'IRAT de 1969 ~ 1974. Agron. Trop., 30(2): 148)153. Porter, L.K., 1975. Nitrogen transfer in ecosystems. Soil Biochemistry, 4: 1--30. Power, F., 1970. Leaching nitrate-nitrogen under dryland agriculture in the north Great Plains. In: Relationship of Agriculture to Soil and Water Pollution. Cornell Univ. Conf., Ithaca, N.Y., pp. 111--122. Pritchett, W.L. and Smith, W.H., 1975. Forest fertilization in the U.S. southeast. In: B. Bernier and C.H. Winget (Editors), Forest Soils and Forest Land Management. Les Presses d'Universit~ Laval, Quebec, pp. 467--476. Rogers, H.T., 1941. Plant nutrient losses from a corn, wheat, clover rotation on Dunmore silt loam. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 6: 263--271. Romaine, J.D., 1965. When fertilizing, consider plant food content of your crops. Better Crops Plant Food, May/June: 1--8. Scarseth, G.D. and Chandler, W.V., 1938. Loss of phosphate from a light textured soil in Alabama and its relation to some species of soil conservation. Agron. J., 30: 361--374. Schwabe, G.H., 1961. Diingungsversuche zu KSrnerfriichten im stidlichen Chile unter Berticksichtigung mikroklimatischer Einfliisse. Phosphors~ure, 21 (3/4). Singer, M.J. and Rust, R.H., 1975. Phosphorus in surface runoff from a deciduous forest. J. Environ. Qual., 4: 307--311. Sluysmans, C.M.J., 1966. Effect of fertilizers on the lime requirement of the soil. Agric. Digest, 8: 10--16. Smith, K.A., Bremner, J.M. and Tabatabai, M.A., 1973. Sorption of gaseous atmospheric pollutants by soils. Soil Sci., 116: 313--319. Stevenson, F.J., 1965. Origin and distribution of nitrogen in soil. In: W.V. Bartholomew and F.E. Clark (Editors), Soil Nitrogen. Agronomy, 10: 1--42. Stout, P.R. and Burau, R.G., 1967. The extent and significance of fertilizer buildup in soils as revealed by vertical distribution of nitrogenous matter between soils and under. lying water reservoirs. In: N.C. Brady (Editor), Agriculture and the Quality of Our Environment. Am. Assoc. Advance. Sci., Washington, D.C., pp. 283--310. Tanaka, A. and Ishizuka, Y., 1963. SuitS-no EiySseiri (Nutritional Physiology of Paddy Rice.) 264, 271 Yokendo (in Japanese). Thomas, G.W., 1967. The basis for fertilizer recommendation by public research agencies. Agron. Abst., p. 142. Truog, E. and Jones, R.J., 1938. Fate of soluble potash applied to soils. Ind. Eng. Chem., 30: 882--885. Van Keulen, H., Seligman, N.G. and Goudriaan, J., 1975. Availability of anions in the growth medium to roots of an actively growing plant. Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 23: 131-138. Venkataraman, G.S., 1975. The role of blue-green algae in tropical rice cultivation. In: W.D.P. Stewart (Editor), Nitrogen Fixation by Free-Living Micro-organisms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, London, New York, Melbourne, pp. 207--218.

330

Viets, F., Jr., 1971. Fertilizers. J. Soil Water Cons., 26: 50--52. Vincent, J.M., 1974. Root-nodule symbiosis with Rhizobium. In: A. Quispel (Editor), The Biology of Nitrogen Fixation. North-Holland Pub]. Co., Amsterdam, Oxford, pp. 265--341. Walker, K.C. and Wadleigh, C.H., 1968. Plant F o o d Rev., 1: 1--3. Weber, L.R., Lane, T.H. and Nodwell, J.H., 1968. Guidelines to land requirements for disposal of liquid manure. Paper presented at 8th Land, Water and Wastewater Corp., Lubbock, Texas 6--7 June 1968) 13 pp. Wells, C.G. and Jorgensen, J.R., 1975. Nutrient cycling in loblolly pine plantations. In: B. Bernier and C.H. Winger (Editors), Forest Soils and Forest Land Management. Les Presess de l'Universit~ Lava], Quebec, pp. 137--158. Westerman, R.L. and Kurtz, L.T., 1974. Isotopic and nonisotopic estimations of fertilizer nitrogen uptake by Sudangrass in field experiments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 38: 107--109. Whitehead, D.C., 1966. Nutrient Minerals in Grassland Herbage. Comm. Bur. Past. Fld. Crops, Hurley, Great Britain, CAB Mimeo No. 1/1966. Whitehead, D.C., 1970. The Role of Nitrogen in Grassland Productivity. CAB Bull. No. 48. Williams, R.J.B., 1973. Changes in the nutrient reserves of the Rothamsted and Woburn Reference Experiment soils. Rothamsted Exp. Stn. Report for 1972, Part 2, pp. 86--101.

References recommended Amarger, N. et Lagacherie, B., 1974. La fixation biologique de l'azote: une ressource naturelle ~ mieux exploiter. C.R. Acad. Agric., 60(13): 1072--1081. Andries, A. et Carlier, L., 1975. La fertilisation phospho-potassique optimale en exploitation herbag~re. In: Un probl~me d'actualit~: la fumure phosphoopotassique. Coll. Information Scientifique, Gembloux, pp. 32--42. Anon., 1974. Fertilisation d'entretien dans le cadre de syst~mes de cultures. Agron. Trop., (~ paraitre). Arrivets, J., 1976. Exigences min~rales du sorgho. Etude d'une vari~t~ volaique ~ grande tige. Agron. Trop., 31(1): 29--46. Barbier, G., Tendille, C1. et Trocm~, S., 1957. Experience culturale de onze ann~es sur la fumure potassique. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 256--261. Barbier, G. et Trocm~, S., 1964a. Institut International de la Potasse. 10 Ann~es d'Activit~. Berne. Barbier, G. et Trocm~, S., 1964b. RSle compar~ des engrais et des r~serves nutritives du sol dans la production des r~coltes. Z. Pflanzenern~hr., Diing. Bodenk., 109(2): 113-120. Bennett, H.H. and Allison, R.V., 1928. The Soils of Cuba. Washington. Bergersen, F.J., 1973. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation by legumes. In: G.W. Butler and R.W. Bailey (Editors), Chemistry and Biochemistry of Herbage, Vol. 2. Academic Press, London, pp. 189--225. Blanchet, R., 1959. Energie d'adsorption des ions min~raux par les coUoides du sol et nutrition min~rale des plantes. Ann. Agron., 10: 5--52. Blanchet, R., 1964. Vitesse d'adsorption et de d~sorption des ions min~raux dans le sol. Bull. Doc. Assoc. Int. Fabric. Super, 37: 13--26. Blanchet, R. et Chaussidon, J., 1965. Allimentation des racines dans le sol. Tech. Agric. (Paris), 1: 1210. Blanchet, R., Bosc, M., Maertens, C. et Gelfi, N., 1973. R~le de la fertilisation dans la r~sistance des cultures ~ de mauvaises conditions physiques du sol. Phosphore Agric., 61: 45--54.

331

Blanchon, J., Burbau, R., Gachon, L. et De Montard, F., 1974. Etude de la valeur fertili&ante azot6e du lisier de bovins sur une prairie des monts d'Auvergne. Evolution botanique de la prairie. Ann. Agron., 25(2/3): 439--463. Charreau, C. et Vidal, P., 1964. Facteurs p6dologiques influant sur la croissance et la nutrition des doliques. Agron. Trop., 20: 91--101. Cdic, Y., 1967. Principes de la fertilisation min6rale en cultures sous serre. B.T.I., 217: 1--6. Co'/c, Y., 1968. De l'agriculture d la culture sur substrat inerte: principes de nutrition min6rale et application de ces principes $ la fertilisation des cultures sous abris. C.R. 6e Coll. Inst. Int. Potasse, Florence, Italy, pp. 303--309. Co¥c, Y. et Alexinsky, W., 1953. La fertilisation azot6e semi-tardive et tardive du bl6 d~iver. II. Action sur le taux d'azote du grain et sa qualit6 meuni6re-boulang6re. C. R. Acad. Agric., Coi'c, Y. et Tendille, C., 1971. Causes connues des variations quantitatives des oligo-~16ments dans les v4g6taux. Ann. Nutr. Alim., 25, B: 97--131. Co~'c, Y., Fauconneau, G., Pion, R., Busson, F., Lesaint, C. et Labonne, F., 1963. Influence de l'alimentation min6rale sur la composition des protides des graines de c6r6ales (bl~, orge). Ann. Physiol. V~g., 5: 281--292. Commission d ' Et u d e du Centre National de Coordination des Etudes et Recherches sur la Nutrition et l'Alimentation, 1966. Influence des conditions de production, de r6colte et de stockage sur la composition biochimique des c4r6ales; r6percussion des variations sur la valeur nutritionelle. Ann. Nutr. Alim., 20: 147--256. Concaret, J., 1970. Carences en soufre en Europe continentale. Conditions de leur apparition. Syrup. Int. Soufre en Agriculture. Ann. Agron., 341--350. Cornillon, P., 1967. Observations sur les possibilit~s de solubilisation du Bore dans le sol. Sci. Sol., 1: 81--91. Cornillon, P., 1974. Croissance et d~velopment du piment doux en serre: besoins en ~l~ments min~raux. P~pini~ristes-Horticulteurs-Maraichers, pp. 1--11. Courpron, C. et Tauzin, J., 1971. R y t h m e de l'absorption des 41~ments min~raux par une culture de maik irrigu~e en sol sableux des Landes. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 479-492. Courpron, C., Menet, M. et Pelabon, E., 1973. Fertilisation d'une culture de colza d'hiver en sol sableux des Landes de Oascogne. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 194--205. Demolon, A., Boischot, P. et Lajon, J., 1953. R~action des divers sols ~ l'apport des engrais phosphat4s solubles, son importance dans l'~tablissement des fumures. Ann. Agron., 3: 291--330. Duthion, C., 1966. R~serve de potassium lentement lib~rable d'un sol de limon. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 90--97. Duthion, C. et Grosman, R., 1970. Potassium lentement lib~rable: quelques essais de bilans culturaux. Ann. Agron., 21 (1): 57--73. Dutil, P. et Ballif, J.L., 1972. Mobilisation totales et exportations r~elles en ~l~ments min~raux des principales cultures de la Champagne Crayeuse. Tray. Stn Agron., Chalons-sur-Marne, Publ. No. 8, 24 pp. Fritz, J., 1972. Fertilisation de la canne ~ sucre: r~sultats des travaux de I'I.R.A.T. R~union. Fritz, J., 1973. Fertilisation potassique de la canne ~ sucre et du Chloris gayana ~ la R~union. Agron. Trop., p. 1035. Gachon, L., 1966a. Observations sur la mesure du phosphore isotopliquement diluable des sols. C.R. Acad. Agric., 52: 1103--1108. Gachon, L., 1966b. Phosphore isotopiquement diluable et pouvoir flxateur des sols en relation avec la croissance des plantes. C.R. Acad. Agric., 52: 1108--1116. Gachon, L., 1966c. Appreciation de l'aptitude des sols ~ alimenter les plantes en phosphore: analyses du sol et r4sultats exp~rimentaux. C.R. Acad. Agric., 52: 1313--1318.

332

Gachon, L., 1969. La fertilisation phosphat~e: panorama des recherches r~centes effectu~es en France. Bull. Doc. Assoc. Int. Fabric. Superphosphate, 53: 1--10. Gachon, L., 1972.,Fractionnement du phosphore labile en relation avec le type de sol. Ann. Agron., 23 (4): 429--444. Gachon, L., 1973. Vieillissement de divers engrais phosphates en relation avec le type de sol, ~tudi~ par la m~thode Chang et Jackson. Ann. Agron., 24 (5): 585--613. Gachon, L. et Triboi, E., 1970. Contrble et ~volution de la fertilit~ phosphorique de sols soumis d des essais de longue dur~e. C.R. Acad. Agric., 56: 501--511. Gadet, 1962. Quelques pr~cisions sur le bilan de l'azote mineral dans les sols. Comm. Congr~s Centre Int. des Engrais Chimiques, Naples. Gouny, P., Meriaux, S. et Joliet, B., 1959. Consid&ations sur l'utilisation de l'azote par la prairie temporaire. Bull. A.F.E.S., pp. 545--556. Gouny, P., Meriaux, S. et Grosman, R., 1960. Importance de l'ion ammonium d l'~tat n o n ~changeable dans un profil de sol. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 1418--1420. Gras, R., Schmitlin, B., Trocm~, S., 1966. Premiers r~sultats d ' u n essai d'entretien du sol en arboriculture fruiti~re. III. Action sur la production et la vigueur des arbres. Conclusions g~n~rales. Ann. Agron., 17 (3): 203--217. Greenwood, D.J. and Cleaver, T.J., 1975. Fertiliser requirement of vegetable crops. ARC Res. Rev., 1: 86--89. Guerillot-Vinet, A., Guerillot, J., Bazier, R. et Mansuy, J., 1961. Influence des engrais min~raux et du fumier sur quelques constitution du bl~ et de la carotte. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 175--181. Guiot, J., 1969. Etude pr~liminaire du dynamisme de l'azote mineral dans un sol limoneux profond. Bull. Rech. Agron., Gembloux, 4 (2): 260--271. Guiot, J., 1971. Evolution de l'azote mineral dans le sol et fumure azot~e du bl~ d'hiver. Bull. Rech. Agron., Gembloux, 6(3/4): 280--326. Hainnaux, G.V. et al., 1973. Bilan et dynamique du potassium sous cultures fourrag~res en zone tropicale humide. C.R. 10~me Coll. Inst. Int. Potasse, Abidjan. Hainnaux, G., Talineau, J.C., Fillonneau, C., Bonzon, B., Picard, D. et Sicot, M., 1975. Economie de l'azote sous cultures fourrag~res en milieu tropical humide. (A paraitre). Harmsen, G.W. and Van Schreven, D.A., 1955. Mineralisation of organic nitrogen in soil. Adv. Agron., 7: 299--398. Hebert, J. et Remy, J-C., 1964. Effets de doses croissants r~p~t~es de sols de potasse. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 346--354. Henzell, E.F. and Norris, D.O., 1962. Processes by which N is added to the soil/plant systems. Commonw. Bur. Past, Fld Crops, Hurley, Great Britain, Bull. 46. Henzell, E.F. and Ross, P.J., 1973. The nitrogen cycle of pasture ecosystems. In: G.W. Butler and R.W. Bailey (Editors), Chemistry and Biochemistry of Herbage. Academic Press, London, pp. 227--246. Huguet, F., 1967. Probl~mes de sols et nutrition des arbres fruitiers en p~pini~re. In: La Fumure des P~pini~res. F.N.P.H.P., Paris, pp. 23--46. Huguet, C., 1970. Les oligo-~l~ments en arboriculture et en viticulture. Ann. Agron., 21 (5): 671--692. Huguet, C., 1973. Accumulation des oligo41~ments dans les sols marai'chers. In: Semaine d'Etude Sol et Fertilisation. Fac. Sci. Agron., Gembloux, pp. 201--211. Huguet, C. et Bonafous, 1963. Exportation min~rales des plantes marafch~res. C.R. Travaux Stn Agron. Avignon. Huguet, C. et CorniUon, P., 1971. Connaissances actueUes sur la croissance et la nutrition du melon. P~pini~ristes-Horticuiteurs-Marafchers, 113: 13--23. Jenny, F., 1974. Etude du phosphore, correction de la carence phosphor~e et fertilisation d'entretien dans quelques sols du Mali. I.R.A.T., Nogent. Kerguelen, M., 1960. Aspects des variations de la composition de quelques fourrages en fonction des esp~ces, des stades de v~g~tation, des conditions du sol et de fertilisation. Ann. Am~lior. PI., 10: 177--236.

333

Laissus, R. et Teilhard de Chardin, B., 1966. Production et exportation d'~l~ments nutritifs de deux gramin~es soumises ~ divers modes d'exploitation 1. Essais sur dactyle. Productivit~ et exportations. Fourrages, 25: 33--77. Laudelout, H. et al., 1954. Les cycles d'~l~ments min~raux et de mati~re organique en for~t ~quatoriale congolaise. C.R. 5~me Congr. Int. Sci. Sol., L~opoldville, 2: 267-272. Le Buanec, B., 1972. Absorption et exportation des ~l~ments majeurs par l'igname. Doc. I.R.A.T./C.I. Lefebvre-Drouet, E., 1966. Bilan des cations ~changeables en divers types de sols acides. Ann. Agron., 17(5): 553--570. Lefebvre-Drouet, E., 1970. Etude des variations de la composition min~rafie, protidique et glucidique des racines et des parties a~rlennes du dactyle (influence de la fertilisation potassique). Ann. Agron., 21 (4): 385--402. Lefebvre-Drouet, E. et Meriaux, S., 1966. Relation entre la composition de la mati~re organique de deux types de rendzines et l'~volution de l'azote mineral. Sci. Sol, 1: 53---63. Lefevre G., 1961. Comparison des pr~l~vements azot~s et potassiques d'une culture de betterave sucri~re en a n n i e s~che et en an~e humide. Ann. Agron., 12(3): 333--364. Lefevre G., 1974. Deux ann~es d'observations sur l'~pandage par aspersion d'eaux r~siduaires de f~culerie sur sol de limon. Ann. Agron., 25(2/3): 267--287. Lefevre G. et Hiroux, G., 1956. Variabilit~ de la composition d'esp~ces de bl~ cultiv~es sur le meme sol. C.R. Acad. Agric. Lefevre G. et Hiroux, G., 1958a. R~sultats de quelques analyses d'engrais verts. Bull. A.F.E.S., 308--316. Lefevre, G., et Hiroux, G., 1958b. Influence des fumures azot~es et potassiques sur l'exportation d'une culture de betteraves sucri~res. Ann. Agron., 4: 443--452. Lefevre G. et Hiroux, G., 1959a. Essai sur l'influence de la date d'apport des engrais azot~s sur le rendement de betteraves sucri~res: d~veloppement v~g~tatif et marche de l'absorption d'azote. Ann. Agron., 4: 477--492. Lefevre, G. et Hiroux, G., 1959b. Rendement et composition de quelques esp~ces de gramin~es au cours de leur premier cycle de v~g~tation. Influence de la fumure azot~e en 1958. Ann. Agron., 3: 327--342. Lefevre, G. et Hiroux, G., 1960a. R~sultats d'un entretien potassique diversifi~ sur le rendement et la composition d'une luzerne. Bull. A.F.E.S., 4: 206--220. Lefevre, G. et Hiroux, G., 1960b. Effet maximum d'une dose limit~e d'azote sur f~tuque. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 230--232. Lefevre, G. et Hiroux, G., 1961. R~sultats compares de deux ann~es d'exp~rience de fumute azot~e sur f~tuque. Ann. Agron., 12 (3): 365--382. Lefevre, G. et Hiroux, G., 1962a. Interaction des fumures phospho-potassiques et azot~es sur la production et les exportations d ' u n e f~tuque des pros (vari~t~ Naihde). Ann. Agron., 13 (6): 587---610. Lefevre. G. et Hiroux, G., 1962b. Production annuelle de meti~re verte et exportations moyennes d'azote de vari~t~s de f~tuque exploit(~es en fourche. C.R. Acad. Agric., fauch~, pp. 473--481. Lefevre, G. et Hiroux, G., 1966. Bilan azot~ d'une culture fourrag~re. C.R. Acad. Agric. France, pp. 963---970. Lefevre, G. et Hiroux, G., 1969. Effets et arri~re effets sur bl~ d ' u n e fumure azot~e sur ray-grass d'Italie. Ann. Agron., 20 (1): 15--34. Lefevre, G. et Lefevre, P., 1957. Observations sur l'absorption des ~l~ments nut~itifs par le colza d'hiver. Ann. Agron., 1: 125--144. Lefevre, G., Hiroux, G. et Caillouet, 1965. Essai d'interpr~tation de l'utilisation de l'azote par une prairie temporaire (F~tuque des pros). Consequences pour la fumure. Ann. Agron., 16 (2): 203--221.

334

Lefevre, P., 1970. Observations sur l'~volution dans un sol de limon profond de fumures phospho-potassique massives employees en p~pini~res. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 937-945. Lemon, E., 1965. F.C. (Ed.) Plant Physiology, New York, 1965 in Steward. Libois, A., 1965. Etude de l'dvolution de l'azote mineral dans un sol nu de la r~gion dijonnaise. C.R. Acad. Agric., SI: 546--561. Libois, A., 1968. Dynamique de l'azote mineral en sol nu. Ann. Agron., 19(2): 103--128. MAFF, 1971. Residual Value of Applied Nutrients. HMSO, London, MAFF Tech. Bull. 20, pp. 296--317. Marocke, R., 1953. Observations sur la r~partition du bore chez le houblon. C.R. Acad. Sci., 237: 1770--1772. Martin, A.E. and Skyring, G.W., 1962. Losses of N from the soil/plant system; a review of N in the tropics. CAB Bull. No. 46, pp. 19--34. Maurice, J. et Trocm~, S., 1965. Sur la variabilit~ de la composition min~rale des r~coltes. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 351--356. Meriaux, S., 1966. Interaction de l'azote et des facteurs climatiques sur la production de mati~re s~che de Dactylis glomerata L. C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, S~r. D, 263: 1387-1390. Meriaux, S., 1969. Quelques donn~es concernant la nutrition min~rale des plantes fourrag~res. Fourrages, 38: 41--56. Meriaux, S., Lefebvre, J.M., Joliet, E. et Perrey, C., 1963. Action de la fertilisation sur la production des prairies naturelles du Val de SaSne. l~ourrages, 13: 67--79. Meriaux, S., Libois, A. et Grosman, R., 1965. Lib&ation d'azote mineral et nutrition azot~e de l'orge dans un sol humif~re de la r~gion de Dijon. C.R. Acad. Agric., 51: 552--558. Meriaux, S., Lefebvre, J-,M. et Libois, A., 1966. Quelques donn~es sur l'alimentation azot~e de la fl~ole dans le Centre-Est. Fourrages, 75: 17--31. Meriaux, S., Grosman, R. et Lefebvre, J.-M., 1966. Sur la comportement des engrais phosphates en rol granitique. C.R. Acad. Agric. France, pp. 493--499. Morel, R., 1968. Evolution de l'azote et du carbone organiques au cours d'une experience de longue dur~e. Ann. Agron., 19: 153--174. Muller, J., 1965. Observations sur les effets ~ long terme des fumures organiques et minerals sous climat m~diterranden: influence sur les rendements. Ann. Agron. Nabos, J., Charoy, J. et Pichot, J., 1974. Fertilisation phosphat~e des sols du Niger. Utilisation des phosphates naturels de Tahoua. Agron. Trop., 29 (11): 1140--1150. Poulain, J.F. et Arrivets, J., 1971. Effets des principaux ~l~ments fertilisants autres que l'azote sur les rendements des cultures vivri~res de base: sorgho, rail, m~is, au Sdndgal et en Haute-Volta. S~minaire C.S.T.R./O.U.A., Dakar. Raimond, Y., 1969. La culture sans labour. Etude de l'~volution des propridt~s chimiques et physiques du sol. In: Culture sans Labour. Coll. Information Scientifique, Gembloux, pp. 123--146. Regional Research Centre of the British Caribbean~ 1958--1963. Soil and Land-Use Surveys. Nos. 1--14. Trinidad. Russell, E.J., 1957. The World of the Soil. London. Salette, J.E., 1970. Nitrogen use and intensive management of grasses in the wet tropics. Proc. XIth Int. Grassld Cong., Univ. Queensland Press, pp. 404--407. Salette, J.E., 1975. La fertilisation de la prairie: principes, probl~mas et perspectives. Fourrages, 62: 119--132. Salette, J.E., Dumas, Y. et Sobesky, O., 1973. II. Donn~es sur les ~l~ments min~raux chez Digitaria decumbens cultiv~ dans divers milieux. In: Elements d'Ecologie des Herbages Pangola (Digitaria decumbens, Stent.) dans Divers Milieu des Antilles Fran~aise. Agron. Trop., 28(9): 819--845.

335

Saragoni, H., 1974. Exportation d'~l~ments fertilisantspar les feuiUes de Tabac. R~sultats 1969--1972. Fiche essai, No.7. Siband, P. et Diatta, S., 1974. Contribution a l'~tude de la fertilisation du riz pluvial en Casamance. Simon-Sylvestre, G. et Trocmd, S., 1969. Observations sur la fertilisationsulfat~e. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 989--997. Stark, N., 1971. Nutrient cycling. I. Nutrient distribution in some Amazonian soils. Trop. Ecol., 12: 24--50. Trocm~, S., 1959. Enqu6te sur la composition des fumieres provenant de champignonni~res. Ann. Agron., 6: 713--724. Trocm~, S., 1966. Premiers r~sultats d'un essai d'entretien du sol en arboriculture fruiti~re. If. Action sur la nutrition des arbres. Ann. Agron., 17 (1): 5--19. Trocm~, S., 1970. Influence de la fertilisationet de diverses techniques de culture sur l'alimentation des plantes en oligo-dldments. Ann. Agron., 21 (5): 519--548. Trocm~, S. et Barbier, G., 1961. O p t i m u m d'action du potassium en r~serve dans le sol compard ~ celui des sels de potasse r~cemment appliques. C.R. Acad. Agric., pp. 562-567. Trocm~, S. et Boniface, R., 1972. Synergie des r~serves du sol et des engrais r~cemment appliques. Bull. A.F.E.S., 4/5: 161--173. Trocm~, S. et Delas, J., 1960. Action des engrais phosphates et bilan du phosphore au cours d ' u n e experience culturale de 13 armies. C.R. Acad. Agric. France, 20 Janvier, pp. 81--89. Van der Pauw, F., 1963. Nawerking van een bemesting met stikstof. Landbouwvoorlichting, 20 (3): 149--154. Velly, J., 1975. La fertilisatlon en silice du ribale ~i Madagascar. Agron. Trop., 30(4): 305 --324. Vergniaud, P. et Huguet, C., 1971. La fumure azot~e de l'~pinard en culture industrielle. P~pini~ristes - Horticulteurs - Marafchers, pp. 1--7. Vidal, P., 1963. Croissance et Nutrition Min~rale des Mils, Pennisetum, Cultiv~s au S4n4gal. Th~se Doct. Ing~nieur, Fac. Sci., Dakar, 88 pp. Walker, T.W., 1956. The nitrogen cycle in grassland soils. J. Sci. Fd. Agric., 7: 66--72. Watson, E.R. and Lapins, P., 1969. Losses of nitrogen from urine on soils from south western Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anita. Hush., 9: 85--91. Wauters, J., 1975. L.~volution de l'~tat nutritif de nos sols. In: Un Probl~me d'Actualit~: la Fumure Phospho-Potassique. Coll. Information Scientifique, Gembloux, pp. 5--19. Williams, C.H., 1966. Nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus and their interactions and availability. Trans. Meet. Comms. II and IV, Int. Soc. Soil Sci., pp. 93--111. Williams, T.E., 1976. The recovery of fertilizerN in herbage and soil.Proc. A D A S / A R C Conf. Agriculture and Water Quality. H M S O , London, M A F F Tech. Bull. No. 32. ANIMAL

NUTRITION

Dean, R., Ellis,J.E., Rice, R.W. and Bement, R.E., 1975. Nutrient removal by cattle from a shortgrass prairie. J. Appl. Ecol., 12: 25--29. Fels, H.E., Moir, R.J. and Rossitter, R.C., 1959. Herbage intake of grazing sheep in SouthWestern Australia. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 10: 237. Labuda, J. (Editor), 1973. High productive livestock nutrition and feeding in large-scale rearing conditions. Publ. House Pr~roda, Bratislava, pp. 1--425 (in Slovak). Perigaud, S., 1970. Les carences en oligo-~ldments chez les ruminants en France. Leur diagnostic. Les probl~mes soulev~s par l'intensification fourrag~re. Ann. Agron., 22: 635--669.

336

Peterson, R.G., Woodhouse, W.W., Jr. and Lucus, H.L., 1956. The distribution of excreta by freely grazing cattle and its effect on pasture fertility. II. Effect of returned excreta on the residual concentration of some fertilizer elements. Agron. J., 48: 444--448. Schiller, H., Lengauer, E., Gusenleitner, J. and Hofer, B., 1967. FruchtbarkeitsstSrungen bei Rindern im Zusammenhang mit Diingung, Flora und Mineralstoffgehalt des Wiesenfutters. Landwirtschaftl.-chemische Bundesversuchsanstalt, Linz/D., Bd. 7. Sykes, A.R. and Field, A.C., 1972. Effects of dietary deficiencies of energy, protein and calcium on the pregnant ewe. II. Body composition and mineral content of the lamb. J. Agric. Sci., Camb., 78: 119--125. Turrek, F., 1958. Grundlage der Fiitterung. Osterr. Agrarverlag, Vienna.

TRANSPORT

IN T H E W A T E R

PHASE

References cited Alissow, B.P., Dresdow, O.A. and Rubinstein, E.S., 1956. Lehrbuch der Klimatologie. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin. Antonovi~, M. and Jacko, R., 1966. Hydrochemistry of the Czechoslovak part of the Danube river and its tributories. In: V. Mucha (Editor), Limnology of the Czechoslovak Part of the Danube River and its Tributories. Publ. House of Slov. Acad. Sci., Bratislava, pp. 105--181 (in Slovak). Burwell, R.E., Schuman, G.E., Saxton, K.E. and Heinemann, H.G., 1976. Nitrogen in subsurface discharge from agricultural watersheds. J. Environ. Qual., 5 (in press). De Vries, D.A. and Afgan, N.H., 1975. Heat and Mass Transfer in the Biosphere. Part 1: Transfer Processes in the Plant/Environment. Scripta Book Company, Washington, D.C. Domenico, P.A., 1972. Concept and Models in Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Dooge, J.C.I., 1967. The hydrologic system as a closed system. Proc. Int. Hydrology Syrup., 3 : 6 - - 8 September 1967. Colorado State Univ. Press, Fort Collins, Vol. 2, pp. 98--113. Paltineanu, R. et al., 1973. Lysimetric determination of nitrate leaching in wheat, maize, soybeans and sugar beet. Anal. Inst. Cerc. Cereale si PI. Techn., Fundulea B, 3 9 : 1 3 3 --148. Penman, H.L., 1956. Evaporation -- an introductory survey. Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 4: 9-29. Sinnaeve, J., 1975. Fysiochemische aspecten van de bodem-plant relatie en van de aanvoer van voedingselementen naar de wortel. Abstr. paper presented at 77e Wetenschappelijke Bijeenkomst, Ned. Bodemk. Vet., 12 november 1975, 2 pp. Specty, R. et Mettauer, H., 1971. Essais d'irrigation sur haricots en cases lysim~triques (1). Fluctuation des pertes en eau dans l'atmosph~re et des pertes en azote dans le sous-sol. B.T.I., 261.

References recommended Andre, J.P., 1974. La restitution naturelle du potassium par les urines de bovins: migration de cet ~l~ment dans le sol sous l'effet du lessivage. Ann. Agron., 25 (2/3): 425-438. Aussenac, G., Bonneau, M. et Le Tacon, F., 1972. Restitution des ~l~ments min~raux au sol par l'interm~diaire de la liti~re et des precipitations dans quatre peuplements forestiers de l'Est de la France. Oecol. Plant., 7: 1--21.

337

Ballif, J.L., 1974. Qualit~s des eaux d ' u n bassin versant en Champagne crayeuse. Tray. Stn. Sci. Sol, Ch~lons sur Marne, Publ. 27, mim~o, 52 pp. Bastisse, E.M. et Henin, S., 1955. Dix-huit ann~es d'~tudes lysim~triques appliqu~es l'agronomie (3e m~moire). R~sultats g~n~raux obtenus pour les 18 ann~es d'observations en cases lysim~triques. Ann. Agron., 6(2) 203--232. Burgevin, H. et Henin, S., 1958. Influence de la profondeur du plan d'eau sur le d~veloppement des plantes. Ann. Agron., 13(3): 288--295. Calvet, R. et Graffin, Ph., 1974. Description math~matique des ph~nom~nes de transport des solutions aqueuses dans les milieux poreux. Ann. Agron., 25(2/3 ): 123--155. Chretien, J., Concaret, J. et Mere, C., 1974. Evolution des teneurs en nitrates dans les eaux d'alimentation (D~partement de l'Yonne). Ann. Agron., 25(2/3): 499--513. Collier, D. et Robelin, M., 1959. Contribution ~ l'~tude de la dynamique de l'eau et des substances chimiques dans les sols argilo-calcaires de limagne (R~sultats de quatre ann~es d'observations lysimetriques). Ann. Agron., 4: 415--453. Coppenet, M., 1969. R~sultats de douze ann~es d'observations lysim~triques ~ Quimper (1954--1965). Ann. Agron., 20 (2): 111--143. Courpron, C., 1974. Pertes en ~l~ments fertilisants dans les sols sableux des Landes soumis ~ une fertilisation et une irrigation intensives. Ann. Agron., 25(2/3): 467--482. Eriksson, E., 1952. Rainwater analysis. Tellus, 4: 215. Feodoroff, A., 1965. Etude Exp~rimentale de l'Infiltration de l'Eau non Saturante. Th~se, Paris. Gachon, L., 1970. Les pertes en soufre drainage In: Symposium International sur le Soufre en Agriculture. Ann. Agron., no. spec. pp. 11--21. Godefroy, J. et al., 1970. Estimation des pertes par lixiviation des ~l~ments fertilisants dans un sol de bananeraie de Basse CSte d'Ivoire. Fruits, 25(6): 403--423. Gouny, P., 1970. Les apports de soufre par les eaux d'irrigation. In Symposium International sur le Soufre en Agriculture. Ann. Agron., no. spec., pp. 249--255. Gouny, P. et Brachet, J., 1967. La qualit~ des eaux d'irrigation. B.T.I., 224. Graffin, Ph., 1974. Limites d'utilisation d ' u n module de comportement du sol sous culture irrigu~e pour simuler le fonctionnement du sol comme syst~me ~purateur. Ann. Agron., 25(2/3): 157--177. Gras, R. et Monnier, G., 1963. Contribution de certains ~l~ments grossiers du sol l'alimentation en eau des v~g~taux. Sci. Sol., 1 : Guiot, J., 1973. La migration de l'azote dans le sol. In: Sol et Fertilisation. Bull. Rech. Agron., Gembloux, no. hors s~rie, pp. 378--385. Hascoet, M., Jamet, P., Piedallu, M.-A., Snegaroff, J., Dutil, P. et Hebert, J., 1974. Entrainement des pesticides par percolation et ruissellement. Influence particuli~re du drainage. XIIIe Journ~es de l'Hydraulique, Rapport 14, 7 pp. Hewgill, D. and LeGrice, S., 1976. Lysimeter study with pig slurry. Proc. ADAS/ARC Conf., Agriculture and Water Quality. MAFF Tech. Bull. 32, HMSO, London. Masclet, A., Nagy, C. et Trocm~, S., 1971. Apport de divers ~l~ment par les precipitations. Bull. A.F.E.S., 2: 3--8. Monteith, J.L., 1966. Carbon dioxide and crop production. Agric. Prog., 41: 9--23. Penman, H.L., 1962. Woburn Irrigation 1951--59. J. Agric. Sci., 58: 3 4 3 , 3 4 9 , 3 6 5 . Pieri, C., 1974. Fertilisation d'entretien dans le cadre des syst~mes de culture. Etudes de lysim~trie. Synth~se des ~tudes sur la lysim~trie et sur l'acidification des sols. Agron. Trop. (~ para~re). Rose, C.W., 1966. Agricultural Physics. London. Ryden, J.C., Syers, J.K. and Harris, R.F., 1973. Phosphorus in run-off and streams. Adv. Agron., 25: 1--45. Shaw, K. and Jones, E., 1976. Lysimeter studies on movement of applied mineral N through soil. Proc. ADAS/ARC Conf., Agriculture and Water Quality. MAFF Tech. Bull., 32, HMSO, London.

338

Smith, L.P., 1964. Agricultural Memoranda, Nos. 1 0 1 , 1 0 2 , 104, Meteorological Office, London. Taylor, J.A., 1967. Weather and Agriculture, London. Thornthwaite, C.W. and Mather, J.R., 1955. The Water Balance. Publications in Climatology, No. 8.1. Laboratory of Climatology, Centerton, N.J., U.S.A. UNESCO, 1966. Plant water relationship in arid and semiarid conditions. Arid Zone Research XV. Reviews of Research, NS, 59, III, 18/A. Westselaar, R. and Hutton, J.T., 1963. The ionic composition of rainwater at Katherine, N.T. and its part in the cycling of plant nutrients. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 14: 319--329. Wolman, A., 1962. Water Resources. A report to the Committee on Natural Resources of the National Academy of Science. National Research Council, Publ. 10008, Washington.

ENERGY BALANCE

References cited Baars, C., 1973. De Geschiedenis van de Landbouw in de Beyerlanden. PUDOC, Wageningen. Dekkers, W.A., Lange, J.M. and De Wit, C.T., 1974. Energy production and use in Dutch agriculture. Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 22: 107--118. Hardy, R.W.F. and Havelka, V.D., 1975. Nitrogen fixation research: a key to world food? Science, 188: 633--643. Kirscher, M. and Kukulka, Z., 1974. The run-off water and its influence on the arable soils in the Morava river valley in relation to accumulation of nutrients in the water reservoirs used for drinking water. In: Anon. The Influence of Chemization in Agriculture and Forestry. SVTS, Bratislava, pp. 240--262 (in Czech). Minchin, F.R. and Plate, J.G., 1973. Carbon balance and the functional economy of the root nodules. J. Exp. Bot., 24: 259--271. Pimental, D. et al., 1973. F o o d production and the energy crisis. Science, 182: 443--449. Satchell, J.E., 1971. Feasibility study of an energy budget for Meathop Wood. In: Productivity of Forest Ecosystems. Proc. Brussels Syrup. 1969, Ecology and Conservation, 4, pp. 619--630. Schulz, E., Oslage, H.J. und Daenicke, R., 1974. Untersuchungen fiber die Zusammensetzung der KSrpersubstanz sowie den Stoff- und Energieansatzt bei wachsenden Mastbullen. In: Fortschritte in der Tierphysiologie und Tierern~hrung, Verlag P. Parey, 4 : 6 7 pp.

References recommended Cooper, J.P., 1970. Potential production and energy conversion in temperate and tropical grasses. Herb. Abstr., 40: 1--15. Gates, D.M., 1962. Energy Exchange in the Biosphere. New York. Gates, D.M., 1963. The Energy Environment in Which We Live. Am. Sci., 51(3): 327-348. Geiger~ R., 1960. Das Klima der bodennahen Luftschicht. Ein Lehrbuch der Mikroklimatologie. Friedr. Vieweg und Sohn, Braunschweig, 4. Auflage. Munn, R.E., 1966. Descriptive Micrometeorology. Academic Press. Russell, E.J., 1967. Climate and crop yields in the tropics. Cotton Grow. Rev., 44: 87.

339

Schiemann, R. (Editor), 1972. Energetische Futterbewertung und Energienormen. VEB Deutseh. Landwirtschaftsverlag, Berlin, 480 pp. Smith, L.P., 1962. Weather and Food. Freedom from Hunger Campaign, Basic Study No. 1. W.M.O., Geneva. Thornthwaite, C.W. et al., 1962, 1963 and 1964. Average Climatic Water Balance Data of the Continents. Publ. in Climatology, Laboratory of Climatology, Centerton, N.J., U.S.A. 15.2 (Africa), 16.1 (Asia, excluding the U.S.S.R.), 16.2 (U.S.S.R.), 16.3 (Australia, New Zealand and Oceania), 17.1 (Europe), 17.2 (North America, excluding the U.S.A.), 17.3 (U.S.A.). Van Schoubroek, F., 1968. De nettoenergiewaarde van voeder middelen voor mestvarkens. Vlaams Diergeneesk. Tijdschr., 17: 88-~100. Van Wijk, W., 1963. Physics of Plant Environment. North-Holland Publishing Company~ Amsterdam. Zelitch, I., 1971. Photosynthesis, Photorespiration and Plant Productivity. Academic Press, New York, London, 347 pp. OTHER REFERENCES

References cited Akiya, R., 1970. Yassai-eigei Handbook. Y5kendo (in Japanese). Annual Review of Agriculture, 1975. Cmnd 5977, HMSO, London. Banwart, W.L. and Bremner, J.M., 1975. Identification of sulfur gases evolved from animal manure. J. Environ. Qual., 4: 363--366. Banwart, W.L. and Bremner, J.M., 1976. Evolution of volatile sulfur compounds from soils treated with sulfur-containing organic materials. Soil Biol. Biochem., 8: 439-443. Birse, E.L., 1971. Assessment of climatic conditions in Scotland. 3. The bioclimatic subregions. Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen. Bloomfield, C., 1969. Sulphate reduction in waterlogged soils. J. Soil Sci., 20: 207-221. Cabrera, A.L., 1966. Esquema Fitogeografico de la Repdblica Argentina. In: Report F A O / UNESCO, No. 30. Cole, J.P., 1965. Latin America: An Economic and Social Geography, London. ~van~ara, F., 1962. Agriculture in Numbers. SZN, Prague, 1170 pp. (in Czech). Dole, R.B., 1909. The Quality of Surface Waters in the United States. U.S. Geol. Survey; Water Supply Paper No. 236. Failer, N., 1972. Schwefeldioxid, Schwefel, Wasserstoff, Nitrose Gase und Ammoniak als ausschliessliche S- bzw. N-Quellen der hSheren Pflanzen. Z. Pflanzenern. Bodenk., 131: 120--130. FAO und UNESCO, 1971. Soil Map of the World, 1:5 000 000, Vol. IV., South America. UNESCO, Place de F o n t e n o y , 75, Paris 7e. Franzmeier, D.P., Wiersma, D., Brownfield, S.H., Robbins, J.M., Jr., Shively, J.L. and Wingard, R.C., 1973. Water regimes of some Indiana soils. Indiana Agric. Exp. Stn., Publ. RB904. Funabiki, S. et al., 1973. Dozyo-hiryo-gaku. Zasshi, 3 4 : 1 2 5 (in Japanese). Ganssen, R. und H~drich, F., 1965. Atlas zur Bodenkunde. Meyers Grosser physischer Weltatlas, Hochschulatlanten, Bibliographisches Institut, 301a--e, Mannheim. Ghiorse, W.C. and Alexander, M., 1976. Effect of microorganism s on the sorption and fate of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide in soil. J. Environ. Qual., 5:227--230. Gore, A.J.P., 1968. The supply of six elements by rain to an upland peat area. J. Ecol., 56: 483--496.

340

Granat, L., Rodhe, H. and Hallberg, R.O., 1976. The global sulphur cycle. In: B.H. Svensson and R. S6derlund (Editors), Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulphur -- Global Cycles. Scope Rep., 7. Ecol. Bull. (Stockholm), 22: 89--134. Grobecker, A.J., Coronniti, S.C. and Cannon, R.H., Jr., 1975. The effects of stratospheric pollution by aircraft.Department of Transportation, Report of Findings of the Climatic Assessment Program (DOT-TST-75-50). Washington, D.C., 851 pp. (Not seen, cited by CAST, 1976). Hayama and Matsumura, 1970. Sci. Report of Tokai-kinki Natl. Agric. Exp. Stn, 20: 254 (in Japanese). Hiroshima Agricultural Experiment Station, 1972. Chiryoku-hendS-Kansoku-ch~sa H6koku-sho (in Japanese). Hitchcock, D.R., 1975. Biogenic contributions to atmospheric sulfate levels.Second Annu. Conf. on Water Reuse, Chicago, Ill.(Manuscript). Hokuriku National Agricultural Experiment Station, 1974. Dozyo-hiryo Dai-ni-kenkyu'shitsu 1974 Report (in Japanese). Hueck, V.K., Seibert, P. und Walter, H., 1972. Vegetationskarte von Siid-Amerika. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. (Vegetationsmonographien der einzeln Grossr~ume, Bd. IIa) Ida, A. and Mori, T., 1971. Tokai-kinki National Agric. Exp. Stn., 21:135 (in Japanese). Institute of Agricultural Science, M A F , 1967. Dozy6-hiryS-bunya ni okeru Shiken-k~nkya-j6no Mondaiten to Shuyo-kadai no Kenkyu-doko. (Problems and Trends in Research on Soil Science and Fertilizers.)No. 5 (in Japanese) M A F : Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Japan. Institute of Agricultural Science, M A F , 1974. Yasai-hatasaku Gizyutsu Ziten (Handbook of Vegetable Cropping). 19: 135, Nogyo-gizyutsu-kyokai (in Japanese) M A F : Minsitry of Agriculture and Forestry, Japan. Irizawa and Yamane, 1963. Chugoku Nat. Agric. Exp. Stn., 27:61 (in Japanese). Kano, T. (Editor), 1962. Su iri-gaku Taikei (Systematic Utilization of Water Resources.) Vol. 4. NSgy6-yssui Shigen, 174 Chizin-shokan (in Japanese). Knabe, W., 1976. Effects of sulfur dioxide on terrestrialvegetation. Ambio, 5: 213-218. Kobayashi, A., 1963. Kazyu-eigei Handbook. YSkend6 (in Japanese). Kosuge, N. and Iimure, K., 1972. Dozyo-hiryo-gaku zasshi, 4 3 : 3 8 8 (in Japanese). Kurtz, L.T., 1970. The fate of applied nutrients in soils. J. Agric. F o o d Chem., 18: 773--780. Kusano, A F F , 1974. Shorai no Hiry~-jyukyfi-j6sei eno Gizyutsuteki-Tai5 ni tsuiteno Shiryo. (Technical assessment of the future demand for fertilizers.) 1 1 4 , 1 2 0 (in Japanese) A F F : Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Research Council of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Japan. Lauer, D.A., Bouldin, D.R. and Klausner, S.D., 1976. Ammonia volatilization from dairy manure spread on the soil surface. J. Environ. Qual., 5: 134--141. Louwe Kooijmans, L.P., 1976. Archeologie in Nederland. AVRO, Hilversum, 130 pp. Luckey, J.B., 1961. Algal density as related to nutritional thresholds. In: Transactions of 1960 Seminar on Algae and Metropolitan Water. HEW, PHS Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Report, W61-3, pp. 56---60. Luebs, R.E., Davis, K.R. and Lang, A.E., 1973. Enrichment of the atmosphere with nitrogen volatilized from a large dairy area. J. Environ. Qual., 2: 137--141. Lund, L.J., Adriano, D.C. and Pratt, P-F., 1974. Nitrate concentrations in deep soil cores as related to soil profile characteristics. J. Environ. Qual., 3: 78--82. Lush, R.H., 1952. Pasture Production and Management. Blakiston Co. Inc., New York. MAF, 1970. DozyS-hiry5 SSkatsu-kentS-kaigi Shiryo.Publ. Central Agric. Exp. Stn. of MAF (in Japanese) M A F : Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Japan. MAF Agrarian Bureau, 1970. Kank~ch5 kSgai Senmon Shiryo. (Gov. Doc. on Publ. Nuisance.) 5 (6): 45 (in Japanese) MAF: Minsitry of Agriculture and Forestry, Japan.

341

MAF Agricultural Economic Bureau, Statistics and Information Section, 1973. Crops Statistics. Norin-Tokei Kyokai (in Japanese) MAF: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Japan. MAF Statistics and Information Bureau, 1974. Pocket statistics of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery. NSrin-tSkei KySkai (in Japanese) MAF: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Japan. Marschner, F.J., 1959. Land Use and its Patterns in the United States. Agric. Handbook, No. 153, U.S.D.A. Mayer, R. and Ulrich, B., 1974. Conclusions on the filtering action of forest from ecosystem analysis. Ecol. Plant., 9: 157--168. McCalla, T.M., Ellis, J.R., Gilbertson, C.B. and Woods, W.R., 1972. Chemical studies of solids, runoff, soil profile and groundwater from beef cattle feedlots at Meade, Nebraska. In: Waste Management Research. Cornell Agric. Waste Mgmt. Conf., Ithaca, N.Y., pp. 211--223. McMahon, M.A. and Thomas, C.W., 1974. Chloride and tritiated water flow in disturbed and undisturbed soil cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 38: 727--732. Meek, B., MacKenzie, A. and Grass, L., 1969. Applied nitrogen losses in relation to oxygen status of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 33: 575--578. Midwest Plan Service, Technical Committee, Livestock Waste Management, 1975. Livestock Waste Management with Pollution Control. Publ. Midwest Plan Service. Miller, P.R. and McBride, J.R., 1975. Effects of air pollutants on forests. In: J.B. Mudd and T.T. Kozlowski (Editors), Responses of Plants to Air Pollution. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London, pp. 195--235. Miller, T.A., 1971. Selected U.S. Crop Budgets, Yields, Inputs, and Variable Costs. Ill. Great Plains Region. U.S.D.A., ERS No. 459. National Horticultural Experiment Station (MAF), Kurume Branch, 1967. Saibai-kenkyu-shitsu, 1967 Report (in Japanese). MAF: Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Japan. Nishigaki, S. et al., 1951. Dojo-hiryo-gaku zasshi, 2 2 : 6 9 (in Japanese). Nishikawa, G., 1960. Kogei Sakumotsu-gaku (Ind. Crop Science) 490 Sangyo-tosho, (in Japanese). N.O.A.A., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1974. Climates of the States. 2 Vol. NSmmik, H., 1967. Use of micro-plot technique for studying gaseous loss of ammonia from added nitrogen materials under field conditions. Acta Agric. Scand., 16: 147-154. Okuda, A., 1960. Hiryo-gaku Gairon (General Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers) Y6kend6 (in Japanese). Okuda, A. and Yamaguch, M., 1956. Soil Plant F o o d , 2: 4. Overcash, M.R., Gilliam, J.W., Humenik, F.J. and Westerman, P.W., 1976. Lagoon pretreatment: selected heavy metal and cation removals, (manuscript in preparation). Pawson, W.W., 1973. Selected U.S. Crop Budgets, Yields, Inputs, and Variable Costs. VI. Southwest Region. U.S.D.A. ERS No. 514. Prince, R. and Ross, F., 1972. Sulphur in air and soil. Water Air Soil Poll., 1: 286--302. Rebischung, J., 1975. Intervention de la science dans l'augmentation des rendements en agriculture: ~quilibres biologiques et culture intensive. Fourrages, 61: 3--28. Robbins, J.W.D., Kriz, G.J. and Howells, D.H., 1971. Quality of effluent from farm animal production sites. Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement. Proc. Int. Symp. on Livestock Wastes, Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., Publ. 271, pp. 166--169. Roemer, T. and Scheffer, F., 1953. Lehrbuch des Ackerbaues, 4. Aufl. P. Parey, Berlin, 307 pp. Ruhrstickstoff, AG., 1974. Faustzahlen fiir die Landwirtschaft. Bochum, BRD, 7. Auflage.

342

Ryder, M.L. and Stephenson, S.K., 1968. Wood Growth. Academic Press, London, 508 PP. Salter, R.M. and Schollenberger, C.J., 1939. Farm manure. Ohio Agric. Exp. Stn., Bull. 605. Sawyer, C.N., 1947. Fertilization of lakes by agricultural and urban drainage. J. New England Water Works Assoc., 61: 109. Schmithaiisen, J., 1968. Allgemeine Vegetationsgeographie. Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Geographie, Band IV, 3. Auflage. Verlag Walter de Gruyter Co., Berlin. Shaw, K., 1958. Studies on nitrogen and carbon transformations in soils. PhD Thesis, Univ. London. Shaw, R.H., Felch, R.E. and Duncan, E.R., 1972. Soil moisture available for plant growth in Iowa. Special Rep., No. 70. SimOn, G. and Jansson, S.L., 1976a. Sulphur exchange between soil snd atmosphere, with special attention to sulphur release directly to the atmosphere. 1. Formation of gaseous sulphur compounds in the soil. Swedish J. Agric., Res., 6: 37--45. SimOn, G. and Jansson, S.L., 1976b. Sulphur exchange between soil and atmosphere, with special attention to sulphur release directly to the atmosphere. 2. The role of vegetation in sulphur exchange between soil and atmosphere. Swedish J. Agric. Res., 6: 135--144. ~kopkov~, M., ~mrha, O and V~§a, J., 1957. Tables of Nutritional Values of Food. SZN, Prague, 406 pp. (in Czech). Spedding, C.R.W. and Diekmahns, E.C. (Editors), 1972. Grasses and Legumes in British Agriculture. Bull. 49, Commonw. Agric. Bur., Farnham Royal, Slough, Great Britain. Stanford, G., England, C.B. and Taylor, A.W., 1960. Fertilizer use and water quality. USDA--ARS 41--168. Stewart, B.A., 1970. Volatilization and nitrification of nitrogen from urine under simulated feedlot conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol., 4: 579--582. Stewart, B.A. et al., 1975. Control of Water Pollution from Cropland. Volume I. A Manual for Guideline Development. USDA--ARS Publication. Storie, R.E. and Weir, W.W., 1953. Generalized soil map of California. California Agric. Extension Service, Manual 6. Strickland, P.L. and Harwell, R.L., 1971. Selected U.S. Crop Budgets: Yields, Inputs and Variable Costs. V. South Central Region. USDA, ERS Publ. No. 461. Strmiska, F., 1970. The Nutritional Values of Food. SL SRV, Bratislava, 307 pp. (in Slovak). Sugawara, K., 1963. Geochemistry. In Iwanami Modern Chemistry, 20 Iwanami-Shoten (in Japanese). Switzer, G.L. and Nelson, L.E., 1975. Maintenance of productivity under short rotation. Proceedings of FAO-IUFRO International Symposium on Forest Fertilization. Paris. 3--7 December 1973 (in press). Takeuch, H. and Hasegawa, K., 1974. Geoecology. Diamond-sha (in Japanese). Tamm, C.O., 1958. The atmosphere. In: Handbuch der Pfianzenphysiologie. IV. Springer-Verlag, Berlin--GSttingen--Heidelberg, pp. 233--242. Taylor, A.W., 1967. Phosphorus and water pollution. J. Soil Water Cons., 5: 228--231. Thomas, G.W. and Barfield, B.J., 1974. The unreliability of tile effluent for monitoring subsurface nitrate-nitrogen losses from soils. J. Environ. Qual., 3: 183--185. Thorne, D.W. and Peterson, H.B., 1954. Irrigated Soils. McGraw-Hill, Blakeston Division, New York. Tokai-kinki Natl. Agric. Expt. Stn. (MAF), 1969. Dozy5-hiry5 Kenkyu-shitsu. 1969 Report (in Japanese) (MAF: Minsitry of Agriculture and Forestry, Japan). Ukita, M. et al., 1972. K5gai to Taisaku, 8 (5): 477 (in Japanese). Ulrich, B., 1975. Stoffhaushalt yon Wald~kosystemen. G~ttingen.

343

Ulrich, B., Mayer, R. and Heller, H. (Editors), 1974. Data analysis and data synthesis of forest ecosystems. Report of IBP workshop in GSttingen. G~ttinger Bodenkundl. Ber., 30. Ursic, S.J., 1963. Sediment yields from small watersheds under various land uses and forest covers. Misc. Publ. No. 970, USDA--ARS, pp. 47--52. U.S.D.A., 1941. Climate and Man. Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Govt Printing Office: Washington, D.C. U.S.D.A., 1973. Agricultural Statistics. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S.D.A., 1975. Final Crop Report, Crop Reporting Board. Vanderholm, D.H., 1973. Area needed for land disposal of beef and swine wastes. Iowa Ext. Ser. PM 552 (Rev.). Viers, F.G., Jr., 1970. Soil use and water quality: a look at the future. J. Agric. F o o d Chem., 18: 789--792. Viets, F.G., Jr., 1974. Animal wastes and fertilizers as potential sources of nitrate pollution of water. In: Effects of Agricultural Production on Nitrates in F o o d and Water with Particular Reference to Isotope Studies. Proc. of panel of experts organized by joint F A O / I A E A Div. of Atomic Energy in F o o d and Agriculture, Vienna, pp.63--76. Walter, H. und Lieth, H., 1960. Klimadiagramm-Weltatlas, Jena. Wang, W.C., Yung, Y.L., Lacis, A.A., Mo, T. and Hansen, J.E., 1976. Greenhouse effects due to man-made perturbations of trace gases. Science, 194: 685--690. Watanabe, A., 1965. Kagaku to Seibutsu, 3 : 3 5 7 (in Japanese). Watanabe, I., 1971. NSgy5 to Dozy6-biseibutsu (Agriculture and Soil Microorganisms) 200. NSsan-gyoson Bunka KySkai (in Japanese). Watanabe, T., 1972. Ch~bu no Dozy6 to N6gy6 (Soil and Agriculture in Chubu District) 172. Nihon Dozyo-hiryo Gakkai (in Japanese). Weber, L.R., Lane, T.H. and Nodwell, J.H., 1968. Guideline to land requirements for disposal of liquid manure. Paper presented at 8th Land, Water and Wastewater Corp., Lubbock, Texas (6--7 June 1968), 13 pp. Widdowson, F.V. and Penny, A., 1973. Yields and N, P and K contents of the Crops grown in the Rothamsted Reference Experiment 1956--70. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1972, Part 2, pp. 111--130. WMO, 1976. WMO Statement on modification of the ozone layer due to man's activities. WMO Press Release No 315, 6.1.1976.6 pp. (mimeographed). Worden, G., Tompkin, R.D., Benson, R.A., Bursch, W.G. and Buxton, B.M., 1971. Selected U.S. Crop Budgets, Yields, Inputs, and Variable Costs. II. North Central Region. USDA ERS No. 458. Yamamoto, I. (Editor), 1973. Suimon-gaku SSron I (Hydrology), 8 2 , 1 0 6 , KySritsu-syuppan (in Japanese). Yeck, R.G., Smith, L.W. and Calvert, C.C., 1975. Recovery of nutrients from animal wastes: an overview of existing options and potentials for use in feed. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Syrup. on Livestock Wastes. Univ., Ill., Urbana, Ill. Yoshinari, T. and Knowles, R., 1976. Acetylene inhibition of nitrous oxide reduction by denitrifying bacteria. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm., 6 9 : 7 0 5 - - 7 1 0 .

References recommended Anon., 1960. Atlas Agricola de Venezuela, Caracas. Arango Cano, J., 1964. Geografia Fisica y Economica de Colombia. Bogota, 5th Edn. Augier, H., 1972. Contribution d l'~tude des phytohormones de l'algue rouge Lithothamnion calcareum et de ses d~riv~s utilis~s en agriculture. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 274, s~rie D, 1810--1813. Baranger, P., 1960. Variations in the phosphorus and calcium content in vetches during germination and growth in a calcium medium. J. Biol. Sci., 3: 57.

344

Beckinsale, R.P., 1957. The Nature of Tropical Rainfall. Trop. Agric., Trinidad, 34: 76, Blanchet, R., Bosc, M., Maertens, C. and Puech, J., 1972. Root system, transpiration and ion movement in the soil. Proc. 9th Coll. Int. Potash Inst., Berne. Cooke, G.W., 1958. The nation's plant food larder. J. Sci. Fd. Agric., 9: 761--772. Cooke, G.W., 1967. The control of soil fertility. Part III. Plant Nutrient Cycles. Crosby, Lockwood and Son Ltd., pp. 169--215. Delpech, R., 1962. Comment am~liorer les prairies permanents? Bull. des CETA, aofitseptembre, dtude no. 726. Dent, J.B. and Anderson, A.J.R., 1971. Systems Analysis in Agricultural and Management. Wiley, London. Finch, V.C., Trewartha, G.T., Robinson, A.H. and Hammond, E.H., 1957. Elements of Geography: Physical and Cultural 4th Edn. New York and London. Fourbet, J.F., 1975. Effets d long terme des techniques simplifides. In: La Simplification des Techniques de Travail du Sol. S.E.I. Versailles, Etude no. 59, pp. 145--204. Gachet, J.P., 1971. Bilan et perspectives de la Rdvolution verte en Tunisie. Revue Maghreb, 47: 36--40. Gates, E.S., 1961. Meteorology and Climatology for Sixth Forms and Beyond. London. Germon, J.C. et Verguet, A., 1974. Description d'un respirom~tre ~lectrolytique utilis~ pour dtudier la bioddgradabilit~ d 'effluents apport~s au sol. Ann. Agron., 25 (2/3): 195--205. Giffard, P., 1969. Recherches effectu~es au S~n~gal sur Acacia albida. Dakar, Min. D~velop. Rural, CTFT, 51 pp. Gleizes, C., 1965. Bull. Technique d'Information des Ingenieurs des Services d'Agriculture. Paris, 201--569--78. GouneUe, H. et Pointeau-Pouliguen, M.A., 1962. Engrais chimiques et valeur nutritive des plantes. Equilibre, 10: 54--58. Gouny, P., 1966. Relations entre l'alimentation en eau et la nutrition mindrale de la plante. B.T.I., 211. Gras, R. et Morisot, A., 1974. Les d~chets solides des industries agricoles et alimentaires. Ann. Agron., 25 (2/3) 231--242. Gueguen, L., 1971a. "Biodynamiser" le sol. Recherche, 20: 164. Gueguen, L., 1971b. La composition minerale du lair et son adaptation aux besoin min~raux du jeune. Ann. Nutr. Alim., 25, A: 335--381. Gueguen, L. et Allez, M., 1970. Quelques considerations sur les pr~tendues transmutations biologiques. C.R. Acad. Agric. France, 56: 1018--1027. Hedin, L., 1972. Influence des racines sur la teneur de la mati~re organique du sol. In: Programme Biologique International. Le Haras du Pin. I.N.R.A., Rouen, mim~o, pp. 25--38. Henin, S., 1969. Labour ? Non labour? Les ~l~ments du choix. In: Culture sans labour. Coll. Information Scientifique, Gembloux, pp. 7--19. Henin, S., 1970. R~flexions ~ propos d'une communication r~cente. C.R. Acad. Agric. France, 56: 1013--1018. Henin, S., 1974. Introduction. In: "La pollution". Ann. Agron., 25(2/3) 119--120. Henin, S., Monnier, G. et Combeau, A., 1958. M~thode pour l'~tude de la stabilit~ structurale des sols. Ann. Agron., 9: 73--92. Henin, S., Gras, R. et Monnier, G., 1969. Le profil cultural. Masson et Cie, Paris, 332 pp. Hills, E.S. (Editor), 1966. Arid Lands: A Geographical Appraisal. London and Paris. H r b ~ e k , J., 1975a. Influence of physical and physical-chemical properties of soil on the minimum tillage of different crops and after-effect of nutrients. Internal Res. Rep., Agric. Res. Inst., Hru~ovany near Brno, 29 pp. (in Czech), H r b ~ e k , J., 1975b. Investigation on the nutrition and fertilization of main crops in relation to the new technology of soil tillage. A'synthetic study. Internal Res. Rep., Agric. Res. Inst., Hru~ovany near Brno, 16 pp. (in Czech).

345

Huet, Ph., 1975. R~duction du travaildu sol et production agricole. I. R~sultats obtenus dans le Bassin Parision: Grignon 1958--75, In: La Simplification des Techniques de Travail du Sol. S.E.I.,Versailles,Etude no. 59, pp. 57--100. Irvine, D.E.G. and Knights, B. (Editors), 1974. Pollution and the Use of Chemicals in Agriculture. Butterworth, London. Jeannin, B., 1975. Rdduction du travaildu sol et production agricole.Ill.Cas particulier: la r~novation des prairies par les techniques simplifl~es de semis. In: La Simplification des Techniques de Travail du Sol, S.E.I., Versailles, Etude no. 59, pp. 135--144. Jeffers, J.N.R., 1975. Constraints and limitations of data sources for systems models. In: J.E. Dalton (Editor), Study of Agricultural Systems. Applied Science Publishers, London. Jung, G., 1967. Influence de l'Acacia albida Del. sur le biologie des sols Dior. Dakar Hann. Sdn~gal, ORSTOM, 63 pp. Juste, C., 1974. Nouvelle possibilit~ d'utilisation des vinasses de distillerie en agricuture. Ann. Agron., 25(2/3): 339--347. Kahane, E., 1966. Sur une pr~tendue transmutation biologique des ~l~ments. Sciences, 45: 42--48. Kervran, C.L., 1970. Les Transmutations Biologiques en Agronomie. Maloine, 118 pp. Kervran, C.L., 1972. Chimie et "agriculture biologique". Recherche, 22: 362. Kos, M. and Talafantov~, A., 1972. Some results of the study of the cereals concentration in crop rotation. Rastlinn~ V~'roba, Praha, 18 (9): 945--958 (in Czech). Kos, M. and Talafantov~, A., 1974. Investigation of possible concentration of cereals in crop rotation in the different areas in ~SR. Final Internal Res. Rep., Agric. Res. Inst. Hru~ovany near Brno, 81 pp. (in Czech). Larsen, S., 1974. Food. Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 22: 270--274. Leger, C., 1971. De la poudre de lithothamne aux "eharrues biologiques". Recherche, 20: 164. Leger, C., 1972. Chimie et "agriculture biologique". Recherche, 22: 362. Lemon, E., 1963. In: L.T. Evans (Editor), Environmental Control of Plant Growth. New York. Lieutaghi, P., 1972. L'Environnement V~g~tal. Delachaux et Nietsl~, Neuchatel, 317 pp. Major, J., 1969. Historical development of the ecosystem concept. In: G.M. Van Dyne (Editor), The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resource Management. Academic Press, New York, pp. 9--22. Maimer, N., 1969. Organic matter and cycling of minerals in virgin and present ecosystems. Oikos, Suppl. 12, pp. 79--86. Marrero, L., 1964. Venezuela y Sus Recursos. Caracas. Masclet, A. et Dural, Y., 1972. Etude du sol des parcelles P.B.I. Domaine de Borculo. In: Programme Biologique International: le Haras du Pin, I.N.R.A., Rouen mim~o, pp. 9--24. Morisot, A. et Gras, R., 1974a. Caract~risation des effluents des industries agricoles et alimentaires. Ann. Agron., 25 (2]3): 209--229. Morisot, A. et Gras, R., 1974b. R~percussions agronomiques des 4pandages d'effluents des industries agricoles et alimentaire. Ann. Agron., 25(2/3): 243--266. Muller, J., 1974. Epandage des eaux de f~culerie par a~roaspersion. ~tude de leur composition, incidence sur le sol et les eaux de la nappe. Ann. Agron., 25(2/3): 289--306. Ordish, G., 1964. Crops and Pests in Central America. London. Powelson, J.P., 1964. Latin America: Today's Economic and Social Revolution. New York. Prescott, J.A., 1943. Trans. Roy. Soc. South Australia, 67: 1--6. Raffin, J.P. et Drouilleau, A., 1971. Les parcs naturels en France. Recherche, 17: 931-939.

346

Recamier, A., 1975. La dimunition du travail en agriculture et le "travail minimum du sol". In: La Simplification des Techniques de Travail du Sol. S.E.I., Versailles. Etude no. 59, pp. 205--209. Recamier, A. et Fourbet, J.F., 1974. Travail minimum et culture sans labour, Le Document Technique de la S.C.P.A., no. 20, pp. 3--19. Remy, J.C. et Marin-Lafleche, A., 1974. L'analyse de terre: rdalisation d'un programme d'interpretation automatique. Ann. Agron., 25 (4): 607--632. Riviere, J., 1974. Evolution de la microflore au cours d ' u n traitement d'6puration d'eaux urbaines par boues activ6es. Ann. Agron., 25(2/3): 515--533. Riviere, J., Subtil, J.C. et Catroux, G., 1974. Etude de l'6volution physico-chimique et microbiologique du lisier de porcs pendant le stockage ana6roble. Ann. Agron., 25 (2/3): 383--401. Rondest, J., 1972. Le proc~s des nitrates. Recherche, 29: 1094--1095. Soubies, L. et Gadet, R., 1972. Le bilan des 616ments min6raux au cours de la germination. C.R. Acad. Agric. France., pp. 124--132. Thornthwaite, C.W., Mather, J.R. and Carter, D.B., 1958. Publications in Climatology. 11.1. Laboratory of Climatology, Centerton. N.J., U.S.A. Van Dyne, G.M. and Abramsky, Z., 1975. Agricultural systems models and modelling: an overview. In: G.E. Dalton (Editor), Study of Agricultural Systems. Applied Science Publishers, London, pp. 23--106. Van Royen, W., 1954. The Agricultural Resources of the World. New York. Woodmansee, R.G. and Innis, J.S., 1973. A simulation model of forest growth and nutrient cycling. In: Proc. 1973 Summer Computer Simulation Conf. II, La JoUa, Calif., Simulation Councils, Inc., pp. 697--721. Ziindel, J.E., 1972. De quelques exp6riences concernant la germination de l'avoine. C.R. Acad. Agric. France, pp. 288--293.

347

Annex 1 NOTE ON THE EXPERIMENTAL N A T U R E AND O R G A N I Z A T I O N OF THE SYMPOSIUM

From its very beginning the symposium Cycling of Mineral Nutrients in Agricultural Ecosystems was intended to have an experimental character. The foundation of the symposium was laid down in discussions between the Royal Netherlands Land Development Society (Vereniging Koninklijke Nederlandsche Heide Maatschappij) and Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. The Royal Netherlands Land Development Society had plans for a series of meetings of scientific research workers aiming to contribute to a better management of the physical environment, and had set finances apart to arrange for the first of such meetings. At the same time, Elsevier was looking for a good opportunity to experiment on the possible ways in which the communication of scientific information through international conferences and conference proceedings might be improved. A detailed report on the organisation and evaluation of the meeting can be found elsewhere (Hendriks and Manten, 1976; Manten, 1978). However, a synopsis is presented below, as it is felt that this will help the reader to understand and interpret the scientific symposium report presented by this issue. The choice of the symposium theme was influenced by considerations of two different kinds: (a) methodological questions, relating to the efficiency of information transfer through symposia and symposium proceedings, and dealing, amongst others, with: -- the o p t i m u m balance between pre-circulated information, lectures, and discussions in groups and plenary sessions, -- making the best possible use of the knowledge, experience and intellectual creativity incorporated in an interdisciplinary group of symposium participants, alternative means of recording and publication of symposium results, which might increase both the value and the readability of the collected information, particularly for those readers who did n o t participate in the meeting; (b) scientific concern a b o u t such questions as: -- the need for f o o d for a rapidly growing world-population, the necessity for optimal use of our resources and energy, -- the need to limit the pressure on the physical environment to a minimum, -- the necessity to pay more attention to the landscape and to the conservation of valuable nature areas. It was hoped that the meeting would shed more light on the possibilities -

-

-

-

348

of higher food production for human society, without wastage of resources and energy, and with an avoidance of the extra pressures on the environment caused by possible wastage. Soon after the subject had been selected, the International Association for Ecology (Intecol) expressed an interest in scientifically co-sponsoring the symposium and participating in the organizing committee. Great support was received from the Institute for Atomic Sciences in Agriculture (Association Euratom-ITAL) in Wageningen, who also provided the editor of the preconference and post-conference documents. Authors were invited from different geographical and linguistic regions of the world. They were requested to provide data in the format indicated by an outline scheme which had been pre-designed by the editor and selected authors were asked to contribute sections. The scheme was based on: (a) a classification of ecosystems according to climatic regions and products; (b) a model nutrient cycle for N, P and K with the system divided into three components only (crop plants, animals, and soil). The editor integrated the data provided by the authors into one comprehensive typescript. They also attempted some generalizations and raised questions for discussion. All of this material was circulated to the authors for consideration prior to the symposium and they were invited to think of additions, corrections and questions which they wished to be discussed. At the meeting itself, as much time as possible was reserved for discussions. The latter t o o k place in small working groups, which prepared written reports that were multiplied and discussed in summary-type general sessions, which were recorded on tape. There was considerable debate with regard to the establishment of a c o m m o n set of definitions, h o w the data were to be presented for final publication, and why there is considerable interest in the study of nutrient cycles. The original outline scheme was questioned and there was general agreement to a proposal by N e w b o u l d and Floate that it should be essentially altered in that the model of the nutrient cycle was to be extended by subdividing the soil c o m p a r t m e n t into three pools. Individual authors were asked to revise their data to fit the new format, b u t it was n o t possible to rationalize all the data during the symposium itself. This meant that the general issues and questions were discussed at the symposium in the absence of detailed information. Authors were subsequently requested to carry o u t certain assignments upon their return home, which unfortunately n o t everyone did, while some others did n o t react within the time limits that had been set. After the meeting, the editor prepared a revised draft of the integrated manuscript, taking into account re-submissions that had been received from authors and the reports of the symposium discussions. He decided that the classification of ecosystems was to be based on yield of mineral nutrient (especially nitrogen) and type of agriculture. Authors were asked to comm e n t on the whole arrangement. We are particularly indebted to Dr P. N e w -

349 bould, Dr M.J.S. Floate and Dr Ir G.J. Vervelde for the work that they have put into the revised draft. The final result no d o u b t still reflects the fact that the symposium was an experiment. Evaluation studies indicate that the tested conference m e t h o d is basically useful and valuable, but can still be improved in several respects. The organizers are indebted to the editor and authors for their sportsmanship in so positively collaborating in the experiment. It is hoped that despite shortcomings in the final scientific report, this will appear useful and t h a t it will also encourage the preparation of follow-up work that might be submitted to the journal Agro-Ecosystems in the form of articles or letters to the editor. Such material should be submitted in the normal way to the Editorial Office.

A.A. Manten

REFERENCES Hendriks, J.A.H. and Manten, A.A., 1976. Congresseren elementair getoetst. Intermediair, 12(50): 1--7, 17. Manten, A.A., 1978. Experimental publication-centred symposium. Journal of Research Communication Studies, in preparation.

351

Annex 2 SURVEY OF SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS

Organising Committee Dr J.A.H. Hendriks, Royal Netherlands Land Development Society, Chairman Mr. K.C. Plaxton, Elsevier, Secretary Dr M.J. Frissel, Association Euratom-ITAL, Symposium Editor Dr A.A. Manten, Elsevier Dr G.J. Vervelde, Intecol

Symposium Chairman Dr Ir G.H. Bolt Dr Ir A. van Diest

Participating symposium mere hers Dr Ir G.H. Bolt Department of Soils and Fertilizers Agricultural University De Dreyen 3 WAGENINGEN The Netherlands Ir J. Damen, Association Euratom-ITAL Institute for Atomic Sciences in Agriculture Postbus 48 WAGENINGEN The Netherlands Dr Z. Filip Institut fiir Landw. Mikrobiologie Justus Liebig-Universit~'t Senckenbergstrasse 3 6300 GIESSEN Federal Republic of Germany Dr M.J.S. Floate Hill farming Research Organisation Bush Estate PENICUIK, Midlothian EH26 OPH Great Britain Dr M.J. Frissel, Association Euratom-ITAL Institute for Atomic Sciences in Agriculture Postbus 48 WAGENINGEN The Netherlands

352

Dr J.W. Gilliam Department of Soil Science University of California at Riverside RIVERSIDE, California 92502 U.S.A. Dr J.A.H. Hendriks Royal Netherlands Land Development Soeiety (Heide Maatsehappij) Lovinklaan 1 ARNHEM The Netherlands Dr Ir CH. H. Henkens Advisory Service for Matters Relating to Soil Seienee in Agriculture Staringgebouw Prinses Marijkeweg 11 WAGENINGEN The Netherlands Dr G. St. Husz Konrad Dudengasse 34 1130 WIEN Austria Dr P. Jacquard Centre d'Etudes Phytosoeiologiques et Ecologiques Louis Emberger Boite Postale 5051 34033 MONTPELLIER CEDEX France Dr J. Kolek Institute of Experimental Biology and Ecology Slovak Academy of Science Dfibravsk~i 26 80900 BRATISLAVA Czechoslovakia It. G.J. Kolenbrander Institute for Soil Fertility Oosterweg 92 HAREN (Groningen) The Netherlands Ing. A.G. Kusse Heidemaatsehappij Beheer N.V. Lovinklaan 1 ARNHEM The Netherlands Dr A.A. Manten Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company P.O. Box 330 AMSTERDAM The Netherlands

353

Dr P. Newbould Hill Farming Research Organisation Bush Estate PENICUIK, Midlothian EH26 OPH Great Britain K.C. Plaxton Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company P.O. Box 330 AMSTERDAM The Netherlands Dr J.F. Power U.S.D.A. Northern Great Plains Research Center P.O. Box 459 MANDAN, North Dakota 58554 U.S.A. Dr T. Rosswall Department of Microbiology Swedish University for Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine S-750 07 UPPSALA 7 Sweden Dr J. Sinnaeve Commission of the European Community Institute for Atomic Sciences in Agriculture Postbus 48 WAGENINGEN The Netherlands Dr G.W. Thomas University of Kentucky Department of Agronomy LEXINGTON, Kentucky 40506 U.S.A. Dr B. Ulrich Institut fiir Bodenkunde und Waldern~hrung Universit~t GSttingen Bfisgenweg 2 34 GOTTINGEN Federal Republic of Germany Dr Ir A. van Diest Department of Soils and Fertilizers Agricultural University De Dreyen 3 WAGENINGEN The Netherlands

354

Dr J. van Schuylenborgh ( t ) Laboratory for Physical Geography and Soil Science University of Amsterdam Dapperstraat 115 AMSTERDAM The Netherlands Dr J. Velly IRAT/Montpellier Boite Postale 5035 34032 MONTPELLIER CEDEX France Dr Ir G.J. Vervelde Centre for Agro-Biological Research Postbus 14 WAGENINGEN The Netherlands Dr Ir L. Wartena Heidemaatschappij Beheer Lovinklaan 1 ARNHEM The Netherlands Dr R. Woodmansee Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory Colorado State University FORT COLLINS, Colorado 80521 U.S.A.

Non-participating symposium members :Dr Y. Harpaz, Dept. of Botany, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. Dr I. Noy-Meir, Dept. of Botany, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. Dr J. Pichot, IRAT, Centre Gerdat, Montpellier, 34032, France. Dr S. Trocme, INRA, Station de Science du Sol, Route de St Cyr, Versailles 78000, France. Dr C.H. Williams, CSIRO, Division of Plant Industry, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia. Dr M. Yatazawa, Faculty of Agriculture, Nagoya University, Chikusa, Nagoya, Japan.

t Deceased.