Abstract
During 2005 to 2009 three approaches to organic vegetable rotations were compared to a conventional rotation in an interdisciplinary project. The organic rotations differed in their reliance on animal manure vs. cover crops and intercrops, but the rotation of main vegetable and cereal crops were identical in the four rotations. One organic rotation (O1) relied on import of manure for supply of nutrients, in another (O2) cover crops were used to replace most of the manure import, and in (O3) also intercrops were grown to improve natural pest regulation. The yearly import of nitrogen were on average 149, 94, 28, and 28 kg N.ha-1 in C, O1, O2, and O3 respectively. On average the yield in the O1 system was 83% of the yield in the conventional system. In the O2 rotation the yield was the same, though the nutrient import was much lower, whereas the intercrops in O3 reduced the yield to 70% of the conventional fotation. The effect on single crops varied with organic yields ranging from 60% (onion) to almost 100% (carrots, oats) of conventional yields. Crop root growth varied strongly among crops with rooting depths of less than 0.4 m (onions) to more than 2 m (cabbage, rye, fodder radish catch crop). Root growth was unaffected by cropping system, but the inclusion of deep rooted catch crops and green manures in O2 and O3 increased the total root exploitation of the soil strongly. Thus, while the O1 and O2 systems had almost identical yields and N uptake there were large differences in their effects on soil N; e.g. the subsoil (1-2.5 m) N content was on average 18 kg N.ha-1 in the O2 compared 61 and 53 kg N.ha-1 in the C and O1 respectively, indicating strongly reduced N leaching losses in O2.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 17
Claim · model-written summary
The O1 rotation yielded 83% of conventional yield.
Verbatim
e0“On average the yield in the O1 system was 83% of the yield in the conventional system”
t0“vegetable”
Claim · model-written summary
O2 had the same yield as conventional rotation despite much lower nutrient import.
Verbatim
e0“In the O2 rotation the yield was the same, though the nutrient import was much lower”
e1“On average the yield in the O1 system was 83% of the yield in the conventional system”
t0“vegetable”
Claim · model-written summary
O3 intercrops reduced yield to 70% of conventional rotation.
Verbatim
e0“the intercrops in O3 reduced the yield to 70% of the conventional fotation”
t0“vegetable”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic onion yield was 60% of conventional yield.
- Taxon
- onion
Allium cepae0 - Treatment
- organice0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- 60%e0
- Comparator
- conventional yieldse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“organic yields ranging from 60% (onion) to almost 100% (carrots, oats) of conventional yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic carrot yield approached conventional yield.
- Taxon
- carrots
Daucus carotae0 - Treatment
- organice0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- almost 100%e0
- Comparator
- conventional yieldse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“organic yields ranging from 60% (onion) to almost 100% (carrots, oats) of conventional yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic oat yield approached conventional yield.
- Taxon
- oats
Avena sativae0 - Treatment
- organice0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- almost 100%e0
- Comparator
- conventional yieldse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“organic yields ranging from 60% (onion) to almost 100% (carrots, oats) of conventional yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Onion rooting depth was below 0.4 m.
- Taxon
- onionsAllium cepae0
- Outcome
- rooting depthse0
- Direction
- less thane0
- Value
- 0.4 me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rooting depths of less than 0.4 m (onions) to more than 2 m (cabbage, rye, fodder radish catch crop)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cabbage rooting depth exceeded 2 m.
- Taxon
- cabbage
Brassica oleracea var. capitatae0 - Outcome
- rooting depthse0
- Direction
- more thane0
- Value
- 2 me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rooting depths of less than 0.4 m (onions) to more than 2 m (cabbage, rye, fodder radish catch crop)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rye rooting depth exceeded 2 m.
- Taxon
- rye
Secale cerealee0 - Outcome
- rooting depthse0
- Direction
- more thane0
- Value
- 2 me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rooting depths of less than 0.4 m (onions) to more than 2 m (cabbage, rye, fodder radish catch crop)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fodder radish rooting depth exceeded 2 m.
Verbatim
e0“rooting depths of less than 0.4 m (onions) to more than 2 m (cabbage, rye, fodder radish catch crop)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cropping system did not affect root growth.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Root growth was unaffected by cropping system”
t0“vegetable”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep rooted catch crops and green manures increased total soil root exploitation.
- Taxon
- vegetablet0
- Treatment
- deep rooted catch crops and green manures in O2 and O3e0
- Outcome
- total root exploitation of the soile0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the inclusion of deep rooted catch crops and green manures in O2 and O3 increased the total root exploitation of the soil strongly”
t0“vegetable”
Claim · model-written summary
O1 and O2 had almost identical yields.
Verbatim
e0“the O1 and O2 systems had almost identical yields and N uptake”
t0“vegetable”
Claim · model-written summary
O1 and O2 had almost identical nitrogen uptake.
Verbatim
e0“the O1 and O2 systems had almost identical yields and N uptake”
t0“vegetable”
Claim · model-written summary
O2 had lower subsoil nitrogen than conventional rotation.
Verbatim
e0“the subsoil (1-2.5 m) N content was on average 18 kg N.ha-1 in the O2 compared 61 and 53 kg N.ha-1 in the C and O1 respectively”
t0“vegetable”
Claim · model-written summary
O2 had lower subsoil nitrogen than O1.
Verbatim
e0“the subsoil (1-2.5 m) N content was on average 18 kg N.ha-1 in the O2 compared 61 and 53 kg N.ha-1 in the C and O1 respectively”
t0“vegetable”
Claim · model-written summary
O2 was inferred to strongly reduce nitrogen leaching losses.
Verbatim
e0“indicating strongly reduced N leaching losses in O2”
t0“vegetable”
The same questions in other papers
cultivation system · yield · Daucus carota (carrot)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →cultivation system · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →cultivation system · yield · Avena sativa (oats)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.