Paper · 1994 · Land Degradation and Development

The rehabilitation of degraded soils in eastern bolivia by subsoiling and the incorporation of cover crops

R. G. Barber; F. Navarro

11
claims
19
verbatim quotes
23
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract A high proportion of the soils in the central zone of Santa Cruz, eastern Bolivia, are chemically and physically degraded, with low organic matter and N contents, compacted subsoil layers and a propensity to crusting, hardsetting and wind erosion. The aim of the experiment discussed in this paper was to identify suitable cover crops to be used in combination with subsoiling for the rehabilitation of degraded soils and the improvement of crop yields in eastern Bolivia. Fertilizers were not used because of their high cost. An experiment with a split complete block design, with subsoiling and no‐subsoiling as the main treatments, 14 cover crops and a continuously cultivated soybean/wheat control as the subtreatments, and four replications, was established on a degraded site comprising a mosaic of two compacted siliceous isohyperthermic soils (a coarse loamy Typic Ustropept and a fine loamy Typic Haplustalf). After a two‐year fallow period, the cover crops were incorporated and test crops were sown for five seasons to evaluate the effects of the treatments on subsequent crop yields. Soil samples were taken to measure changes in chemical fertility. The only significant cover crop effect on soil nutrients was an increase in exchangeable K from 0.47 to 0.56 cmol c kg −1 by Lablab; subsoiling had no effect on chemical fertility. For all treatments there was an average 24 per cent increase in soil organic matter from 13.1 g kg −1 at 3 months after cover crop incorporation to 16.3 g kg −1 at 19 months after incorporation. No significant differences in total N were found during this period. Test crop yields were not influenced by subsoiling, but were significantly increased by some of the cover crops as compared to the soybean/wheat control during the first three seasons only. Evidence from foliar analysis suggests that the effects of the cover crops on soybean yields were not nutritional and so presumably were physical in nature, whereas the benefits on wheat yields were possibly related to increased N availability. Panicum maximum var. Centenario and P. maximum var. Tobiatá gave the highest total yield increases over the first three cropping seasons (101 and 85 per cent, respectively), but these yield increases would not compensate the farmer for the loss of four crop harvests whilst the land was in fallow. These results highlight the difficulties of rehabilitating soil fertility and increasing crop yields through the use of subsoiling and cover crop fallows on compacted, low organic matter soils in eastern Bolivia.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Lablab increased exchangeable soil K from 0.47 to 0.56 cmol c kg −1.

Treatment
Lablabe0
Outcome
exchangeable Ke0
Direction
increasee0
Value
0.47 to 0.56 cmol c kg −1e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The only significant cover crop effect on soil nutrients was an increase in exchangeable K from 0.47 to 0.56 cmol c kg −1 by Lablab;”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1171–1303 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuously cultivated soybean/wheat control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 665–710 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoiling did not affect soil chemical fertility.

Treatment
subsoilinge0
Outcome
chemical fertilitye0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“subsoiling had no effect on chemical fertility.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1304–1351 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuously cultivated soybean/wheat control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 665–710 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil organic matter increased by an average 24 per cent after cover crop incorporation.

Outcome
soil organic mattere0
Direction
increasee0
Value
24 per cente0
Qualifier
at 19 months after incorporatione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For all treatments there was an average 24 per cent increase in soil organic matter from 13.1 g kg −1 at 3 months after cover crop incorporation to 16.3 g kg −1 at 19 months after incorporation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1352–1546 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuously cultivated soybean/wheat control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 665–710 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Total soil N did not differ significantly over the post-incorporation period.

Outcome
total Ne0
Direction
No significant differencese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No significant differences in total N were found during this period.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1547–1615 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuously cultivated soybean/wheat control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 665–710 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoiling did not influence test crop yields.

Treatment
subsoilinge0
Outcome
Test crop yieldse0
Direction
not influencede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Test crop yields were not influenced by subsoiling”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1616–1666 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuously cultivated soybean/wheat control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 665–710 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Some cover crops increased test crop yields over the soybean/wheat control during only the first three seasons.

Treatment
some of the cover cropse0
Outcome
soybean/wheate0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
during the first three seasons onlye0
Comparator
soybean/wheat controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“were significantly increased by some of the cover crops as compared to the soybean/wheat control during the first three seasons only.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1672–1805 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar analysis suggested that cover crop effects on soybean yield were physical rather than nutritional.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe0
Treatment
cover cropse0
Outcome
soybean yieldse0
Qualifier
physical in naturee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Evidence from foliar analysis suggests that the effects of the cover crops on soybean yields were not nutritional and so presumably were physical in nature”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1806–1961 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggested that cover crop benefits for wheat yields may involve increased nitrogen availability.

Outcome
wheat yieldse0
Qualifier
increased N availabilitye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the benefits on wheat yields were possibly related to increased N availability.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1971–2050 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Panicum maximum var. Centenario gave a 101 per cent total yield increase over the first three cropping seasons.

Treatment
Panicum maximum var. Centenarioe0
Outcome
total yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
101e0
Qualifier
over the first three cropping seasonse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Panicum maximum var. Centenario and P. maximum var. Tobiatá gave the highest total yield increases over the first three cropping seasons (101 and 85 per cent, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2051–2223 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuously cultivated soybean/wheat control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 665–710 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. maximum var. Tobiatá gave an 85 per cent total yield increase over the first three cropping seasons.

Treatment
P. maximum var. Tobiatáe0
Outcome
total yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
85 per cente0
Qualifier
over the first three cropping seasonse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Panicum maximum var. Centenario and P. maximum var. Tobiatá gave the highest total yield increases over the first three cropping seasons (101 and 85 per cent, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2051–2223 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuously cultivated soybean/wheat control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 665–710 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The yield gains would not compensate farmers for four lost harvests during fallow.

Outcome
yield increasese0
Value
four crop harvestse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“these yield increases would not compensate the farmer for the loss of four crop harvests whilst the land was in fallow.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2229–2348 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuously cultivated soybean/wheat control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 665–710 · show in text ↑

Megathyrsus maximus · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

cover crop · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

cover crop · organism · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 4 positive, 7 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

390 papers: 264 positive, 126 negative or no effect

125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 264 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

386 papers more in this group

See all 390 papers →

tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

1,414 papers: 1,116 positive, 298 negative or no effect

297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1,410 papers more in this group

See all 1,414 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.