Hostname: page-component-f7d5f74f5-g4btn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-10-05T02:30:47.392Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Comparison of crop management strategies involving crop genotype and weed management practices in conventional and more diverse cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2012

Robin Gómez*
University of Costa Rica, School of Agronomy, Fabio Baudrit Experimental Station, Alajuela, Costa Rica.
Matt Liebman
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
David N. Sundberg
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Craig A. Chase
Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, 312 Westbrook Lane, Ames, IA 50014, USA.
*Corresponding author. Universidad de Costa Rica, Escuela de Agronomía, San José, Costa Rica.


Cropping systems that include forage legumes and small grains in addition to corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] can achieve similar or higher crop productivity and economic return than simpler corn–soybean rotations. We hypothesized that this rotation effect occurs regardless of the crop genotype planted and the herbicide and cultivation regime selected for weed management. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a 3-year experiment that compared three cropping systems: a conventional 2-year corn–soybean rotation, a 3-year corn–soybean–oat (Avena sativa L.)/red clover (Trifolium pretense L.) rotation, and a 4-year corn–soybean–oat/alfalfa–alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) rotation. Within each cropping system, two contrasting sets of management strategies were used: (i) genetically engineered corn with resistance to insect pests (Ostrinia nubilalis Hübner and Diabrotica spp.) plus the broadcast application of pre-emergence herbicides, followed in the rotation by a genetically engineered soybean variety with resistance to the herbicide glyphosate plus the post-emergence broadcast application of glyphosate; and (ii) non-genetically engineered corn plus the banded application of post-emergence herbicides, followed in the rotation by a non-genetically engineered soybean and banded application of several post-emergence herbicides. The two management strategies were identified as ‘GE’ and ‘non-GE.’ Corn yield was higher in the 3-year (12.51Mgha−1) and 4-year (12.79Mgha−1) rotations than in the conventional 2-year (12.16Mgha−1) rotation, and was also 2% higher with the GE strategy than with the non-GE strategy. Soybean yield was similar among rotation systems in 2008, but higher in the 3- and 4-year systems than the 2-year rotation in 2009 and 2010. Soybean yield was similar between management strategies in 2008, but higher in the GE strategy in 2009, and similar between strategies in the 3- and 4-year rotations in 2010. Increases in rotation length were accompanied by 88–91% reductions in synthetic N fertilizer application, and the use of the non-GE rather than the GE strategy was accompanied by a 93% reduction in herbicide active ingredients applied. Averaged over the period of 2008–2010, net returns to land and labor were highest for the 3-year rotation managed with either the GE ($928ha−1yr−1) or non-GE ($936ha−1yr−1) strategies, least in the 2-year rotation managed with the non-GE strategy ($738ha−1yr−1), and intermediate in the other rotation×management combinations. Our results indicate that more diverse crop rotation systems can be as profitable as conventional corn–soybean systems and can provide farmers with greater flexibility in crop management options.

Research Papers
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1Porter, P.M., Huggins, D.R., Perillo, C.A., Quiring, S.R., and Crookston, R.K. 2003. Organic and other management strategies with two- and four-year crop rotations in Minnesota. Agronomy Journal 95:233244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Liebman, M. and Ohno, T. 1998. Crop rotation and legume residue effects on weed emergence and growth: Applications for weed management. In Hatfield, J., Buhler, D.D. and Stewart, B. (eds). Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, MI. p. 181221.Google Scholar
3Brummer, E.C. 1998. Diversity, stability, and sustainable American agriculture. Agronomy Journal 90:12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Cook, R.J. 2006. Toward cropping systems that enhance productivity and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 103:1838918394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Hartwig, N.L. and Ammon, H.U. 2002. Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Science 50:688699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Barbash, J.E., Thelin, G.P., Kolpin, D.W., and Gilliom, R.J. 2001. Major herbicides in ground water. Journal of Environmental Quality 30:831845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Liu, J., You, L., Amini, M., Obersteiner, M., Herrero, M., Zehnder, A.J.B., and Yang, H. 2010. A high-resolution assessment on global nitrogen flows in cropland. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 107:80358040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8ERS. 2011. Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S.: Extent of adoption. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available at: (accessed April 22, 2012).Google Scholar
9EPA. 2011. Pesticides industry sales and usage: 2006 and 2007 market estimates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: (accessed April 22, 2012).Google Scholar
10NRC. 2010. Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
11Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T.A., Creamer, N., Harwood, R., Salomonsson, L., Helenius, J., Rickerl, D., Salvador, R., Wiedenhoeft, M., Simmons, S., Allen, P., Altieri, M., Flora, C., and Poincelot, R. 2003. Agroecology: The Ecology of Food Systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22:99118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E.R. 1997. Many little hammers: Ecological management of crop-weed interactions. In Jackson, L.E. (ed.). Ecology in Agriculture. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. p. 291343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Robertson, G.P. and Swinton, S.M. 2005. Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: A grand challenge for agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3:3846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Anderson, R.L. 2007. Managing weeds with a dualistic approach of prevention and control. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 27:1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Shennan, C. 2008. Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge, and agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363:717739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Ronald, P.C. 2011. Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security. Genetics 188:1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Ronald, P.C. and Adamchak, R.W. 2008. Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
18Mortensen, D.A., Egan, J.F., Maxwell, B.D., Ryan, M.R., and Smith, R.G. 2012. Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. Bioscience 62:7584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Gassmann, A.J., Petzold-Maxwell, J.L., Keweshan, R.S., and Dunbar, M.W. 2011. Field-evolved resistance to Bt maize by western corn rootworm. PLoS ONE 6(7):e22629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 74:1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Research 40:2747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Raimbault, B. and Vyn, T. 1991. Crop rotation and tillage effects on corn growth and soil structural stability. Agronomy Journal 83:979985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Drinkwater, L.E., Wagoner, P., and Sarrantonio, M. 1998. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396:262265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Dinnes, D.L., Karlen, D.L., Jaynes, D.B., Kaspar, T.C., Hatfield, J.L., Colvin, T.S., and Cambardella, C.A. 2002. Nitrogen management strategies to reduce nitrate leaching in tile-drained midwestern soils. Agronomy Journal 94:153171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Campbell, C. and Zentner, R. 1993. Soil organic matter as influenced by crop rotations and fertilization. Soil Science Society of America Journal 57:10341040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Riedell, W.E., Pikul, J.L., Jaradat, A.A., and Schumacher, T.E. 2009. Crop rotation and nitrogen input effects on soil fertility, maize mineral nutrition, yield, and seed composition. Agronomy Journal 101:870879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Ghorbani, R., Wilcockson, S., Koocheki, A., and Leifert, C. 2008. Soil management for sustainable crop disease control: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters 6:149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Dyck, E. and Liebman, M. 1994. Soil fertility management as a factor in weed control: The effect of crimson clover residue, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and their interaction on emergence and early growth of lambs quarters and sweet corn. Plant and Soil 167:227237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Anderson, R.L. 2005. A multi-tactic approach to manage weed population dynamics in crop rotations. Agronomy Journal 97:15791583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Bossio, D.A., Scow, K.M., Gunapala, N., and Graham, K.J. 1998. Determinants of soil microbial communities: Effects of agricultural management, season, and soil type on phospholipid fatty acid profiles. Microbial Ecology 36:112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Deng, S.P., Moore, J.M., and Tabatabai, M.A. 2000. Characterization of active nitrogen pools in soils under different cropping systems. Biology and Fertility of Soils 32:302309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Cruse, M.J., Liebman, M., Raman, D.R., and Wiedenhoeft, M.H. 2010. Fossil energy use in conventional and low-external-input cropping systems. Agronomy Journal 102:934941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Archer, D.W., Jaradat, A.A., Johnson, J.M.F., Weyers, S.L., Gesch, R.W., Forcella, F., and Kludze, H.K. 2007. Crop productivity and economics during the transition to alternative cropping systems. Agronomy Journal 99:15381547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Chavas, J.-P., Posner, J.L., and Hedtcke, J.L. 2009. Organic and conventional production systems in the Wisconsin integrated cropping systems trial: II. Economic and risk analysis 1993–2006. Agronomy Journal 101:288295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36VanGessel, M.J., Froney, D.R., Conner, M., Sankula, S., and Scott, B.A. 2004. A sustainable agriculture project at Chesapeake farms: A six-years summary of weed management aspects, yield, and economic return. Weed Science 52:886896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Liebman, M., Gibson, L.R., Sundberg, D.N., Heggenstaller, A.H., Westerman, P.R., Chase, C.A., Hartzler, R.G., Menalled, F.D., Davis, A.S., and Dixon, P.M. 2008. Agronomic and economic performance characteristics of conventional and low-external-input cropping systems in the central Corn Belt. Agronomy Journal 100:600610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Jaynes, D.B., Dinnes, D.L., Meek, D.W., Karlen, D.L., Cambardella, C.A., and Colvin, T.S. 2004. Using the late spring nitrate test to reduce nitrate loss within a watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 33:669677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Blackmer, A., Voss, R., and Mallarino, A.P. 1997. Nitrogen Fertilizer Recommendations for Corn in Iowa. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
40Littell, R.C., Stroup, W.W., and Freund, R.J. 2002. SAS for Linear Models. 4th ed.SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. p. 466.Google Scholar
41Hanna, M. 2002. Estimating the field capacity of farm machines. PM 696. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA. Available at (verified November 23, 2010).Google Scholar
42Duffy, M. 2008. Estimated costs of crop production in Iowa – 2008. FM 1712. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, Ames, IA. Available at (verified January 31, 2012).Google Scholar
43Duffy, M. 2009. Estimated costs of crop production in Iowa – 2009. FM 1712. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, Ames, IA. Available at (verified January 31, 2012).Google Scholar
44Duffy, M. 2010. Estimated costs of crop production in Iowa – 2010. FM 1712. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, Ames, IA. Available at (verified January 31, 2012).Google Scholar
45NASS. 2012. Crop values annual summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available at (verified January 31, 2012).Google Scholar
46Leandro, L.F., Robertson, A., Mueller, D.S., Liebman, M., and Yang, X.B.In review. Lessons from the 2010 outbreak of soybean sudden death syndrome in Iowa. Plant Disease Journal, in press.Google Scholar
47Rew, L.J., Whelani, B., and Mc Bratney, A. 2000. Does kriging predict weed distributions accurately enough for site-specific weed control? Weed Research 41:245263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Weller, D.M., Raaijmakers, J.M., and Tomashow, L.S. 2002. Microbial populations responsible for specific soil suppressiveness to plant pathogens. Annual Review of Phytopathology 40:309348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed