Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-10T08:20:46.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Enhancing ecosystem services with no-till

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2013

R. Lal*
Affiliation:
Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, FAES/OARDC, School of Natural Resources, 2021 Coffey Road, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43201-1085, USA.
*
Corresponding author: lal.1@osu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ecosystem functions and services provided by soils depend on land use and management. The objective of this article is to review and synthesize relevant information on the impacts of no-till (NT) management of croplands on ecosystem functions and services. Sustainable management of soil through NT involves: (i) replacing what is removed, (ii) restoring what has been degraded, and (iii) minimizing on-site and off-site effects. Despite its merits, NT is adopted on merely ∼9% of the 1.5 billion ha of global arable land area. Soil's ecosystem services depend on the natural capital (soil organic matter and clay contents, soil depth and water retention capacity) and its management. Soil management in various agro-ecosystems to enhance food production has some trade-offs/disservices (i.e., decline in biodiversity, accelerated erosion and non-point source pollution), which must be minimized by further developing agricultural complexity to mimic natural ecosystems. However, adoption of NT accentuates many ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, biodiversity, elemental cycling, and resilience to natural and anthropogenic perturbations, all of which can affect food security. Links exist among diverse ecosystem services, such that managing one can adversely impact others. For example, increasing agronomic production can reduce biodiversity and deplete soil organic carbon (SOC), harvesting crop residues for cellulosic ethanol can reduce SOC, etc. Undervaluing ecosystem services can jeopardize finite soil resources and aggravate disservices. Adoption of recommended management practices can be promoted through payments for ecosystem services by a market-based approach so that risks of disservices and negative costs can be reduced either through direct economic incentives or as performance payments.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

The importance of the moldboard plow, in conjunction with the use of tractors and mechanization of farm operations, in expanding the land area under cultivation and increasing farm productivity is of historical significance. However, the vulnerability of plowed soil to accelerated erosion, compaction, oxidation of soil organic matter, emission of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) and other environmental issues (i.e., loss of soil biodiversity) led to the development of no-till (NT) farming.

KeenReference Keen1 observed that the benefits of plowing were mostly attributed to weed control. The rationale of plowing was questioned by FaulknerReference Faulkner2, Reference Faulkner3 because of serious erosion during the Dust Bowl era, even when herbicides were not yet available. Despite the intense debate on plowingReference Jack4 or notReference Faulkner2, Reference Faulkner3, it was the discovery of herbicides after World War II that made NT farming a practical reality. Indeed, NT farming evolved in the late 1950s and early 1960s primarily to reduce risks of accelerated soil erosionReference Bennett5, Reference Steinbeck6 and non-point source pollution from row cropping in the US Corn BeltReference Harrold, Triplett and Youker7Reference Phillips and Young14. Experiments on direct drilling in Europe started in the early 1970s with the availability of paraquatReference Soane, Ball, Arvidsson, Basch, Moreno and Roger-Estrade15. The historical roots of moldboard plowing, which cuts and turns over the soil, lie in a gradual replacement of the ard (a scratch tool or a modified v-shaped stick) by a metallic tool during the 7th centuryReference Lal, Reicosky and Hanson16, Reference Lal17. The ard, developed for alluvial soils of arid and semi-arid climates of the Fertile Crescent and valleys/flood plains of the Indus and Nile, was not a suitable tool for the humid climates and fine-textured soils of northern Europe. Thus, the moldboard plow gradually replaced the ard. The moldboard plow used in the US was designed by Thomas Jefferson in 1784, patented by Charles Newfold in 1796, and marketed in the 1830s as a cast iron plow by a blacksmith named John DeereReference Lal, Reicosky and Hanson16.

Any system that eliminates all pre-seeding seedbed preparation is called NT or direct seeding. Three principal components of NT farming are: (i) elimination of all pre-seeding tillage (i.e., primary, secondary and tertiary), (ii) retention of crop residues, and (iii) control of weeds by herbicides. Weed control is a major challenge, especially in soils of the tropics, in the presence of perennial weeds and for organic farming. Thus, use of cover crops and residue mulch is a strategic option. Establishing an aggressive cover crop can smother weeds, while improving soil structure, nutrient cycling and availability. Soil and water conservation, specifically erosion control, has been the principal advantage of stubble mulchReference McCalla and Army18, Reference McCalla, Army and Witfield19 and NT farmingReference Harrold, Triplett and Youker7, Reference Harrold, Triplett and Youker8, Reference Meyer and Mannering20Reference Harrold and Edwards24. The concept of NT farming was expanded during the 1990s to conservation agriculture, which is comprised of five components: (i) elimination of pre-seeding tillage, (ii) adoption of complex crop rotations, including cover crops and agroforestry, (iii) use of integrated nutrient management strategies, (iv) control of weeds and other pests by integrated pest management, and (v) conservation, harvesting and recycling of water.

Globally, NT farming has been adopted in about 125 million hectares (Mha) out of a total of 1500 Mha of cropland area (Table 1)Reference Kassam, Friedrich, Shaxson and Pretty25, Reference Friedrich, Derpsch and Kassam26. The rate of adoption was very high during the first decade of the new millennium in commercial and large-scale farms of South America (Table 1). In turn, conservation agriculture in the 1990s evolved into sustainable land management during the 2000s. Sustainable land management is defined as a knowledge-based combination of technologies, policies and practices that integrate land, water, biodiversity and environmental concerns (including input and output externalities) to meet rising food and fiber demands, while sustaining ecosystem services and livelihoodsReference Wood and Dumanski27, 28. Five components of sustainable land management are: (i) adoption of conservation agriculture principles, (ii) adoption of a judicious land use, (iii) adaptation to climate change, (iv) mitigation of climate change, and (v) enhancement of soil/ecosystem resilience.

Table 1. Estimates of land area under conservation agriculture (adapted from Kassam et al.Reference Kassam, Friedrich, Shaxson and Pretty25 and Friedrich et al.Reference Friedrich, Derpsch and Kassam26).

Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem functions refer to the habitat, biological, or system properties or processes of ecosystems. Ecosystem goods (i.e., food) and services (i.e., water filtration and pollution abatement) refer to the benefits that humans derive from ecosystem functionsReference Costanza, d'Arge, de Groots, Farber, Grasso, Hannon, Limburg, Naeem, O'Neill, Paruelo, Raskin, Sutton and van den Belt29, Reference Boyd and Banzhaf30. Specifically, ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems sustain and fulfill human demandsReference Daily31. Principal ecosystem services, outlined in Fig. 1, include provisional (food, feed, water, etc.), moderatory (climate stabilization, water filtration, pollutant denaturing, etc.), ecological (elemental cycling, biodiversity, etc.), and aesthetical and cultural (recreational, spiritual, etc.)3234. Numerous ecosystem services essential to human wellbeing are provided by the soil. However, there are important trade-offs and synergies that need to be objectively consideredReference Power35.

Figure 1. Types of ecosystem services.

Soil is a four-dimensional (length, width, depth and time) geo-membrane at the lithosphere/atmosphere interface that is a medium for plant growth and moderator of all ecological processes essential to functioning of terrestrial and associated aquatic processes. Depending on the predominance of specific soil-forming factorsReference Dokuchaev36, Reference Jenny37, soils provide a range of ecosystem services across the landscape. Soil quality, defined as the capacity to perform ecosystem functions, depends on the activity and species diversity of soil biota, which transforms and recycles matter and energy. A gram of fertile soil may contain millions of microorganisms, including protozoa, algae, fungi and numerous other known and unknown species. Major ecosystem services of a soil are generated by numerous biogeochemical cycles driven by solar and chemical energy and operating at different scales, ranging from global (carbon, nitrogen and water cycles) to molecular (chemical transformations).

Land use and management strongly impact soil's ability to provide ecosystem services. Conversion of land from natural systems to agroecosystems, a necessity to support the human population and its ever-increasing demands driven by growing affluence, can provide, but also curtail, numerous ecosystem functions and services. Therefore, a sustainable strategy must be to minimize the adverse impacts of land-use conversion for production of feed, food, fiber, fuel, and other goods and services to meet human demands. It is precisely in this context that widespread, but prudent adoption of NT farming, conservation agriculture (CA), and sustainable land management can play a pivotal role.

Natural Capital of Soil and Ecosystem Services

Sustainable use of finite soil resources necessitates a thorough understanding of the role of soil processes in relation to ecosystem functions, including but not limited to human wellbeing. In this context, Robinson et al.Reference Robinson, Lebron and Vereecken38 proposed the concept of ‘natural capital’ of soil within the framework of ecosystem services. A clear distinction in the use of terms is essential, because many terms have multiple definitionsReference Dominati, Patterson and Mackay39. The term ‘natural capital’ is an extension of the economic idea of manufactured capital to include environmental goods and services. As an analogy, natural capital of soil would consist of its properties such as clay and soil organic matter contents, soil depth, water retention capacity, etc. Thus, ecosystem services from soil would include tangibles such as net primary production, agronomic yield, climate moderation through carbon sequestration, methane oxidation, etc. Accordingly, Robinson et al.Reference Robinson, Lebron and Vereecken38 proposed that principal components of soil's natural capital would include: (i) mass (solid, liquid, and gaseous), (ii) energy (thermal), and (iii) organization or entropy. All three components have quantitative and qualitative attributes. Furthermore, sustainability of agroecosystems depends on strategic management that integrates the natural capital of soil across different scales from molecular to global. These are among several major ecological challenges that must be scientifically addressedReference Lavelle40. Furthermore, apparent conflict among ecosystem services (i.e., food versus fuel and agronomic productivity versus biodiversity) must also be resolved. For example, mandating the use of biofuel in one place may increase emission of greenhouse gases at another due to land-use changesReference Lambin and Meyfroidt41. Implementation of ‘The Billion-Ton Biofuels Vision’Reference Somerville42 contradicts the use of NT technology, because cellulosic ethanol production may require removal of residues from croplands. It is also debated whether food security and biodiversity are mutually exclusive goalsReference Chappell and LaValle43. These conflicts may be addressed through ‘ecological intensification’ based on the use of biological regulation to manage agroecosystems at field, farm and landscape scalesReference Doré, Makowski, Malézieux, Munier-Jolain, Tchamitchian and Tittonell44. In this context, natural ecosystems may provide examples of a number of interesting properties that could be incorporated into agroecosystems. Monitoring and assessment of sustainable land management as tools to promote sustainable use of soil resources are widely promoted by development organizations (World Bank and FAO) and bilateral programs (USAID)Reference Schwilch, Bestelmeyer, Bunning, Critchley, Herrick, Kellner, Liniger, Nachtergaele, Ritsema, Schuster, Tabo, Van Lynden and Winslow45.

Soil degradation, i.e., a decline in the capacity of a soil to maintain ecosystem functions, is an important factor in evaluating ecosystem services and remains a major global issueReference Bai, Dent, Olsson and Schaepman46. Divergent views of agronomists and social scientists about the impact of degradation on ecosystem services must be resolvedReference Koning and Smaling47. Apparent divergence in opinion and approaches is based on two contrasting views of increasing human population versus limited natural resources: (i) the BoserupianReference Boserup48Reference Tiffen, Mortimore and Gichuki50 view emphasizing the significance of human ingenuity in addressing ecological problems, and (ii) the Malthusian view reiterating that resources are finite and population increase can lead to degradation of natural resources. Drechsel et al.Reference Drechsel, Kunze and de Vries51 surmised through analyses of data from 36 countries in sub-Saharan Africa that Malthusian mechanisms indeed are at work and are leading to soil nutrient depletion, accelerated erosion and reduced fallow periods caused by population pressure. This view illustrates the unsustainable population–agriculture–environment nexus on the African continent. The issue of severe decline in fertility of soils of Africa was also pointed out by SanchezReference Sanchez52, as well as of global soil degradation by Bai et al.Reference Bai, Dent, Olsson and Schaepman46. Should the Boserupian view be considered sound, agricultural scientists and policy makers urgently need to identify and implement successful strategies to overcome current challenges. Difficulties encountered in implementing such strategies without effective community participation could exacerbate soil degradation and desertificationReference van Rooyen53. Thus, HurniReference Hurni54 and Hurni et al.Reference Hurni, Giger and Meyer55 proposed adoption of NT farming approaches with due consideration of social and economic dimensions of land-related issues.

Adoption of sustainable soil management technology can address these issues. Principal requirements of sustainable soil management are: (i) maintaining soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration at a level above the critical threshold in the root zone, (ii) optimizing soil physical quality including structure and water retention/transmission characteristics, (iii) managing plant nutrients, (iv) enhancing favorable soil biological properties, (v) improving root growth and proliferation, and (vi) reducing risks of soil erosion and other degradation processesReference Dexter56. Most of these requirements are met with a judicious and continuous use of NT for a long period (Fig. 2). Conversion to NT is especially useful in restoring/sustaining soil physical quality and reducing risks of water runoff and soil erosion, as indicated by soil bulk density, SOC dynamics, root growth, tilth, friability and hard-settingReference Powlson, Gregory, Whalley, Quinton, Hopkins, Whitmore, Hirsh and Goulding57, Reference Dexter58.

Figure 2. Range of ecosystem services generated by conservation agriculture (CA).

Ecosystem Services and Conservation Agriculture

By mimicking nature, discriminate and judicious implementation of NT can generate essential ecosystem services to meet specific demands of the growing human population, while also reducing risks of soil and environmental degradation. Principal ecosystem services provided and sustained through a long-term adoption of NT are discussed below.

Food security

Efficient use of inputs and agronomic productivity can be greatly enhanced by improving the concentration of SOC to optimal levels covering a wide range of crops and soilsReference Aune and Lal59Reference Loveland and Webb63. Enhancement of SOC to an optimum level increases crop yield by: (a) increasing plant available water capacity and nutrient supply (macro and micro) by promoting recycling and reducing losses, (b) restoring soil structure and tilth by bioturbation and microbial processes, and (c) decreasing soil erodibility and increasing water infiltrability, thereby reducing the risks of runoff and accelerated erosion. Despite notable improvements in soil quality, agronomic response to restoration of SOC in the root zone depends on a multitude of factors, including soil moisture and temperature regimes, availability of macro- and micro-nutrients, and various other soil propertiesReference Lal64, Reference Lal65. Syntheses of global data from field experiments have shown a corresponding increase in yields of a variety of crops with an incremental increase in SOC in the root zoneReference Lal64Reference Lal66. In general, low agronomic yields from degraded soils of sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and other regions where SOC has been severely depleted by perpetual use of extractive farming are attributed to severe curtailment of beneficial rhizospheric processes in soil.

Improvement in the soil quality and resilience through restoration of SOC can also enhance adaptation of agricultural and food systems to climate change. Enhancing water-use efficiency and crop yield through an increase in SOC is one adaptation strategy. Increasing water-use efficiencyReference Polley67 is crucial to harnessing the benefits of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, or the so-called carbon dioxide fertilization effect. Water-use efficiency can be specifically improved in dryland farming by adopting NT systemsReference Peterson and Westfall68.

Climate moderation

In view of the lack of appropriate metrics to account for emission of greenhouse gases within a land-use system, Anderson-Teixeira and DeLuciaReference Anderson-Teixeira and DeLucia69 proposed the concept of Greenhouse Gas Value. It accounts for potential greenhouse gas release upon conversion of a vegetation cover, annual greenhouse gas flux, and the projected greenhouse gas exchanges caused by land-use conversion and management. Greenhouse Gas Values provide a quantitative index of the emission-related consequences of any land use and management decision. Conversion of plow tillage to NT can enhance SOC concentration and stockReference West and Post70Reference Smith, Martina, Cai, Gwary, Janzen, Kumar, McCarl, Ogle, O'Mara, Rice, Scholes, Sirotenko, Howden, McAllister, Pan, Romanenkov, Schneider, Towprayoon, Wattenbach and Smith73 by reducing runoff, erosion and mineralization of soil organic matter. In South Africa, Mchunu et al.Reference Mchunu, Lorentz, Jewitt, Manson and Chaplot74 observed that topsoil SOC stock was 26% higher under NT than under plowed soil, while NT reduced soil loss by 68% and SOC loss by 52%. However, the assessment of net gains in SOC must also consider the hidden C costs of inputs (such as fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and other farm operations)Reference Lal75. In most cases, there is an increase in SOC concentration in the surface layer of soil managed by NT for a long time. However, there have been examples of lower concentration of SOC in the sub-soil layers of land managed with NT compared with that by plow tillageReference Baker, Ochsner, Venterea and Griffis76Reference Angers and Eriksen-Hamel78. Determining differences in the accrual of SOC stock among tillage systems must be evaluated on a whole-profile basis rather than in the surface layer aloneReference Blanco-Canqui and Lal77, and the experimental design must also use an adequate number of replicationsReference Kravchenko and Robertson79. Over and above the effect of tillage methods and crop-residue management, SOC retention is also influenced by water management and irrigation systemReference Wang, Liu, Andersen and Jensen80. However, further increase in temperature under changing climate may decrease SOCReference Fantappiè, L'Abate and Costantini81, regardless of tillage system.

In general, adoption of NT on degraded agricultural lands has the potential to sequester SOC, while building fertility and restoring soil functionsReference Franzluebbers82. In addition to SOC (and carbon dioxide) dynamics, there are questions about other greenhouse gases (i.e., nitrous oxide and methane), which are also affected by tillage systems. In some soils, NT can lead to increased emission of nitrous oxideReference Baggs, Stevenson, Pihlatie, Regar, Cook and Cadisch83Reference Rochette85. Irrespective of tillage, however, emission of nitrous oxide is highly variable and rates differ between arid and humid climates and fine- and coarse-textured soils. Smith et al.Reference Smith, Hernandez-Ramierz, Armstrong, Bucholtz and Stott86 observed that nitrous oxide emission from under corn (Zea mays) was the lowest from a precision-tillage treatment (2.4 kg N ha−1 yr−1) compared to conventional tillage (4.9 kg N ha−1 yr−1) or with cover crop (5.0 kg N ha−1 yr−1). Precision tillage involved additional farm operations to modify the seedbed. Impact of a cover crop on nitrous oxide emission can be highly variable, and some studies have shown reduced emission from systems with cover cropsReference Liebig, Tanaka and Gross87. The issue of high spatial variability in nitrous oxide emission is an important considerationReference Röver, Heinemeyer, Munch and Kaiser88. Depending on soil type and management, nitrous oxide emission can also be greater from plow tillage than from NTReference Peterson, Mutegi, Hansen and Munkholm89, Reference Chatskikh, Olesen, Hansen, Elsgaard and Petersen90. High stratification of SOC under NT along with enhanced bioturbation can lead to improvements in soil structure and tilth. A NT-managed soil with good structure can oxidize methane and make the NT system a net sink for atmospheric methaneReference Lal91.

With the high global warming potential of methane and nitrous oxide, it is important to quantify the full greenhouse gas effects of land use and soil management systemsReference Anderson-Teixeira and DeLucia69, Reference Dalal, Wang, Robertson and Parton92. Therefore, a complete life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions is appropriateReference Grant and Beer93. Whereas NT can play an important role in building a climate-resilient farm, the role of associated components (i.e., water, energy, fertilizers, residues and cover crops) must also be consideredReference Jackson, Hanjra, Khan and Hafeez94. Residue management (burning/removal or incorporation) can also impact the greenhouse gas budget of a farming/cropping systemReference Grant and Beer93.

While conservation management of world soils has a large technical potential to sequester SOC and offset anthropogenic emissionsReference Lal95, there are numerous challenges to realizing this potentialReference Lal96. In general, challenges posed by humans (e.g., land rights, social equity and cultural traditions) are often more severe than those posed by biophysical constraints (e.g., soil type, climate, terrain and slope gradient).

Biodiversity

Soil is an important habitat for biota. Soil organisms, comprising an extremely diverse and complex biological community, are affected by land use and soil management systemsReference Barrios97. A strong link exists between biodiversity and human wellbeingReference Faith, Magallón, Hendry, Conti, Yahara and Donoghue98. Thus, habitat needs for other species must not be jeopardized in a managed ecosystemReference Nelson, Sander, Hawthorne, Conte, Ennaanay, Wolny, Manson and Polasky99. Soil biota generate numerous ecosystem services, such as elemental cycling, denaturing of pollutants, soil aggregation, and insect and disease controlReference Brussaard, Behan-Pelletier, Bignell, Brown, Didden, Folgarait, Fragoso, Freckman, Gupta, Hattori, Hawksworth, Klopatek, Lavelle, Malloch, Rusek, Soderstrom, Tiedje and Virginia100Reference Wardle, Bardgett, Klironomos, Setela, Van der Putten and Wall107. While agricultural intensification generally decreases biodiversityReference Omer, Pascual and Russell108, adoption of NT enhances biodiversity and strengthens soil functions and ecosystem servicesReference Six, Feller, Denef, Ogle, Moraes Sa and Albrecht109. In strong contrast to NT, plow tillage can diminish microbial biomass and enzyme activityReference Kandeler, Palli, Stemmer and Gerzabek110. Thus, to enhance biodiversity, a NT farming system will be better than one with plow tillage. In general, NT has the potential to diversify the suite of ecosystem services through judicious managementReference Swinton, Lupi, Robertson and Hamilton111, notably less soil disturbance. Specific indicators of biodiversity are needed for croplands in diverse biomesReference Feld, da Silva, Sousa, de Bello, Bugter, Grandin, Hering, Lavorel, Mountford, Pardo, Pärtel, Römbke, Sandin, Jones and Harrison112. It may be appropriate to assess biodiversity in multi-functional landscapesReference O'Farrell and Anderson113, and species identity may be even more important than species diversityReference Nadrowski, Wirth and Scherer-Lorenzen114.

Elemental cycling

The earth/soil has numerous elements with their own cycles, either singularly or coupled. Coupled cycling of elements is the rule, rather than an exception. Major elements (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur) have coupled cycling within the pedosphere, and among the pedosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere through an inter-connected web of global cycles (Fig. 3)Reference Lal91, Reference Paul115Reference Stevenson117. By conserving carbon and water, NT strengthens the coupled cycling of numerous elements. Coupled cycling of carbon and water at a global scale indicates the inter-dependence of these elements (Fig. 4)Reference Lal91, Reference Lal95, Reference Falkowski, Scholes, Boyle, Canadell, Canfield, Elser, Gruber, Hibbard, Högberg, Linder, Mackenzie, Moore, Pedersen, Rosenthal, Seitzinger, Smetacek and Steffen118Reference Bengtsson121. Within a landscape, long-term use of NT strengthens elemental cycling. For example, NT stratifies SOC by concentrating it within the surface layer, conserving water by reducing runoff and evaporation, increasing water storage in the root zone, increasing plant-available water capacity, and increasing net primary production by reducing risks of drought and decreasing losses of plant nutrients by runoff, leaching and erosion. The return of crop residues to soil, an integral component of NT, is crucial to elemental cycling and reducing the requirement for nutrient replenishment with chemical fertilizers.

Figure 3. Schematic of the coupled cycling of elements within the pedosphere. Fluxes of elements in the pedosphere with those in the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere are well knownReference Paul115. Data on carbon pools are from LalReference Lal91. Data on nitrogen pools are from Robarts and WetzelReference Robarts and Wetzel116 and those of P and S are from StevensonReference Stevenson117.

Soil erosion, sedimentation and non-point source pollution

Surface mulch on unplowed and consolidated soil decreases erodibility, increases resilience and drastically reduces erosivity (e.g., rain drop impact, shearing force of overland flow and blowing wind, and wind-driven rain). Data in Table 2 from the North Appalachian Experimental Watersheds at Coshocton, Ohio, indicate the relative effectiveness of NT farming in erosion control, especially for some exceptional rainstorm eventsReference Harrold and Edwards122. Data in Table 3 from western Nigeria also show the effectiveness of NT in reducing runoff and soil erosion up to a slope gradient of 15% in an environment characterized by highly erosive tropical rainsReference Lal123.

Table 2. No-till effects on soil erosion from cropland watersheds at Coshocton, OhioReference Robarts and Wetzel116.

Prevailing: straight/sloping rows, low fertility.

Improved: contour rows, moderately high fertility.

Minimum tillage: plow and plant.

No-tillage: chemical weed control, corn stover mulch, manure.

Table 3. Mulching effects on surface runoff and soil erosion from an Alfisol in western Nigeria from April to August 1973 (recalculated from LalReference Lal123).

Rainfall=781 mm.

1=Plowed fallow, 2=corn, plowed, mulched, 3=corn, plowed, 4=corn, no-till, 5=cowpea, plowed.

Despite the conservation effectiveness of NT, it does have some disservices. Surface applications of fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides can accentuate the risk of transport in runoff, especially during the first few events after applicationReference Wauchope, Estes, Allen, Baker, Horsnby, Jones, Richards and Gustafson124Reference Shipitalo and Owens126. In Ohio, risk of herbicide transport in water runoff was high for an erosive rainfall event that occurred within 10 days of application, and detectable levels could be observed 50–60 days after application. Shipitalo et al.Reference Shipitalo, Malone and Owens127 observed concentration of atrazine and alachlor in runoff high enough to be of concern even for NT, and concentration of herbicides in the first few runoff events after application can be well above drinking water standards. In addition, flow of pesticide-containing water through macropores and preferential pathways can be an issue with NT systemsReference Edwards, Shipitalo and Norton128. If an intense rainstorm were to occur soon after surface application of chemicals to soil with well-developed macroporosity, water transmitted into tiles and shallow ground water by macropores could contain significant concentration of chemicalsReference Shipitalo, Dick and Edwards129.

Conservation Agriculture and Relationship among Multiple Ecosystem Services

Strong links exist among diverse ecosystem services, but managing exclusively for one (i.e., food production) can lead to a substantial decline in another (i.e., biodiversity). Therefore, it is important to understand theoretical relationships among ecosystem services. Bennett et al.Reference Bennett, Peterson and Gordon130 proposed three sets of issues to understand relationships among ecosystem services: (i) nature of ecosystem service (i.e., flow across a landscape or specific processes that regulate the nature of the relationship), (ii) trade-offs and synergism (i.e., effective ways to mitigate trade-offs or change of relationship among ecosystem services over time, with management and across scales), and (iii) regulating services and regime shift (i.e., nature of shifts or variation in ecosystem services with decline in regulating services). Trade-offs may occur among ecosystem services, and specific disservices in agroecosystems must be carefully evaluated at appropriate temporal and spatial scales, since the negative impacts are difficult to reverse (i.e., erosion, non-point source pollution)Reference Power35. Trading ecosystem carbon storage for foodReference West, Gibbs, Monfreda, Wagner, Barford, Carpenter and Foley131 has important managerial implications that require an objective and careful evaluation. Thus, agricultural ecosystems must be appropriately managed to optimize diversity, composition and functioning of remaining natural ecosystems in the landscapeReference Zhang, Ricketts, Kremen, Carney and Swinton132. In some cases, adoption of organic agriculture may strengthen specific ecosystem services such as pollination, biological control and nutrient cyclingReference Sandhu, Wratten and Cullen133. Yet, low productivity of organic systems is an issue in the world with an ever increasing population and escalating demand for ecosystem services.

Payments for Ecosystem Services

Innovative agricultural systems must be developed to maximize ecosystem function and services and minimize disservices. Therefore, linkages and inter-dependence between food production and other ecosystem services for recommended management practices must be critically assessed. Adoption of recommended management practices by land managers, especially resource-poor farmers, can be promoted through payments for ecosystem services (i.e., carbon sequestration, water resources, improvement and biodiversity enhancement). Establishment of a rational price (i.e., carbon credits or green water credits) may require identification of soil/site-specific indicatorsReference Dale and Polasky134 at different spatial scales and with hierarchical perspective. These indicators can provide the basis of an appropriate framework. High negative external costs associated with food productionReference Porter, Costanza, Sandhu, Sigsgaard and Wratten135 could be minimized through the use of appropriate indicators. One option would be to determine suitability of a provision by collective management or cooperative solution based on resource characteristicsReference Stallman136. Another option would be to reduce disservices and negative costs through payments for enhancing ecosystem services and reducing disservices. A third option would be a market-based approachReference Kroeger and Casey137.

Market-based approaches could reduce risks of the ‘tragedy of the commons’. The strategy would be to harness market potential to provide ecosystem service incentives to land managers. Markets could be used as a tool for organizing the supply of ecosystem services to and from agroecosystemsReference Kroeger and Casey137. Being myopic by nature, humans’ desires to make quick economic gains by cutting corners could degrade soils and jeopardize natural resources. Thus, assessing societal value of ecosystem services would be relevant, especially in developing countriesReference Kumar138 with predominantly resource-poor farmers and smallholders. A just pricing system for ecosystem services could promote the adoption of NT and recommended management practices.

A market-based tool could be used either as: (i) economic incentive or (ii) performance paymentReference Ferraro139. The latter, paid in cash or kind, could be made conditional on achieving a well-defined action or outcome. For example, carbon credits could be sold only if farmers were to adopt and maintain NT for a specific duration of time (e.g., 6–10 years), and payments could be made at the end of the designated period. Determining the rational value of a specific ecosystem service would be critical to the success of the program. Undervaluing a service (such as SOC sequestration) could lead to its misuse and depletion. No one protects or safeguards an under-valued resource. The market-based approach for voluntary carbon trading was not successful, because of the unfair price governed by the lack of cap on fossil fuel combustion. However, payments to farmers for providing essential ecosystem services (e.g., adapting and mitigating abrupt climate change, improving water quality and its renewable supply, and enhancing biodiversity) based on a fair and just price would incentivize land managers toward adoption of sustainable technologies.

Constraints to Adoption of No-till

Despite numerous advantages, cropland area under NT is hardly 9% worldwide, mostly in countries where large-scale commercial farming is practiced (e.g., USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Australia). Adoption of NT is practically negligible by resource-poor, smallholders of sub-Saharan Africa, South and South-East Asia, Central America, Caribbean and Pacific Islands. Yet, these are also the regions where the potential benefits of NT are highReference Lal140. Reasons for low adoption of NT vary among developing and developed economies, climatic regions, soil types and farming systems. In developing economies, farmers may not have access to herbicides and appropriate seeding equipment. Competing uses of crop residues for fodder and fuel may be another constraint. Land ownership and tenure, important to investment in long-term improvement in soil restoration, is another issue that limits adoption. Furthermore, NT farming may require more skills and experience in its implementation.

In temperate regions, spring-time soil temperature is often sub-optimal and seedling emergence and crop establishment are slower under NT compared with plow-based seedbed preparation. Thus, crop yield can be depressed under colder, wetter climatesReference Ogle, Swan and Paustain120, Reference DeFelice, Carter and Mitchell141. Nonetheless, intensified rotations with NT in the US Great Plains can be more profitable than plow-based systems, even when grain yields are slightly lowerReference Dhuyvetter, Thompson and Halvorson142. However, even a slight yield decrease may be perceived as risky to farmers. There is also a range of socio-cultural/economic reasons for low adoption of NTReference Ervin and Ervin143.

Conclusions

Ecosystem services providing benefits to the environment must be sustained to meet the increasing and diverse demands of humanity. Soil provides all four categories of ecosystem services (e.g., provisioning, moderating, ecological and cultural/aesthetical) and its resource must be sustainably used and restored, because it is a finite resource and prone to degradation and depletion. Sustainable management of soil involves: (i) replacing what is removed, (ii) restoring what has been degraded, and (iii) responding prudently to off-site effects of management-induced alterations in ecosystem services (e.g. greenhouse gas emission, non-point source pollution and sedimentation) and disservices.

Adoption of NT has its own potential and challenges. Despite more than 50 years of research in temperate and tropical climates, NT farming is adopted on only 124.8 Mha (∼9% of cropland area). Frustratingly, adoption of NT has been especially low with resource-poor farmers and smallholders in developing countries, where it would otherwise be desperately useful.

Among numerous constraints to the adoption of NT is the competing use of crop residues harvested for cattle feed, cooking fuel, construction, and other domestic and commercial uses. Thus, a market-based approach is needed to promote adoption of NT through economic incentives or performance payments for ecosystem services, which could also reduce disservices or trade-offs. To be effective, however, rational value of a specific ecosystem service (i.e., SOC sequestration) must be objectively assessed. Undervaluing an ecosystem service would jeopardize the finite soil resource and aggravate disservices. No-till farming, conservation agriculture and sustainable land management are proven innovative options that maintain or enhance ecosystem services and reduce risks of disservices. Adoption of NT should be expanded to sustain or improve ecosystem services to meet the needs of a growing world population.

References

1Keen, B.A. 1931. The Physical Properties of Soil. Longmans, Green & Co., London, UK.Google Scholar
2Faulkner, E.H. 1942. Plowman's Folly. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, p. 155.Google Scholar
3Faulkner, E.H. 1942. A Second Look. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, p. 193.Google Scholar
4Jack, W.T. 1946. The Furrow and Us. Dorrance and Co., Philadelphia.Google Scholar
5Bennett, H.H. 1939. Soil Conservation. Ayer Co. Pub. Description from biblio.com. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1st Hard Cover, 1st ed., 2nd printing, 993 pp. CR-LA. Catalogs:Science).Google Scholar
6Steinbeck, J. 1939. The Grapes of Wrath. Penguin Books, New York, p. 455.Google Scholar
7Harrold, L.L., Triplett, G.B. Jr, and Youker, R.E. 1967a. Less soil and water loss from no-tillage corn. Ohio Report on Research and Development 52:2223.Google Scholar
8Harrold, L.L., Triplett, G.B. Jr, and Youker, R.E. 1967b. Watershed tests of no-till corn. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 22:98100.Google Scholar
9Triplett, G.B. Jr, van Doren, D.M. Jr, and Johnson, W.H. 1964. Non-plowed, strip tilled corn culture. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 7:105107.Google Scholar
10Triplett, G.B. Jr, van Doren, D.M. Jr, and Schmidt, B.L. 1968. Effects of corn stover mulch on no-tillage corn yield and water infiltration. Agronomy Journal 60:236239.Google Scholar
11Blevins, R.L., Cook, D., Phillips, S.H., and Phillips, R.E. 1971. Influence of no-tillage on soil moisture. Agronomy Journal 63:593596.Google Scholar
12Blevins, R.L., Murdock, L.W., and Cornelius, P.L. 1977. Influence of no-tillage and nitrogen fertilization on certain soil properties after 5 years of continuous corn. Agronomy Journal 69:383386.Google Scholar
13Blevins, R.L., Smith, M.S., Thomas, G.W., and Frye, W.W. 1983. Influence of conservation tillage on soil properties. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38:301305.Google Scholar
14Phillips, S.H. and Young, H.M. 1973. No-tillage Farming. Reiman Associates, Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
15Soane, B.D., Ball, B.C., Arvidsson, J., Basch, G., Moreno, F., and Roger-Estrade, J. 2012. No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil and Tillage Research 118:6687.Google Scholar
16Lal, R., Reicosky, D.C., and Hanson, J.D. 2007. Evolution of the plow over 10, 000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil and Tillage Research 93:112.Google Scholar
17Lal, R. 2009. The plow and agricultural sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33(1):6684.Google Scholar
18McCalla, T.M. and Army, T.J. 1961. Stubble mulch farming. Advances in Agronomy 13:125196.Google Scholar
19McCalla, T.M., Army, T.J., and Witfield, C.J. 1962. Stubble mulch farming. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 17:204208.Google Scholar
20Meyer, L.D. and Mannering, J.V. 1961. Minimum tillage for corn: Its effects on infiltration and erosion. Agricultural Engineering 42:7275.Google Scholar
21Hays, O.E. 1961. New tillage methods reduce erosion and runoff. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 16:175.Google Scholar
22Moldenhauer, W.C. and Amemiya, M. 1968. Tillage practices for controlling cropland erosion. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 24:1921.Google Scholar
23Greb, B.W., Smika, D.R., and Black, D.R. 1970. Water conservation with stubble mulch fallow. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 25:5862.Google Scholar
24Harrold, L.L. and Edwards, W.M. 1970. No-tillage corn, characteristics of the system. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 5:128131.Google Scholar
25Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F., and Pretty, J. 2012. The spread of conservation agriculture: Justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7(4):292320.Google Scholar
26Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R., and Kassam, A. 2012. Overview of the global spread of conservation agriculture. Field Action Science 6:117.Google Scholar
27Wood, R.C. and Dumanski, J. (eds). 1994. Sustainable land management for the 21st century. In Proceedings of International Workshop, University of Letheridge, 1993, Letheridge, CA, p. 2026.Google Scholar
28World Bank. 2006. Sustainable land management: Opportunities and trade-offs. Agriculture and Rural Development. The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
29Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groots, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253260.Google Scholar
30Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63:616626.Google Scholar
31Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature's species: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
32MEA. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
33MEA. 2005. Ecosystem and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends, Vol. 1. Island Press, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
34MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
35Power, A.G. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365:29592971.Google Scholar
36Dokuchaev, V.V. 1883. Russion chernozem. In Collected Writings, Vol. 3. Israel Progress in Science Transactions, Jerusalem, Israel (1967).Google Scholar
37Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
38Robinson, D.A., Lebron, I., and Vereecken, H. 2009. On the definition of natural capital of soils: A framework for description, evaluation, and monitoring. Soil Science Society of America Journal 73:19041911.Google Scholar
39Dominati, E., Patterson, M., and Mackay, A. 2010. A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecological Economics 69:18581868.Google Scholar
40Lavelle, P. 2000. Ecological challenges for soil science. Soil Science 165(1):7386.Google Scholar
41Lambin, E.F. and Meyfroidt, P. 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(9): 34653472.Google Scholar
42Somerville, C. 2006. The billion-ton biofuels vision. Science 312:1277.Google Scholar
43Chappell, M.J. and LaValle, L.A. 2011. Food security and biodiversity: Can we have both? An agroecological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values 28:326.Google Scholar
44Doré, T., Makowski, D., Malézieux, E., Munier-Jolain, N., Tchamitchian, M., and Tittonell, P. 2011. Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: Revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge. European Journal of Agronomy 34:197210.Google Scholar
45Schwilch, G., Bestelmeyer, B., Bunning, S., Critchley, W., Herrick, J., Kellner, K., Liniger, H.P., Nachtergaele, F., Ritsema, C.J., Schuster, B., Tabo, R., Van Lynden, G., and Winslow, M. 2011. Experiences in monitoring and assessment of sustainable land management. Land Degradation and Development 22:214225.Google Scholar
46Bai, Z.G., Dent, D.L., Olsson, L., and Schaepman, M.E. 2008. Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use and Management 24:223234.Google Scholar
47Koning, N. and Smaling, E. 2005. Environmental crisis or ‘lie of the land’? The debate on soil degradation in Africa. Land Use Policy 22:311.Google Scholar
48Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
49Boserup, E. 1987. Agricultural development and demographic growth: A conclusion. In Fauve-Chamoux, A. (ed.). Évolution Agraire & Croissance Démographique. Ordina Éditions, Liège, p. 385389.Google Scholar
50Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M., and Gichuki, F. 1994. More People, Less erosion: Environmental Recovery in Kenya. Wiley, London.Google Scholar
51Drechsel, P., Kunze, D., and de Vries, F.P. 2001. Soil nutrient depletion and population growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Malthusian nexus? Population and Environment 22(4):411423.Google Scholar
52Sanchez, P.A. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295:20192020.Google Scholar
53van Rooyen, A.F. 1998. Combating desertification in the southern Kalahari: Connecting science with community action in South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 39:285297.Google Scholar
54Hurni, H. 2000. Assessing sustainable land management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81:8392.Google Scholar
55Hurni, H., Giger, M., and Meyer, K. 2006. Soils on the Global Agenda. Developing International Mechanisms for Sustainable Land Management. IUSS, Bern, Switzerland.Google Scholar
56Dexter, A.R. 2004. Soil physical quality: Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma 120:201214.Google Scholar
57Powlson, D.S., Gregory, P.J., Whalley, W.R., Quinton, J.N., Hopkins, D.W., Whitmore, A.P., Hirsh, P.R., and Goulding, K.W.T. 2010. Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services. Food Policy 36:S72S87.Google Scholar
58Dexter, A.R. 2004. Soil physical quality: Part II. Friability, tillage, tilth and hard-setting. Geoderma 120:215225.Google Scholar
59Aune, J.B. and Lal, R. 1997. Agricultural productivity in the tropics and critical limits of properties of Oxisols, Ultisols and Alfisols. Tropical Agriculture 74:96103.Google Scholar
60Barrow, C.J. 1991. Land degradation: Development and Breakdown of Terrestrial Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
61Kemper, W.D. and Coach, E.J. 1996. Aggregate stability of soils from western United States and Canada. USDA Technical Bulletin No. 1355, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
62Greenland, D.J., Rimmer, D., and Payne, D. 1975. Determination of the structural stability class of English and Welsh soils, using a water coherence test. Journal of Soil Science 26:294303.Google Scholar
63Loveland, P. and Webb, J. 2003. Is there a critical level of organic matter in agricultural soils of temperate regions: A review. Soil and Tillage Research 70:118.Google Scholar
64Lal, R. 2010. Enhancing eco-efficiency in agro-ecosystems through soil carbon sequestration. Crop Science 50:S120S131.Google Scholar
65Lal, R. 2010. Beyond Copenhagen: Mitigating climate change and achieving food security through soil carbon sequestration. Food Security 2:169177.Google Scholar
66Lal, R. 2006. Enhancing crop yields in developing countries through restoration of soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degradation and Development 17:197209.Google Scholar
67Polley, H.W. 2002. Implications of atmospheric and climatic change for crop yield and water use efficiency. Crop Science 42:131140.Google Scholar
68Peterson, G.A. and Westfall, D.G. 2004. Managing precipitation use in sustainable dryland agroecosystems. Annals of Applied Biology 144:127138.Google Scholar
69Anderson-Teixeira, K.J. and DeLucia, E.H. 2011. The greenhouse gas value of ecosystems. Global Change Biology 17:425438.Google Scholar
70West, T.O. and Post, W.M. 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: A global data analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:19301946.Google Scholar
71Oorts, K., Bossuyt, H., Labreuche, J., Merckx, R., and Nicolardot, B. 2007. Carbon and nitrogen stocks in relation to organic matter fractions, aggregation and pore size distribution in no-tillage and conventional tillage in Northern France. European Journal of Soil Science 58:248259.Google Scholar
72Marks, E., Alflakpui, G.K.S., Nkem, J., Poch, R.M., Khouma, M., Kokou, K., Sagoe, R., and Sebastià, M.-T. 2009. Conservation of soil organic carbon, biodiversity and the provision of other ecosystem services along climatic gradients in West Africa. Biogeosciences 6:18251838.Google Scholar
73Smith, P., Martina, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H.H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O'Mara, F., Rice, C., Scholes, R.J., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V., Schneider, U., Towprayoon, S., Wattenbach, M., and Smith, J.U. 2008. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:780813.Google Scholar
74Mchunu, C.N., Lorentz, S., Jewitt, G., Manson, A., and Chaplot, V. 2011. No-till impact on soil and soil organic carbon erosion under crop residue scarcity in Africa. Soil Science Society of America Journal 75:15031512.Google Scholar
75Lal, R. 2004a. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International 30:981990.Google Scholar
76Baker, J.M., Ochsner, T.E., Venterea, R.T., and Griffis, T.J. 2007. Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118:15.Google Scholar
77Blanco-Canqui, H. and Lal, R. 2008. No-tillage and soil-profile carbon sequestration: An on-farm assessment. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:639701.Google Scholar
78Angers, D.A. and Eriksen-Hamel, N.S. 2008. Full-inversion tillage and organic carbon distribution in soil profiles: A meta-analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:13701374.Google Scholar
79Kravchenko, A.N. and Robertson, G.P. 2011. Whole-profile soil carbon stocks: The danger of assuming too much from analyses of too little. Soil Science Society of America Journal 75:232240.Google Scholar
80Wang, Y., Liu, F., Andersen, M.N., and Jensen, D.R. 2010. Carbon retention in the soil-plant system under different irrigation regimes. Agricultural Water Management 98:419424.Google Scholar
81Fantappiè, M., L'Abate, G., and Costantini, E.A.C. 2011. The influence of climate change on the soil organic carbon content in Italy from 1961 to 2008. Geomorphology 135:343352.Google Scholar
82Franzluebbers, A.J. 2010. Achieving soil organic carbon sequestration with conservation agricultural systems in Southeastern United States. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74:347357.Google Scholar
83Baggs, E.M., Stevenson, M., Pihlatie, M., Regar, A., Cook, H., and Cadisch, G. 2003. Nitrous oxide emissions following application of residues and fertiliser under zero and conventional tillage. Plant and Soil 254:361370.Google Scholar
84Ball, B.C., Crichton, I., and Horgan, G.W. 2008. Dynamics of upward and downward nitrous oxide and CO2 fluxes in ploughed or no-tilled soils in relation to water-filled pore space, compaction and crop presence. Soil and Tillage Research 101:2030.Google Scholar
85Rochette, R. 2008. No-till only increases nitrous oxide emissions in poorly-aerated soils. Soil and Tillage Research 101:97100.Google Scholar
86Smith, D.R., Hernandez-Ramierz, G., Armstrong, S.D., Bucholtz, D.L., and Stott, D.E. 2011. Fertilizer and tillage management impacts on non-carbon-dioxide greenhouse gas emissions. Soil Science Society of America Journal 75:10701082.Google Scholar
87Liebig, M.A., Tanaka, D.L., and Gross, J.R. 2010. Fallow effects on soil carbon and greenhouse gas flux in Central North Dakota. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74:358365.Google Scholar
88Röver, M., Heinemeyer, O., Munch, J.C., and Kaiser, E.-A. 1999. Spatial heterogeneity within the plough layer: High variability of nitrous oxide emission rates. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31:167173.Google Scholar
89Peterson, S.O., Mutegi, J.K., Hansen, E.M., and Munkholm, L.J. 2011. Tillage effects on nitrous oxide emissions as influenced by a winter cover crop. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 43:15091517.Google Scholar
90Chatskikh, D., Olesen, J.E., Hansen, E.M., Elsgaard, L., and Petersen, B.M. 2008. Effects of reduced tillage on net greenhouse gas fluxes from loamy sand soil under winter crops in Denmark. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 128:117126.Google Scholar
91Lal, R. 2004b. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304:16231627.Google Scholar
92Dalal, R.C., Wang, W., Robertson, G.P., and Parton, W.J. 2003. Nitrous oxide emission from Australian agricultural lands and mitigations options: A review. Australian Journal of Soil Research 41:165195.Google Scholar
93Grant, T. and Beer, T. 2008. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated maize and their significance in the value chain. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48:375381.Google Scholar
94Jackson, T.M., Hanjra, M.A., Khan, S., and Hafeez, M.M. 2011. Building a climate resilient farm: A risk based approach for understanding water, energy and emissions in irrigated agriculture. Agricultural Systems 104:729745.Google Scholar
95Lal, R. 2010. Managing soils and ecosystems for mitigating anthropogenic carbon emissions and advancing global food security. BioScience 60:708721.Google Scholar
96Lal, R. 2008. Promise and limitations of soils to minimize climate change. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63:113A118A.Google Scholar
97Barrios, E. 2007. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecological Economics 64:269285.Google Scholar
98Faith, D.P., Magallón, S., Hendry, A.P., Conti, E., Yahara, T., and Donoghue, M.J. 2010. Ecosystem services: An evolutionary perspective on the links between biodiversity and human well-being. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2:6674.Google Scholar
99Nelson, E., Sander, H., Hawthorne, P., Conte, M., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Manson, S., and Polasky, S. 2010. Projecting global land-use change and its effect on ecosystem service provision and biodiversity with simple models. PLoS ONE 5(12):e14327.Google Scholar
100Brussaard, L., Behan-Pelletier, V.M., Bignell, D.E., Brown, V.K., Didden, W., Folgarait, P., Fragoso, C., Freckman, D.W., Gupta, V.V.S.R., Hattori, T., Hawksworth, D.L., Klopatek, C., Lavelle, P., Malloch, D.W., Rusek, J., Soderstrom, B., Tiedje, J.M., and Virginia, R.A. 1997. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in soil. Ambio 26(8):563570.Google Scholar
101Hunt, H.W. and Wall, D.H. 2002. Modeling the effects of loss of soil biodiversity on ecosystem function. Global Change Biology 8(1):3350.Google Scholar
102Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J.P., Hector, A., Hooper, D.U., Huston, M.A., Raffaelli, D., Schmid, B., Tilman, D., and Wardle, D.A. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenged. Science 294:804808.Google Scholar
103Ritz, K., McHugh, M., and Harris, J. 2004. Biological diversity and function in soils: Contemporary perspectives and implications in relation to the formulation of effective indicators. In OECD Expert Meeting on Soil Erosion and Soil Biodiversity Indicators. OECD, Rome. p. 563572.Google Scholar
104Swift, M.J., Izac, A.M.N., and van Noordwijk, M. 2004. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—Are we asking the right questions? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104:113134.Google Scholar
105Wall, D.H. and Moore, J.C. 1999. Interactions underground: Soil biodiversity, mutualism and ecosystem processes. BioScience 49(2):109117.Google Scholar
106Wall, D.H. and Virginia, R.A. 2000. The world beneath our feet: Soil biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In Raven, P.H. and Williams, T. (eds). Nature and Human Society: The Quest for a Sustainable World. Committee for the Second Forum on Biodiversity. National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council, Washington, DC. p. 225241.Google Scholar
107Wardle, D.A., Bardgett, R.D., Klironomos, J.N., Setela, H., Van der Putten, W.H., and Wall, D.H. 2004. Ecological linkages between aboveground and belowground biota. Science 304:16291633.Google Scholar
108Omer, A., Pascual, U., and Russell, N. 2010. A theoretical model of agrobiodiversity as a supporting service for sustainable agricultural intensification. Ecological Economics 69:19261933.Google Scholar
109Six, J., Feller, C., Denef, K., Ogle, S.M., Moraes Sa, J.C., and Albrecht, A. 2002. Soil organic matter, biota and aggregation in temperate and tropical soils—effects of no-tillage. Agrconomie 22(7/8):755775.Google Scholar
110Kandeler, E., Palli, S., Stemmer, M., and Gerzabek, M.H. 1999. Tillage changes microbial biomass and enzyme activities in particle-size fractions of a Haplic Chernozem. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31(9):12531264.Google Scholar
111Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G.P., and Hamilton, S.K. 2007. Ecosystem services and agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics 64:245252.Google Scholar
112Feld, C.K., da Silva, P.M., Sousa, J.P., de Bello, F., Bugter, R., Grandin, U., Hering, D., Lavorel, S., Mountford, O., Pardo, I., Pärtel, M., Römbke, J., Sandin, L., Jones, K.B., and Harrison, P. 2009. Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: A synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales. Oikos 118:18621871.Google Scholar
113O'Farrell, P. and Anderson, P.M.L. 2010. Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: A review to implementation. Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability 2:5965.Google Scholar
114Nadrowski, K., Wirth, C., and Scherer-Lorenzen, M. 2010. Is forest diversity driving ecosystem function and service? Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability 2:7579.Google Scholar
115Paul, E.A. 2007. Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. 3rd ed. Academic Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.Google Scholar
116Robarts, R. and Wetzel, R. 2000. The global water and nitrogen cycles. Available at Web site http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchangeI/current/lectures/kling/water_nitro/water_and_nitrogen_cycles.htm (accessed January 22, 2013).Google Scholar
117Stevenson, F.J. 1986. Cycles of Soil: Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sulfure, and Micronutrients. J. Wiley & Sons, New York. p. 380.Google Scholar
118Falkowski, P., Scholes, R.J., Boyle, E., Canadell, J., Canfield, D., Elser, J., Gruber, N., Hibbard, K., Högberg, P., Linder, S., Mackenzie, F.T., Moore, B. 3rd, Pedersen, T., Rosenthal, Y., Seitzinger, S., Smetacek, V., and Steffen, W. 2000. The global carbon cycle: A test of our knowledge of earth as a system. Science 290:291296.Google Scholar
119Jansson, C., Wullschleger, S.D., Kalluri, U.C., and Tuskau, G.A. 2010. Photosequestration: Carbon biosequestration by plants and the prospects of genetic engineering. BioScience 60: 685696.Google Scholar
120Ogle, S.M., Swan, A., and Paustain, K. 2012. No-till management impacts on crop productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 149:3739.Google Scholar
121Bengtsson, L. 2010. The global atmospheric water cycle. Environmental Research Letters 5:19. (doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/025002).Google Scholar
122Harrold, L.L. and Edwards, W.M. 1972. A severe rainstorm test of no-till corn. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 27(1):184.Google Scholar
123Lal, R. 1976. Soil Erosion Problems on an Alfisol in Western Nigeria and their Control. Monograph No. 1. IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
124Wauchope, R.D., Estes, T.L., Allen, R., Baker, J.L., Horsnby, A.G., Jones, R.L., Richards, R.P., and Gustafson, D.L. 2002. Predicted transgenic herbicide-tolerant corn on drinking water quality in vulnerable watersheds of the Midwestern USA. Pest Management Science 58:146160.Google Scholar
125Mickelson, S.K., Boyd, P., Baker, J.L., and Ahmed, S.I. 2001. Tillage and herbicide incorporation effects on residue cover, runoff, erosion and herbicide loss. Soil and Tillage Research 60:5566.Google Scholar
126Shipitalo, M.J. and Owens, L.B. 2006. Tillage system, application rate, and extreme event effects on herbicide losses in surface runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:21862194.Google Scholar
127Shipitalo, M.J., Malone, R.W., and Owens, L.B. 2008. Impact of glyphosate-tolerant soybean and glyphosate-tolerant corn production on herbicide losses in surface runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 37:401408.Google Scholar
128Edwards, W.M., Shipitalo, M.J., and Norton, L.D. 1988. Contribution of macroporosity to infiltration into a continuous corn tilled watershed: Implications for contaminant movement. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 3:193205.Google Scholar
129Shipitalo, M.J., Dick, W.A., and Edwards, W.M. 2000. Conservation tillage and macropore factors that affect water movement and the fate of chemicals. Soil and Tillage Research 53:167183.Google Scholar
130Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., and Gordon, L.J. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12:13941404.Google Scholar
131West, P.C., Gibbs, H.K., Monfreda, C., Wagner, J., Barford, C.C., Carpenter, S.R., and Foley, J.A. 2010. Trading carbon for food: Global comparison of carbon stocks vs. crop yields on agricultural land. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(46):19451948.Google Scholar
132Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., and Swinton, S.M. 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics 64:253260.Google Scholar
133Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., and Cullen, R. 2010. Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy 13:17.Google Scholar
134Dale, V.H. and Polasky, S. 2007. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 64:286296.Google Scholar
135Porter, J., Costanza, R., Sandhu, H., Sigsgaard, L., and Wratten, S. 2009. The value of producing food, energy and ecosystem services within and agro-ecosystem. Ambio 38(4):186193.Google Scholar
136Stallman, H.R. 2011. Ecosystem services in agriculture: Determining suitability for provision by collective management. Ecological Economics 71:131139.Google Scholar
137Kroeger, T. and Casey, F. 2007. An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Ecological Economics 64:321332.Google Scholar
138Kumar, P. 2011. Capacity constraints in operationalisation of payment for ecosystem services (PES) in India: Evidence from land degradation. Land Degradation and Development 22:432443.Google Scholar
139Ferraro, P.J. 2011. The future of payments for environmental services. Conservation Biology 25(6):11341138.Google Scholar
140Lal, R. 2007. Constraints to adopting no-till farming in developing countries. Soil and Tillage Research 94:13.Google Scholar
141DeFelice, M.S., Carter, P.R., and Mitchell, S. 2006. Influence of tillage on corn and soybean yield in the United States and Canada. Crop Management doi:10.1094/CM-2006-0626-01-RS. Published online, June 26, 2006.Google Scholar
142Dhuyvetter, K.C., Thompson, C.R., and Halvorson, A.D. 1996. Economics of dryland cropping systems in the Great Plains: A review. Journal of Production Agriculture 9:212216.Google Scholar
143Ervin, C.A. and Ervin, D.E. 1982. Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: Hypothesis, evidence, and Policy implications. Land Economics 58:277–92.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Estimates of land area under conservation agriculture (adapted from Kassam et al.25 and Friedrich et al.26).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Types of ecosystem services.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Range of ecosystem services generated by conservation agriculture (CA).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Schematic of the coupled cycling of elements within the pedosphere. Fluxes of elements in the pedosphere with those in the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere are well known115. Data on carbon pools are from Lal91. Data on nitrogen pools are from Robarts and Wetzel116 and those of P and S are from Stevenson117.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Schematic of the coupled cycling of carbon and water. Data for C fluxes are from multiple sources91,95,118,119 and those for water are from Ogle et al.120 and Bengtsson121.

Figure 5

Table 2. No-till effects on soil erosion from cropland watersheds at Coshocton, Ohio116.

Figure 6

Table 3. Mulching effects on surface runoff and soil erosion from an Alfisol in western Nigeria from April to August 1973 (recalculated from Lal123).