Organic matter autonomy in vegetable farming Carbon cycle and GHG Climate resilience Soil cover Soil regeneration

1. Presentation

Characterization of the technique

Description of the technique:

No-till farming techniques (TCSL) involve no longer using tillage between harvest and sowing of the next crop. One can distinguish no-till techniques with deep work (loosening, subsoiling...) and without deep work. Direct seeding is covered in another sheet.

Implementation period

On established crop

Spatial scale of implementation

Plot

Application of the technique to...

All crops:

Sometimes difficult to generalize

The implementation of no-till farming techniques can be delicate for some crops, especially those sensitive to compaction.

All soil types:

Sometimes difficult to generalize

The implementation of no-till farming techniques can be facilitated in soils whose structural activity favors the restoration of porosity (clay soils).

All climatic contexts:

Easily generalizable

Regulation

2. Services provided by the technique

3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system

"Environmental" criteria

Effect on air quality:

Decreasing

GHG emissions: VARIABLE

particle emissions: INCREASE

Effect on water quality:

Variable

N.P.: NEUTRAL

pesticides: VARIABLE

turbidity: DECREASE

Effect on fossil resource consumption:

Decreasing

fossil energy consumption: DECREASE

Other:

No effect (neutral)

Air: Adoption of TCSL can lead to an increase in ammonia emissions, particularly for nitrogen solutions, because maintaining residues on the surface increases the contact surface with air. Adoption of TCSL helps limit greenhouse gas emissions related to fuel consumption. It also promotes carbon storage in the soil. Nitrous oxide emissions due to denitrification may be increased due to a longer anoxic state at the end of winter in no-till.

Water: Adoption of TCSL has little impact on nitrogen leaching and phosphorus runoff transfers. The impact on pesticide transfers is variable. TCSL promotes water infiltration: thus, it limits runoff transfers but can favor deep transfers by leaching during the drainage period. The increase in organic matter content promotes retention by the clay-humus complex and biodegradation by soil microorganisms.

Fossil energy: Adoption of TCSL involves substituting tillage with other less energy-consuming soil work operations. However, abandoning tillage may require multiple passes during intercrop periods to manage weeds in less diversified rotations. In this case, the reduction in fuel consumption may be limited or even null.

"Agronomic" criteria

Productivity:

Variable

Depending on the crops, the impact of no-till farming techniques on yield is variable. Abandoning tillage does not cause yield losses on winter cereals, for example, but losses can be recorded for crops sensitive to compaction.

Soil fertility:

No effect (neutral)

Lower soil porosity at the surface in the absence of tillage can lead to mineralization starting later in spring. This may lead to anticipating nitrogen inputs. However, long-term trials tend to show that in the long run, the mineralization difference between tillage and no-till does not justify modifying the total dose applied.

Water stress:

Decreasing

Adoption of practices of no-till farming leads to an increase in surface organic matter and promotes vertical soil porosity; thus, the useful water reserve is favored.

Functional biodiversity:

Increasing

Adoption of TCSL reduces pressure on soil life in general.

Other agronomic criteria:

Variable

Weed pressure : variable

Abandoning tillage no longer allows burying seeds deeply. Combined with cultural practices favoring their germination, it can lead to increased weed pressure when seed banks are large.

Pest pressure : variable

Abandoning tillage can lead to increased rodent pressure. The impact on slugs is variable (pressure sometimes lower in tillage than in no-till).

Disease pressure : variable

Absence of tillage can increase pressure from certain pathogens due to residue non-burial (take-all, fusariosis…). However, reducing the number of passes reduces the risk of inoculum transfer from one plot to another via tools.

"Economic" criteria

Operational costs:

Variable

Adoption of TCSL can lead to increased weed pressure in some cases and imply increased herbicide costs. Maintaining residues on the surface can also favor some pests and diseases (slugs, fusariosis...). Seeding density may also need to be increased to compensate for emergence losses.

Mechanization costs:

Variable

Adoption of no-till farming practices generally reduces mechanization costs by eliminating tillage, an energy-consuming operation. But this reduction can be small or even null if tillage abandonment must be compensated by multiple intercrop passes to control weed pressure. Moreover, TCSL may require acquiring adapted equipment.

Margin:

Variable

The impact of adopting no-till farming practices on margin is variable, depending on the balance between the more or less significant reduction in mechanization costs on one side, and on the other side the increase in operational costs that may result from increased weed and pest pressure, as well as yield decreases recorded on some crops.

Other economic criteria:

Decreasing

Fuel consumption: Decrease

Adoption of TCSL involves substituting tillage with other less energy-consuming soil work operations, resulting in a 15 to 30% reduction in fuel consumption. However, abandoning tillage may require multiple intercrop passes to manage weeds in less diversified rotations. In this case, the reduction in fuel consumption may be limited or even null.

"Social" criteria

Working time:

Decreasing

Adoption of no-till farming practices generally has a neutral impact on overall workload; the reduction in soil work time is offset by more observations. However, better distribution of working time is often highlighted.

Peak period:

Decreasing

Observation time:

Increasing

4. Favored or disadvantaged organisms

Favored bioagressors

Disadvantaged bioagressors

Favored auxiliaries

Disadvantaged auxiliaries

Favored climatic and physiological accidents

Disadvantaged climatic and physiological accidents

5. For further information

In the wake of no-till
-Agreste Agreste primeur, n°207,, Press article, 2008 link to article
Evaluation of environmental impacts of No-Till Farming Techniques (TCSL) in France
-Labreuche J., Le Souder C., Castillon P., Real B. (Arvalis), Ouvry J.F. (AREAS), Germon J.C. (INRA), De Tourdonnet S. (AgroParisTech) Professional report, 2007 study report
Environmental impacts of TCSL: positive effects on air quality and greenhouse effect
-Germon J.C. (INRA), Nicolardot B. (AgroSupDijon), Métay A. (SupAgroMontpelier), Labreuche J. (arvalis) Perspectives agricoles n°347, p40-45, Press article, 2008 link to article
Environmental impacts of TCSL: integrating TCSL into sustainable production systems, a challenge for agronomists
-Stengel P. (INRA) Perspectives agricoles n°352, p38-44, Press article, 2009 link to article
Environmental impacts of no-till farming techniques: no-till techniques concern one-third of French surfaces
-Labreuche J. (Arvalis) Perspectives agricoles n°342, p38-43, Press article, 2008 paid article
Environmental impacts of no-till techniques: TSL modify soil quality and biodiversity
-De Tourdonnet S. (AgroParisTech) Perspectives agricoles n°344, p36-41, Press article, 2008 link to article
No-till in arable farming and livestock: environmental and economic evaluations.
-Le Garrec L., Revel A. (INRA) Ingénieries n°38, p21-35, Press article, 2004 link to article
Getting started without failing in no-till
-Ouvrard N. Réussir arable farming n°241, p46, Press article, 2010 article
Storing carbon in French agricultural soils
-Arrouays D., Balesdent J., Germon J.C., Joyet P.A., Soussana J.F., Stengel P. (INRA) Professional report, 2002 study report
TCSL in environment: no-till farming reduces erosion within plots
-Ouvry J.F. (AREAS), Lebissonnais Y. (INRA) Perspectives agricoles n°345, p62-68, Press article, 2008 link to article
Nitrogen transfer and mineralization: little effect of soil work
-Le Souder C. (arvalis) Perspectives agricoles n°348, p20-22, Press article, 2008
Phosphorus transfer: no-till finds its limits
-Castillon P. (Arvalis) Perspectives agricoles n°348, p24-25, Press article, 2008
Pesticide transfers: solutions for each major soil type
-Réal B. (Arvalis) Perspectives agricoles n°348, p20-22, Press article, 2008 article

6. Keywords

Bioagressor control method:

Mode of action:

Type of strategy regarding pesticide use:

Annexes

Est complémentaire des leviers

Favorise les bioagresseurs suivants

Favorise les auxiliaires

Practicing No-Till Farming Techniques (NTFT)

1. Presentation

Characterization of the technique

Description of the technique:

Implementation period

Spatial scale of implementation

Application of the technique to...

All crops:

All soil types:

All climatic contexts:

Regulation

2. Services provided by the technique

3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system

"Environmental" criteria

Effect on air quality:

Effect on water quality:

Effect on fossil resource consumption:

Other:

"Agronomic" criteria

Productivity:

Soil fertility:

Water stress:

Functional biodiversity:

Other agronomic criteria:

"Economic" criteria

Operational costs:

Mechanization costs:

Margin:

Other economic criteria:

"Social" criteria

Working time:

Peak period:

Observation time:

4. Favored or disadvantaged organisms

Favored bioagressors

Disadvantaged bioagressors

Favored auxiliaries

Disadvantaged auxiliaries

Favored climatic and physiological accidents

Disadvantaged climatic and physiological accidents

5. For further information

6. Keywords

Bioagressor control method:

Mode of action:

Type of strategy regarding pesticide use:

Annexes

Est complémentaire des leviers

Favorise les bioagresseurs suivants

Favorise les auxiliaires