IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i17p13060-d1228752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citrus Orchards in Agroforestry, Organic, and Conventional Systems: Soil Quality and Functioning

Author

Listed:
  • Lucas Contarato Pilon

    (Rural Sciences Center, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-900, RS, Brazil)

  • Jordano Vaz Ambus

    (Rural Sciences Center, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-900, RS, Brazil)

  • Elena Blume

    (Rural Sciences Center, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-900, RS, Brazil)

  • Rodrigo Josemar Seminoti Jacques

    (Rural Sciences Center, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-900, RS, Brazil)

  • José Miguel Reichert

    (Rural Sciences Center, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-900, RS, Brazil)

Abstract

Citrus crop management has evolved to improve the quality of orchards and production, encompassing agroforestry and agroecological management practices. We sought to analyze different management systems in different seasons of the year, evaluating the quality of the soil physical, chemicals and biological properties, and the herbaceous vegetation occurring in citrus orchards. Five sites were studied: citrus in agroforestry and biodynamic systems (Cs), citrus in biodynamic systems (Co), citrus in conventional systems (Cc), and two forest sites, one with 40 (F40) and another with 200 years of regeneration (F200). Soil properties were evaluated in three layers (0–5, 5–20, and 20–40 cm) in four seasons, while the herbaceous survey was carried out in two of these seasons. The results showed that the Co and Cs orchards had better indicators in terms of chemical (pH, phosphorus, cation exchange capacity, and soil organic carbon (SOC)), physical (soil density, total porosity, and macro- and microporosity), and biological properties (global enzymatic activity) than the Cc management. The agroforestry management was even superior in soil quality, with improved pH levels, microporosity, and feeding behavior of the soil fauna. The most evident temporal variations were for pH, SOC, global enzymatic activity, and feeding activity of the soil fauna. The Cs and Co orchards showed greater richness and abundance of herbaceous species. Organic management favors a timely coverage of multiple benefits, with the presence of the Commoliaceae and Fabaceae families, and offering an ecological effect and green manure of high ecosystem value. In conclusion, agroforestry and biodynamic management systems are the best options to maintain soil quality and functioning for citrus production.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucas Contarato Pilon & Jordano Vaz Ambus & Elena Blume & Rodrigo Josemar Seminoti Jacques & José Miguel Reichert, 2023. "Citrus Orchards in Agroforestry, Organic, and Conventional Systems: Soil Quality and Functioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-28, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:17:p:13060-:d:1228752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13060/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13060/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean Pierre Cavalli & Elias Frank de Araújo & José Miguel Reichert, 2022. "Eucalyptus Growth Responses to Soil Water Storage Capacity in Arenosols and Acrisols Soils: Wood and Biomass Stock Modelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Sadowski, Arkadiusz & Baer-Nawrocka, Agnieszka, 2018. "Food and environmental function in world agriculture—Interdependence or competition?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 578-583.
    3. Jan Douwe Van der Ploeg & Marjolein Visser, 2019. "The economic potential of agroecology: Empirical evidence from Europe," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/289295, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Maia, Alexandre Gori & Miyamoto, Bruno César Brito & Garcia, Junior Ruiz, 2018. "Climate Change and Agriculture: Do Environmental Preservation and Ecosystem Services Matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 27-39.
    5. Mihkel Are & Tanel Kaart & Are Selge & Endla Reintam, 2021. "The Effects of Crops Together with Winter Cover Crops on the Content of Soil Water-Stable Aggregates in Organic Farming," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, October.
    6. L. E. Drinkwater & P. Wagoner & M. Sarrantonio, 1998. "Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses," Nature, Nature, vol. 396(6708), pages 262-265, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Karuppanan Ramasamy Ramesh & Harshavardhan Krishnarao Deshmukh & Karthikeyan Sivakumar & Vipan Guleria & Rathod Digvijaysinh Umedsinh & Nathakrishnan Krishnakumar & Alagesan Thangamalar & Kathirvel Su, 2023. "Influence of Eucalyptus Agroforestry on Crop Yields, Soil Properties, and System Economics in Southern Regions of India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Laure Latruffe & Gerald Schwarz, 2022. "Insights on Transitions to Agroecological Farming from across Europe," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(3), pages 3-4, December.
    4. Muller, Adrian, 2006. "Sustainable Agriculture and the Production of Biomass for Energy Use," Working Papers in Economics 216, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised 01 Aug 2008.
    5. Mousumi Ghosh & Waqar Ashiq & Hiteshkumar Bhogilal Vasava & Duminda N. Vidana Gamage & Prasanta K. Patra & Asim Biswas, 2021. "Short-Term Carbon Sequestration and Changes of Soil Organic Carbon Pools in Rice under Integrated Nutrient Management in India," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    6. Gori Maia, Alexandre & Eusebio, Gabriela dos Santos & Fasiaben, Maria do Carmo Ramos & Moraes, Andre Steffens & Assad, Eduardo Delgado & Pugliero, Vanessa Silva, 2021. "The economic impacts of the diffusion of agroforestry in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Xiaolin Yang & Jinran Xiong & Taisheng Du & Xiaotang Ju & Yantai Gan & Sien Li & Longlong Xia & Yanjun Shen & Steven Pacenka & Tammo S. Steenhuis & Kadambot H. M. Siddique & Shaozhong Kang & Klaus But, 2024. "Diversifying crop rotation increases food production, reduces net greenhouse gas emissions and improves soil health," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Alan Matthews, 2022. "Prospects for Agroecology in Europe," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(3), pages 80-83, December.
    9. Jouan, Julia & Heinrichs, Julia & Britz, Wolfgang & Pahmeyer, Christoph, 2019. "Legume production challenged by European policy coherence: a case-study approach from French and German dairy farms," 172nd EAAE Seminar, May 28-29, 2019, Brussels, Belgium 289765, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Ramazan Çakmakçı & Mehmet Ali Salık & Songül Çakmakçı, 2023. "Assessment and Principles of Environmentally Sustainable Food and Agriculture Systems," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, May.
    11. Koffi M. Adji & Aklesso Y. G. Egbendewe & Boris O. K. Lokonon, 2022. "Potential impacts of sustainable agricultural practices on smallholders' behavior in developing countries: Evidence from Togo," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(1), pages 73-87, February.
    12. Alessia Di Giuseppe & Alberto Maria Gambelli & Federico Rossi & Andrea Nicolini & Nicola Ceccarelli & Alberto Palliotti, 2020. "Insulating Organic Material as a Protection System against Late Frost Damages on the Vine Shoots," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-20, August.
    13. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2020. "Accounting for diverse risk attitudes in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    14. Sanna Lötjönen & Markku Ollikainen, 2017. "Does crop rotation with legumes provide an efficient means to reduce nutrient loads and GHG emissions?," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(4), pages 283-312, December.
    15. Argiles, Josep M. & Brown, Nestor Duch, 2011. "A comparison of the economic and environmental performances of conventional and organic farming: evidence from financial statements," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Aravindakshan, Sreejith & Sherief, Aliyaru Kunju, 2010. "The wanted change against climate change: assessing the role of organic farming as an adaptation strategy," MPRA Paper 27205, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Susanne Wiesner & Alison J. Duff & Ankur R. Desai & Kevin Panke-Buisse, 2020. "Increasing Dairy Sustainability with Integrated Crop–Livestock Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, January.
    18. Schnebelin, Éléonore, 2022. "Linking the diversity of ecologisation models to farmers' digital use profiles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    19. Miguel Angel Orduño Torres & Zein Kallas & Selene Ivette Ornelas Herrera & Bouali Guesmi, 2019. "Is Technical Efficiency Affected by Farmers’ Preference for Mitigation and Adaptation Actions against Climate Change? A Case Study in Northwest Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, June.
    20. De La Cruz S., Marco & Dessein, Joost, 2021. "Beyond institutional bricolage: An ‘intertwining approach’ to understanding the transition towards agroecology in Peru," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:17:p:13060-:d:1228752. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.