Abstract In certified organic cropping systems, the supply of nitrogen (N) to crops is limited by restrictions on fertiliser inputs, although green manure crops can be used to improve N retention and supply. This study involved a comparison between three green manure crops (oats (Avena sativa), lupins (Lupinus angustifolius), and oats-lupins mix) and a fallow for their ability to conserve N over winter and influence N availability to a subsequent crop. Intact soil monolith lysimeters (19 cm diameter x 30 cm deep) were taken from an established organic farm and the experiment included four replicates of the three green manure crops and a fallow treatment. Nitrate-N leaching losses from the various treatments were measured over a 150-day period (March-October). The green manure crops reduced the amount of N that was leached over winter. Cumulative N leaching losses were similar from the three green manure treatments (4.1-4.9 kg N ha–1), and these were significantly lower than N loss from the fallow treatment (8.4 kg N ha–1). Amounts of N taken up by the green manure crops were 100, 162, and 126 kg N ha–1 for the oats, lupins, and oats-lupins, respectively. Annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) was sown 3 weeks after green manure incorporation to assess their impact on N availability. Dry matter yield and N uptake by ryegrass were significantly greater for the green manure-amended soil (454-689 kg DM ha–1, 17-22 kg N ha–1) than for the fallow treatment (297 kg DM ha–1, 9.4 kg N ha–1). The findings of this study demonstrated that inclusion of a green manure is an effective means of reducing N leaching loss over winter and improving N supply in organic cropping systems.
Keywords Lupinus angustifolius; Avena sativa; green manure; nitrogen leaching; lysimeters; Lolium multiflorum; organic cropping systems
A03029; Received 21 May 2003; accepted 23 October 2003; online publication
date 26 February 2004
New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 2004, Vol. 47: 95-100
0028-8233/04/4701-0095 © The Royal Society of New Zealand 2004
PDF file of entire paper: Print-quality (85K) | screen-quality (74K)