Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatio-temporal analysis of crop rotations and crop sequence patterns in Northern Germany: potential implications on plant health and crop protection

  • Published:
Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Crop sequence patterns are considered as those schemes farmers apply within a single field to succeed crops over time, regardless of whether the same crop is grown continuously or a diverse rotation is used. This study aimed at identifying these patterns for a large and representative area in Northern Germany during a six-year period from 2005 to 2010. The analysis was carried out for the entire federal state of Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) which has 1.8 million hectares of arable area.

Field data was obtained by the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), which was developed for the administration of the European agricultural direct payments. So far, German IACS has not been exploited in the light of agronomical practice. In total, the available data comprised about 990 000 records for each year, each representing a single field out of the study region. Throughout the analysis, different agronomic and temporal scopes resulted in a different number of fields being accessible for evaluation. Ten major arable crops and crop groups were considered for the study; 184 701 fields representing 645 870 ha of arable area could be analyzed to identify crop sequence patterns over the six years. Thus, 16 836 combinations of the 10 major crops occurring in time and space could be described. Thereof, 12 crop sequence patterns were found covering 55.6% of arable area. For 2010, 619 447 fields representing 1 730 564 ha of arable area, were analyzed with regard to their respective crops and pre-crops. Maize, winter wheat, sugar beet, oilseed rape and potatoes were studied with special emphasis. On average, 46.9% of maize area were cropped following maize as a pre-crop. For winter wheat, self-sequences were identified on 30.0% of arable area. Oilseed rape and sugar beet are generally grown in typical rotations. However, 24.6% of arable crop area were considered as having a pre-crop which might be disadvantageous for crop health.

Due to a rapid increase of maize area in the region, crop sequence patterns are undergoing a dramatic shift. It is concluded that a large proportion of arable area is potentially threatened by risks of pest and disease outbreaks as well as by economical over-reliance in a few cash crops. We demonstrate, that administrative data could offer many insights in agronomical trends and practices and should, therefore, be analyzed in more detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altieri MA, 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74, 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett AJ, Bending GD, Chandler D, Hilton S & Mills P, 2012. Meeting the demand for crop production: the challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations. Biol Rev 87, 52–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chauvel B, Guillemin JP, Colbach N & Gasquez J, 2001. Evaluation of cropping systems for management of herbicide-resistant populations of blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.). Crop Prot 20, 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey KL, Gossen BD, Lafond GP, Watson PR & Derksen DA, 2002. Effect of tillage and crop rotation on root and foliar diseases or wheat and pea in Saskatchewan from 1991 to 1998: univariate and multivariate analyses. Can J Plant Sci 81, 789–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardina J, Herms CP & Doohan DJ, 2002. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci 50, 448–460.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Castellazzi MS, Perry JN, Colbach N, Monod H, Adamczyk K & Viaud V, 2007. New measures and tests of temporal and spatial pattern of crops in agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118, 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellazzi MS, Wood GA, Burgess PJ, Morris J, Conrad KF & Perry JN, 2008. A systematic representation of crop rotations. Agr Syst 97, 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clavel L, Soudias J, Baudet D & Leenhardt D, 2011. Integrating expert knowledge and quantitative information for mapping cropping systems. Land Use Pol 28, 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delogu G, Faccini N, Alberici R, Gianinetti A & Stanca AM, 2003. Soil-borne viruses of barley seriously affect plant growth and grain yield in a monocropping system. Cereal Res Com 31, 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • DESTATIS (German federal authority for statistics), 2010. Data on agricultural land use. http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/(current supply of data).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobosz R & Kornobis S, 2008. Population dynamics of sugar beet cyst nematode (Heterodera schachtii) on spring and winter oilseed rape crops. J Plant Prot Res 48, 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dury J, Schaller N, Garcia F, Reynaud A & Bergez JE, 2012. Models to support cropping plan and crop rotation decisions. A review. Agronomy Sust Developm 32, 567–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DWD (German Weather Agency), 2009. Facts and Figures on German Climate. Internal communication, pdf-document.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU (European Commission), 2003. Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers. Official Journal of the European Union L 270/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU (European Commission), 2009. Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. Official Journal of the European Union L 309/71.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU (European Commission), 2011. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy. COM (2011) 625 final/2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser EDG, 2006. Crop diversification and trade liberalisation: Linking global trade and local management through a regional case study. Agric Hum Val 23, 271–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Führer Ithurrart ME, Büttner G & Petersen J, 2004. Rhizoctonia root rot in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ssp. altissima) — Epidemiological aspects in relation to maize (Zea mays) as a host plant. J Plant Dis Prot 111, 302–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froud-Williams RJ, 1988. Changes in weed flora with different tillage and agronomic management systems. In Altieri MA & Liebman M (ed.). Weed management in agroecosystems. Ecological approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 213–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glemnitz M, Wurbs A & Roth R, 2011. Derivation of regional crop sequences as an indicator for potential GMO dispersal on large spatial scales. Ecol Ind 11, 964–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray ME, Sappington TW, Miller NJ, Moeser J & Bohn MO, 2009. Adaptation and invasiveness of Western Corn Root- worm: Intensifying research on a worsening pest. Annu Rev Entomol 54, 303–321.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson A, Goud JK & Dixelius C, 2006. Plant host range of Verticillium longisporum and microsclerotia density in Swedish soils. Eur J Plant Pathol 114, 139–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog F, Steiner B, Bailey D, Baudry J, Billeter R, Bukácèk R, de Blust G, de Cock R, Dirksen J, Dormann CF, de Filippi R, Frossard E, Liira J, Schmidt T, Stöckli R, Thenail C, van Wingerden W & Bugter R, 2006. Assessing the intensity of temperate European agriculture with respect to impacts on landscape and biodiversity. Eur J Agron 24, 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapsa JS, 2008. Important Threats in Potato Production and Integrated Pathogen/Pest Management. Pot Res 51, 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkegaard J, Christen O, Krupinsky J & Lyzell D, 2008. Break crop benefits in temperate wheat production. Field Crop Res 107, 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkegaard JA, Gardner PA, Angus JF & Koetz E, 1994. Effect of Brassica break crops on the growth and yield of wheat. Aust J Agric Res 45, 529–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluth C & Varrelmann M, 2010. Maize genotype susceptibility to Rhizoctonia solani and its effect on sugar beet crop rotations. Crop Prot 29, 230–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koennecke G, 1967. Fruchtfolgen. VEB Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupinsky JM, Tanaka DL, Merrill SD, Liebig MA & Hanson JD, 2006. Crop sequence effects of 10 crops in the northern Great Plains. Agr Syst 88, 227–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leteinturier B, Herman JL, de Longueville F, Quintin L & Oger R, 2006. Adaptation of a crop sequence indicator based on a land parcel management system. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112, 324–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebman M & Dyck E, 1993. Crop rotations and intercropping for wheat management. Ecol Appl 3, 98–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longueville F de, Tychon B, Leteinturier B & Ozer P, 2007. An approach to optimise the establishment of grassy headlands in the Belgian Walloon region: A tool for agri-envi- ronmental schemes. Land Use Pol 24, 443–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LSKN (Landesbetrieb für Statistik und Kommunikations-technologie in Niedersachsen), 2007–2012. Different statistical data obtained by online access and data-files sent on request. http://www.lskn.niedersachsen.de/live/live.php?&article_id=87564&navigation_id=25698&_psmand=40 (current access).

    Google Scholar 

  • Märländer B, Hoffmann C, Koch HJ, Ladewig E, Merkes R, Petersen J & Stockfisch N, 2003. Environmental situation and yield performance of the sugar beet crop in Germany: Heading for sustainable development. J Agron Crop Sci 189, 201–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden T, 1998. Agriculture beyond the treadmill? Issues for policy, theory and research practice. Prog Hum Geog 22, 265–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin A & Mineau P, 1995. The impact of agricultural practice on biodiversity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 55, 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mignolet C, Schott C & Benoit M, 2007. Spatial dynamics of farming practices in the Seine basin: methods for agronomic approaches on a regional scale. Sci Tot Environ 375, 13–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meissle M, Mouron P, Musa T, Bigler F, Pons X, Vasileiadis VP, Otto S, Antichi D, Kiss J, Palinkas Z, Dorner Z, van der Weide R, Groten J, Czembor E, Adamczyk J, Thibord JB, Melander B, Cordsen Nielsen G, Poulsen RT, Zimmermann O, Verschwele A & Oldenburg E, 2010. Pests, pesticide use and alternative options in European maize production: current status and future prospects. J Appl Entomol 134, 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nitsch H, Osterburg B, Roggendorf W & Laggner B, 2012. Cross compliance and the protection of grassland — Illustrative analyses of land use transitions between permanent grassland and arable land in German regions. Land Use Pol 29, 440–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NMELVL (Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft, Verbraucherschutz und ländliche Entwicklung), 2010. Die Landwirtschaft in Zahlen. Online publication. http://www.ml.niedersachsen.de/live/live.php?&article_id=4974&navigation_id=1343&_psmand=7 (access on 21.03.2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldenburg E, Brunotte J & Weinert J, 2007. Strategies to reduce DON contamination of wheat with different soil tillage and variety systems. Mycotoxin Res 23, 73–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker WE & Howard JJ, 2001. The biology and management of wireworms (Agriotes spp.) on potato with particular reference to the U.K. Agric For Entomol 3, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabbinge R & Van Diepen CA, 2000. Changes in agriculture and land use in Europe. Eur J Agron 13, 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rounsevell MDA, Ewert F, Reginster I, Leemans R & Carter TR, 2005. Future scenarios of European agricultural land use. II. Projecting changes in cropland and grassland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 107, 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rush CM & Winter SR, 1990. Influence of previous crops on Rhizoctonia root and crown rot of sugar beets. Plant Dis 74, 42–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmit C & Rounsevell MDA, 2006. Are agricultural land use patterns influenced by farmer imitation? Agric Ecosyst Environ 115, 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholte K, 1992. Effect of crop rotation on the incidence of soil-borne fungal diseases of potato. Europ J Plant Pathol 89, 93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönhart M, Schmidt E & Schneider UA, 2011. CropRota — A crop rotation model to support integrated land use assessments. Europ J Agron 34, 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soon YK & Clayton GW, 2002. Eight years of crop rotation and tillage effects on crop production and N fertilizer use. Can J Soil Sci 82, 165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanger TF, Lauer JG & Chavas JP, 2008. The profitability and risk of long-term cropping systems featuring different rotations and nitrogen rates. Agron J 100, 105–113.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thenail C, Joannon A, Capitaine M, Souchere V, Mignolet C, Schermann N, Di Pietro F, Pons Y, Gaucherel C, Viaud V & Baudry J, 2009. The contribution of crop-rotation organization in farms to crop-mosaic patterning at local landscape scales Agric Ecosyst Environ 131, 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twengström E, Sigvald R, Svensson C & Yuen J, 1998. Forecasting sclerotinia stem rot in spring sown oilseed rape. Crop Prot 17, 405–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villich V, 1993. Crop rotation with pure stands and mixtures of barley and wheat to control stem and root rot diseases. Crop Prot 12, 373–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zentner RP, Wall DD, Nagy CN, Smith EG, Young DL, Miller PR, Campbell CA, McConkey BG, Brandt SA, Lafond GP, Johnston AM & Derksen DA, 2002. Economics of crop diversification and soil tillage opportunities in the Canadian prairies. Agron J 94, 216–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Centre for Biodiversity and sustainable Land Use, Grisebachstrasse 6, D-37077, Göttingen, Germany

    Horst-Henning Steinmann

  2. ag-geodata, Nikolausberger Weg 63, D-37073, Göttingen, Germany

    Eike Stefan Dobers

Authors
  1. Horst-Henning Steinmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eike Stefan Dobers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Horst-Henning Steinmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steinmann, HH., Dobers, E.S. Spatio-temporal analysis of crop rotations and crop sequence patterns in Northern Germany: potential implications on plant health and crop protection. J Plant Dis Prot 120, 85–94 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03356458

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03356458

Key words

Search

Navigation