Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, Denmark

Simulating crop growth and soil N effects

of contrasting cover crop types
in organic spring cereal cropping systems


Svenja Doreen Roncossek


Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science following the graduate programme in Agro-Environmental Management

Supervisor:

Christen Duus Brgesen

Senior scientist at Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University

Co-supervisor:

Jrgen Eivind Olesen

Professor at Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University

July 2013

Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, Denmark

Title:
Simulating crop growth and soil N effects of contrasting cover
crop types in organic spring cereal cropping systems
Project period:
1. February 2013 to 1. July 2013
Credits:
30 ECTS
Presented by:
Svenja Doreen Roncossek
Supervisors:
Christen Duus Brgesen
Jrgen Eivind Olesen
Pages:
93
Appendices:
13

List of contents


Listofcontents..........................................................................................................................................I
Listoffigures...........................................................................................................................................III
Listoftables............................................................................................................................................VI
Listofabbreviationsandsymbols...........................................................................................................IX
Preface....................................................................................................................................................XI
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................XII
Resume(abstractinDanish)..................................................................................................................XIII
1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
2 Literaturereview...............................................................................................................................4
2.1
Comparablestudiesinthefieldofresearch......................................................................................4
2.2
Nitrogendynamicsonafieldandlandscapescale............................................................................4
2.2.1
Fateofnitrogenasinfluencedbyphysicalandchemicalprocesses..........................................5
2.2.2
Soilcharacteristicsandmainhydrologicalprocessesinvolvedinnitrogentransport...............7
2.3
Carbondynamicsonafieldandlandscapescale..............................................................................8
2.4
Growthofcovercropsinorganiccroppingsystems.........................................................................8
2.4.1
Establishmentandgrowth.........................................................................................................9
2.4.2
SymbioticN2fixation,soilNuptake,andpreemptivecompetition........................................11
2.5
SimulationofthemainnitrogenandcarbonprocesseswithDaisy................................................11
2.5.1
Generaldescriptionofthemodellingapproach......................................................................11
2.5.2
GeneraldescriptionoftheagroecosystemmodelDaisy........................................................12
2.5.3
Cropgrowth,interspecificcompetitionandcropresponsetonitrogenandwaterstress......13
2.5.4
Nitrogenandcarbon(soilorganicmatter)turnoverandtransportofnitrogen.....................15
3 Methodology...................................................................................................................................18
3.1
Experimentalsitesandmanagement..............................................................................................20
3.2
Modelcalibration............................................................................................................................ 23
3.2.1
Analysisandevaluation...........................................................................................................23
3.2.2
Calibrationofhydraulicproperties..........................................................................................26
3.2.3
Initializationoforganicmatterpools......................................................................................28
3.2.4
Calibrationofcropproperties..................................................................................................29
3.3
Modelsetupforcalibrationandscenariosimulations...................................................................31
3.3.1
Soilcolumn,soilorganicmatterpools,hydraulicproperties,andclimatedata.....................31
3.3.2
Cropgrowthandaddedorganicmatterpools........................................................................33
3.3.3
Management........................................................................................................................... 33
3.4
Simulationscenarios........................................................................................................................ 34
4 Results.............................................................................................................................................36
4.1
Calibrationofsoilwaterandcropsubmodels...............................................................................36
4.1.1
Soilwatercontent....................................................................................................................36
4.1.2
Sensitivityanalysisofcalibratingsoilorganicmatterfractions..............................................42
4.1.3
Simulatedbiomassgrowthandcropyields.............................................................................44
4.1.3.1 Comparisonofdifferentcalibrationsofthegrassclovercropmodules..................................49
4.1.3.2 CompensationforthesimulationofatoolowspringbarleyNuptakebyartificialgreen
manurefertilization.................................................................................................................50
4.1.4
Soilnitrogen............................................................................................................................. 53
4.2
Simulationscenarios........................................................................................................................ 56

I

4.2.1
Yields............................................................................................................................... .........56
4.2.2
Investigationofgrassclovercropbiomassproduction...........................................................60
4.2.3
Nitrogenleaching....................................................................................................................63
4.2.4
Residualnitrogenandnitrogenbalances................................................................................64
4.3
Organicmattertrendsandpartitioning..........................................................................................70
4.4
Validation............................................................................................................................... ..........73
5 Discussion.......................................................................................................................................76
5.1
Modelcalibration............................................................................................................................ 76
5.1.1
Simulatingcropgrowth...........................................................................................................77
5.1.2
Simulatingorganicmatterdecomposition..............................................................................79
5.2
Trendsofnitrogenandcarbondynamicsinorganiccroprotationsrelyingoncovercropnitrogen
inputs............................................................................................................................ 84
5.2.1
Residualnitrogenandspringbarleyyields..............................................................................85
5.2.2
Organicmatterdynamicsoncoarsesand...............................................................................86
5.2.3
Nitrogenleaching....................................................................................................................86
5.3
Generalchallengesinmodelingof(organic)croprotationswithDaisy.........................................87
5.4
ApplicabilityandefficiencyoftheDaisymodel..............................................................................88
6 Perspectives....................................................................................................................................90
7 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................92
Bibliography............................................................................................................................................94
Appendices...........................................................................................................................................102
A. Definitionofthesoilcolumn.....................................................................................................103
B. Examplesformanagementfiles................................................................................................103
C. Definitionofmanagementactions............................................................................................105
D. Calibrationofcropparametersspringbarley...........................................................................106
E.

Calibrationofcropparametersgrassclover.............................................................................106

F.

Calibrationofcropparametersclover.......................................................................................107

G. Calibrationofcropparametersryegrass...................................................................................107
H. Completecropcalibrations(calibrationCS)..............................................................................107
I.

Residueimitates(covercrops)..................................................................................................108

J.

GrassclovercalibrationSrenGreveOlesen(Gjettermannetal.,2008).................................109

K.


GrassclovercalibrationJensChristianSkovJensen&RikkeJensen(JensenandJensen,2005)
..111

L.

Allcalibrationforthecalibrationscenario(CO)bestfitofsimulatedandmeasuredyields..113

M.Alldefaultcalibrationofthecalibratedcropmodules..............................................................116


II

List of figures
Figure1.Overviewofthenitrogendynamics,e.g.asrepresentedintheDaisymodel(Hansenetal.,2012). 6
Figure2.StructureofthesoilorganicmattersubmodelwithAOMasaddedorganicmatter,SMBassoil
microbialbiomass,SOMasnativesoilorganicmatter,andaspartitioningcoefficient(Hansenet
al.,2012)................................................................................................................................ ...........16
Figure3.Overviewofthedifferentstepsconductedinthestudy..................................................................19
Figure4.Managementofexperimentalsitesforrotation1(R1)androtation2(R2)....................................20
Figure5.Summaryofexperimentalresults.Thefigureshowstheobservedspringbarleygraindrymatter
(a)(rotation1:15/08/01and29/07/02androtation2:31/07/02and29/07/03)andgrainN(b)
yieldsaswellobservedsoilmineralNin100cmdepth(c)andsoilNO3Nconcentrationsin80cm
depthinrotation1(d)androtation2(e).Deviationsareshownasstandarderrors.....................22
Figure6.Dailyairtemperatureandglobalradiation(above)aswellascorrectedmeasuredmonthly
precipitation,simulateddailypotentialevapotranspirationusingDaisy(below)forthe
experimentalandcalibrationperiod(20002003)...........................................................................33
Figure7.Soilwaterretentioncurvefordifferentdepths...............................................................................37
Figure8.Soilhydraulicconductivitycurvesfordifferentdepthsandlparameters.......................................37
Figure9.Simulatedsoilwatercontentintheuppersoillayersforthehydraulicsetupwithstandardl
values(LO)andwithmodifiedlvalues(LM)...................................................................................39
Figure10.Deviationofsimulatedsoilwatercontentfromobservedsoilwatercontentforthehydraulicset
upwithstandardlvalues(LO)andwithmodifiedlvalues(LM).Observedsoilwatercontentwas
normalizedtozero........................................................................................................................... 41
Figure11.ComparisonofdifferentSOMpoolinitializationswithtotalobservedNleaching.SOMcalibrated
showstheeffectofSOMpoolinitializationonNleachingbasedoncalibrationwithobservedN
leaching.SOMwarmingperiodshowsNleachingwhenthefractionationbetweentheSOMpools
wasderivedfromthewarmingperiod............................................................................................43
Figure12.ComparisonofNleachingdynamics.SimulatedNleaching(calibratedSOMpools)iscompared
withobservedNleaching.................................................................................................................44
Figure13.ComparisonofdifferentcalibrationsetupswithobservedspringbarleygrainDMyields.Spring
barleygrainDMyieldsin2002(rotation1)and2003(rotation2)..................................................46

III

Figure14.Observedvs.simulatedspringbarleyDM(left)andN(right)yieldsusingtheCScalibrationsetup.
............................................................................................................................... ........................47
Figure15.Observedvs.simulatedcovercropshootDM(left)andN(right)yields.......................................48
Figure16.EffectsofadditionalresidueapplicationsonspringbarleyNuptake.Residueimitatesareapplied
ascompensationfordeficitsinsimulatedmineralizationofOM.AsnofieldobservationforN
uptakeweremadeintherespectiveyear,thesimulatedNuptakeinthemodeliscomparedwith
theexpectedNuptakefittedtoDMyieldsusinggreenmanure(residueimitates).....................52
Figure17.Nitrogenmineralizationaftercovercropincorporationinrotation2.Theupperfigureshowsthe
dailychangeinsoilNintheorganicmatterpools(AOM+SOM)overtime.Thelowerfigureshows
theaccumulatedNreleaseovertime...........................................................................................53
Figure18.SimulatedandobservedsoilNitrateNconcentrationsat80cmdepth.Calibrationsetup:CS...54
Figure19.SimulatedversusobservedtotalNleaching..................................................................................55
Figure20.SimulatedversusobservedsoilmineralNin0100cmdepth.......................................................56
Figure21.CovercroptreatmenteffectsonspringbarleyDMyields.AveragesimulatedspringbarleyDM
grainyieldsshowingonlythe3rdyear(rotation1)andthe4thyear(rotation2)oftherotations.
Averagesaretakenover30years(19782008).Observedyieldsfromthefieldexperimentare
shownforreferencereasons.........................................................................................................57
Figure22.CovercroptreatmenteffectsonspringbarleyDMyieldsusingfittedspringbarleyyieldsby
restrictioninNuptake(calibrationVB_n).AveragesimulatedspringbarleyDMgrainyieldsover
30years(19782008)incomparisonwiththeobservedyields....................................................58
Figure23.Springbarleyyieldsasaffectedbycovercroptreatmentshowingaveragesofthe30year
simulationperiod(scenarios19782008).Severalsimulationrunsweremadetocovereachyear
ofthesimulationperiodshowingtheeffectofthetreatmentsonthesucceedingspringbarley
crop................................................................................................................................ ................58
Figure24.Simulatedaboveandbelowgroundbiomassyieldsofthecovercropsandthegrassclovercrop
beforespringploughing(March,1st)andafterharvestofspringbarley(November,1st).Each
valueshowstheaverageof30years(19782008).Thesimulationsstartdatesweremoved
iterativelyinordertocovereachyearwitheverytreatment.......................................................60
Figure25.EffectsofdifferentmanagementsystemsonthetotalDMbiomassofgrassclover.Eachvalue
showstheaverageof30years(19782008).Thesimulationsstartdatesweremovediteratively
inordertocovereachyearwitheverytreatment........................................................................61
Figure26.ComparisonofNleachingunderdifferentmanagementsofgrassclover.Thevaluesshowthe
averagesof30years(19782008)forthewholerotation............................................................63


IV

Figure27.Simulatedaverage(30years)amountoftotalNleachedannuallyundercovercrop(CC)
cultivationandbaresoil(a).AdditionallyobservedtotalNleachedbasedonfieldN
concentrationsareshown(b).Rotation1wassimulatedfortheperiod03/0904/03ofeach
agriculturalyearandrotation2fortheperiod19/0812/03basedonavailableobservedN
leaching.Nleachingforthewholerotation(c)isobservedforthewholeagriculturalyear(15/03
14/03)................................................................................................................................ .........63
Figure28.SimulatedaveragetotalannualNleachingin3.year(rotation1)andthe4.year(rotation2)of
therotation.Theaveragesfrom30yearsofsimulation(19782008)shownfortheagricultural
year(15/0314/03).....................................................................................................................64
Figure29.SimulatedsoilNminin100cm.Eachvalueshowstheaverageof30years(19782008).The
simulationsstartdatesweremovediterativelyinordertocovereachyearwitheverytreatment.
............................................................................................................................... ........................65
Figure30.EffectsofthecovercroptreatmentsonsimulatedtotalannualNmineralisation(15/0301/04).
Theaveragesfrom30yearsofsimulation(19782008)areshown.............................................66
Figure31.AveragechangeinannualsoilNforthewholerotation(see3.4forexplanation)ontheright.Soil
Nchangesareaveragedoverthe30yearsimulationperiod(19782008)..................................68
Figure32.DevelopmentinsimulatedtotalsoilCcontentin020cmdepthforthestudiedrotationsfora
simulationperiodof30years........................................................................................................71
Figure33.PartitioningofAOM.ThefigureshowstheaverageofannualpartitioningofAOMbetweenthe
slow(AOM1)andthefast(AOM2)decomposingpoolfromthe30yearsimulationperiodforthe
wholerotationsusingalltreatments............................................................................................72
Figure34.DevelopmentinsimulatedtotalsoilorganicNcontentin0100cmdepthforasimulationperiod
of30years.Theresultsshownareforthewholerotations(see3.4forexplanationofthe
rotations)................................................................................................................................ .......73

List of tables
Table1.Parametersincropmodulesusedforcalibration.............................................................................14
Table2.Overviewoftheprocedureofestimatingthesoilhydraulicparameters.Soilwaterretentionwas
simulatedwiththevanGenuchtenmodel(vG).Soilhydraulicconductivitywassimulatedwiththe
MualemvanGenuchtenmodel(MvG)...............................................................................................27
Table3.OverviewofcropparametersusedforcalibrationCS.Inthestudythecalibrationwiththeminor
changeinparameters(calibrationCS)(AppendixH)waschosenduetoahighuncertaintyofthe
parameterizationintheCOscenario(AppendixL)duetoamongothersahighdatauncertainty,i.e.
alackofforexamplephenologicaldatatocalibratetheparameters...............................................30
Table4.Setupofhydraulicpropertiesinthesoilcolumn(MvGmodelparameters)...................................31
Table5. Soiltexturesandbulkdensitiesdefinedforthesoilcolumnbasedonadescriptionofthesoilprofile
attheJyndevadsiteelsewhere(Jacobsen,1989)...............................................................................31
Table6.Fractionationbetweentheslowandfastdecomposing,andtheinertSOMpools..........................32
Table7.Scenariosimulations.CCstandsforacovercroptreatment(cloverorryegrass)andCCnoforabare
soiltreatment(nocovercropcultivated)...........................................................................................34
Table8.Explanatorysetupofiterationofthesimulationrunsstartingpointforrotation1,clover
treatment................................................................................................................................ ............35
Table9.SaturatedhydraulicconductivitiesasusedasRETCinputdatafromJacobsen(1989),followedby
fittingk0toretentionandunsaturatedhydraulicconductivitydatafromJacobsen(1989),andfinal
calibrationwithobservedSWCfrom19871990;e.g.,(HansenandDjurhuus,1996).Dueto
interactionsbetweensoillayersonlytwocalibrationswerefinallyusedgivingthebestresultsfor
simulatedSWC................................................................................................................................ ....36
Table10.RMSEforsimulatedsoilwatercontent(in%)intheuppersoillayersforthehydraulicsetupwith
standardlvalues(LO)andwithmodifiedlvalues(LM).....................................................................38
Table11.InitializationoftheSOMpools.SOMfractionationsareshownbasedonthe12yearwarming
periodandforthefurthercalibrationwithobservedNleachingvalues...........................................42
Table12.Calibrationofspringbarley(SB)......................................................................................................45
Table13.Percentagemeanbias(PBIA)andRMSEobservationsstandarddeviationratio(RSR)forspring
barleyDMgrainyieldsaftercalibrationofthecropmodules.CSstandsforthesimulationswhere
Vaarbyg_nwasusedinthewholesimulation.Intheothersimulations,Vaarbyg_n2wasusedfor
thespringbarleyfollowingthethreetreatments(VB_n)..................................................................46


VI

Table14.Percentagemeanbias(PBIA)forspringbarleyNgrainyieldsaftercalibration(CS)ofthecrop
modules(firstyearofspringbarleycultivationfollowingthegrassclovercrop)...........................46
Table15.Percentagemeanbias(PBIA)covercropshootDMandNyieldsaftercalibrationofthecrop
modulesandwiththedefaultcovercropmodules(inparentheses)..............................................48
Table16.Percentagemeanbiasforsimulationofspringbarleygrainyieldswithasucceedinggrassclover
usingthedefaultDaisycropmodules,calibratedcropmodules,cropmodulesfromGjettermann
etal.(2008)andJensenandJensen(2005).Theemphasisisplacedonthefirstyearfollowingthe
grassclovercrop.ForthesecondyearbothCSandVB_n(inparentheses),restrictedNuptake,
calibrationsareshown.....................................................................................................................50
Table17.Descriptionofcovercropresidueimitates.Covercropresiduesareusedascompensationfor
modelinsufficienciestosimulatethemineralizationoftheincorporatedcovercropresidues.This
isexpectedtoexplaininsufficienciesinsimulatedspringbarleyNuptakefollowingcultivationofa
covercrop................................................................................................................................ ........51
Table18.PercentagemeanbiasofsimulatedsoilNconcentrationswithandwithoutcalibrationofroot
penetrationdepthandrootNuptake.............................................................................................55
Table19.ObservedandsimulatedsoilmineralNin0100cmdepthforrotation1(R1)androtation2(R2).
ThesamplesforobservedNminforthetworotationswerepooledduringthefieldexperiment(see
3.1).Thus,onlyonevalueisshown.................................................................................................56
Table20.AveragespringbarleygrainDMandNyieldsforbothrotations.Eachvalueshowstheaverageof
30years(19782008).Thesimulationsstartdatesweremovediterativelyinordertocovereach
yearwitheverytreatment...............................................................................................................59
Table21.Comparisonofspringbarleygrainyieldsunderdifferentmanagementsofgrassclover.Eachvalue
showstheaverageof30years(19782008).Thesimulationsstartdatesweremovediterativelyin
ordertocovereachyearwitheverytreatment..............................................................................62
Table22.AnnualnetNmineralizationaveragedoverthe30yearsimulationperiodshowingtheentire
rotations................................................................................................................................ ...........66
Table23.AnnualNbalanceforthewholerotation(see3.4forexplanation).Nbalancesareaveragedover
the30yearsimulationperiod(19782008).....................................................................................69
Table24.ChangeinsoilorganicNandmineralNforallyears.Thevaluesarecalculatedforeachagricultural
year(15/0314/03)andaveragedoverthe30yearsimulationperiod(19782008)...................70
Table25.DevelopmentinaverageannualtotalsoilClossin020cmdepthinthreedifferentperiodsofthe
simulationforthestudiedrotations................................................................................................71

VII

Table26.ShortdescriptionoftheexperimentaldatausedforthecalculatedNbalancesderivedfromthe
validationstudy................................................................................................................................ 74
Table27.AnnualsoilNbalancesderivedfrommeasuredvalidationdata(seeTable22).Denitrificationwas
estimatedwiththeSimDenmodelandleachingderivedfromDaisycalculatedwaterbalances.CC
standsforcovercrops.Inthoserotationsdifferentnonlegumecovercrops(notryegrass)were
cultivated................................................................................................................................ .........74

VIII

List of abbreviations and symbols

AOM

Added organic matter

AOM1

Slowly decomposing pool of added organic matter

AOM2

Rapid decomposing pool of added organic matter

Carbon

C/N

Carbon-to-nitrogen

DM

Dry matter

DS

Development stage

EF

Modelling efficiency

Soil hydraulic conductivity

Ks

Soil hydraulic conductivity at saturation

Empirical soil parameter for pore connectivity / fitting parameter for slope of the retention curve

LAI

Leaf area index

Empirical constant soil parameter used in retention models (shape factor)

MB

Mean bias

MVG

Mualem-van Genuchten model

Empirical constant soil parameter used in retention models (shape factor)

Nitrogen

Nmin

Soil mineral nitrogen

NH3

Ammonia

NH4

Ammonium

N2

Nitrogen gas

N2O

Nitrous oxide

NOx

Nitrogen oxides

IX

NO3-

Nitrate

NO3--N

Nitrate nitrogen

OM

Organic matter

PBIA

Percent mean bias

RMSE

Root mean square error

R1

Rotation 1

R2

Rotation 2

RSR

RMSE-observations standard deviation ratio

SHCC

Soil hydraulic conductivity curve

SMB

Soil microbial residues

SSQ

Scalar sum of squares of residual errors

SOM

Soil organic matter

SOM1

Slowly decomposing pool of soil organic matter

SOM2

Rapid decomposing pool of soil organic matter

SOM3

Inert pool of soil organic matter

SWRC

Soil water retention curve

vG

van-Genuchten model

Empirical constant soil parameter used in retention models (shape factor)

Residual volumetric soil water content

Volumetric soil water content at saturation

Preface
One way to understand a complex, mathematical model is to stare at it until it is obvious
(Haefner, 2005)
This thesis has been submitted to the Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University
in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science following the graduate programme in
Agro-Environmental Management. The thesis work has been conducted for five months in the
period 01/02/2013-01/07/2013.
First of all I want to thank my supervisors, Christen D. Brgensen and Jrgen E. Olesen, for
their advice and support throughout the thesis project and for the selection of an appropriate
data basis for usage in the model calibration. I am very grateful to Christen for his enthusiasm
to help me getting started on the project as well as his time and the very valuable help he offered throughout the project and especially in the initial period fraught with beginner problems of using the Daisy model. I enjoyed having both of you as supervisors.
I would also like to particularly thank Yubaraj Kumar Karki and Kiril Manevski for sharing
their work experience and difficulties experienced with using the Daisy model, giving me inspiration, and in some cases rescuing me from taking the wrong turn in the first place. I could
not be more grateful for your openness and friendliness, offering your advice and help at all
stages throughout my thesis project. Even though all located at different places, I was amazed
by the easiness of communication.
I am most thankful for the technical advice from Per Abrahamsen, as well as for replying to
my queries and offering valuable advice to Mohamed Jabloun, Margrethe Askegaard, Jens
Christian Skov Jensen (and Rikke Jensen), and Birgitte Gjettermann.
I want to thank Aarhus University (Research Centre Foulum and Faculty of Science and
Technology) for all the support with the more practical issues as well as the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for the invaluable financial support during the last year of my
studies. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those people that inspired,
motivated and supported me and mostly to all of you that gave me the great feeling of home
since I moved to Denmark.


June 2013
rhus, Denmark

XI

Abstract
Cover crop residues can be a valuable nitrogen (N) source for spring cereals by N uptake, biological N fixation and subsequent N release. Decomposition is the central process governing
N release from organic matter (OM). However, there is still a lack of understanding of the
factors and interactive processes affecting decomposition, which hampers its adequate quantification. In this study, based on the results of a short-term field experiment carried out on
coarse sand at Research Centre Jyndevad, Denmark, the effects of grass-clover, clover [Trifolium pratense L.; Trifolium repens L.] and ryegrass [Lolium perenne L.] cover crops on spring
barley [Hordeum vulgare L.] grain yields, soil mineral N (Nmin), and nitrate (NO3-) leaching
were simulated with the Daisy model over a 30-year simulation period. Studying N dynamics
for contrasting types of cover crops under highly N stressed conditions, a new way of using
the Daisy model was tested. The model was calibrated using an indirect fitting approach,
where parameterization of the model was conducted iteratively by comparison of the model
output and field measurements. Further, simulation scenarios for each a 3-year and a 4-year
rotation using all cover crop treatments were run for the period 1978-2008. Soil water content
was very well simulated in 0-30 cm depth with modeling efficiencies above 90 %. Following
calibration of the soil organic matter (SOM) sub-model, simulated soil NO3- leaching was satisfactory but likely lead to an overestimation of net mineralization. Generally, an overestimation of spring barley grain dry matter (DM) yields of 30 % could be expected following a
grass-clover crop. The simulation of cover crop yields and spring barley grain DM yields in
the year following cover crop cultivation was not satisfactory. Both, simulated OM input as
well as mineralization from crop residues, were possibly underestimated. Mineralization is
potentially underestimated in the early growing season. Despite of the simulated degradation
of soil C and N over a 30-year simulation period, N balances used for validation indicated,
that cover crops instead of bare soil relatively increase overall N supply to the cropping system, where the inclusion of clover had a higher effect. The findings indicate that the improvement of the parameterization of the crop modules, and of the description of the OM submodel, as well as a more comprehensive field data set would be required in order to allow
more accurate quantifications of N dynamics in the studied cropping systems.
Keywords: Organic agriculture; Cover crop; Spring barley; Nitrogen; Nitrogen leaching;
Coarse sand; Soil organic matter model; Daisy


XII

Resume (abstract in Danish)

Efterafgrder er en vigtig kilde til kvlstof (N), bde for N-optagelse, biologisk N-fiksering,
og efterflgende frigrelse af N. Omstningen er den centrale proces, som regulerer frigrelse af N fra organisk stof (OM). Men der er en manglende forstelse af de faktorer og interagerende processer som pvirker omstningen. Dette hmmer en tilstrkkelig kvantificering af
processen. Formlet med dette studie som baseres p data fra et korttidsmarkforsg udfrt p
grovsand ved Forskningscenter Jyndevad, Danmark, var simulering af effekterne af efterafgrderne klvergrs, klver [Trifolium pratense L.; Trifolium repens L.] og rajgrs[Lolium
perenne L.] p kornudbytterne af vrbyg [Hordeum vulgare L.], jordens mineralske Nindhold (Nmin) og nitrat (NO3-) udvaskning blev simuleret med Daisy modellen for en simuleringsperiode af 30 r. N-dynamikken for forskellige typer efterafgrder dyrket ved N-mangel
blev undersgt ved at anvende Daisy modellen p en ny mde. Modellen blev kalibreret under
anvendelse af indirect fitting, en fremgangsmde hvor parameterbestemmelse af modellen
er blevet gennemfrt skridtvis ved at sammenligne simulation resultaterne med mlinger fra
markforsget. Efterflgende blev simulationsscenarier for hver af henholdsvis den 3-rige og
den 4-rige sdskifte under anvendelse af alle efterafgrdebehandlinger foretaget for perioden 1978-2008. Jordens vandindhold blev yderst godt simuleret i 0-30 cm dybde med en hj
modelleringsefficiens p over 90 %. Efter kalibrering af jordens organiske puljer (SOM), blev
NO3- udvaskning simuleret tilfredsstillende. Men var samtidigt hjst sandsynlig skyld i en
overestimering af netmineralisering. En generel overestimering af kornudbytterne p mere
end 30 % kunne forventes efter klver-grsset. Simulering af efterafgrdernes udbytter og det
flgende rs kornudbytter i vrbyggen var ikke acceptabel. Bde simulering af tilfrslen af
organisk materiale svel som mineralisering af afgrderester blev sandsynligvis underestimeret. Mineralisering er potentielt underestimeret i starten af vkstperioden. Til trods for en simuleret nedgang i jordens kulstof (C)- og N-puljer over den 30 rige simuleringsperiode, indikerer N-balancerne, der blev brugt til validering, at efterafgrderne i stedet for en bar jord
bidrager til en stigning af samlet N tilfrt til sdskiftet, hvor inddragelse af klver havde en
hjere effekt end rajgrs alene. Resultaterne indikerer at en forbedring af parameterbestemmelsen i afgrdemodulerne og af beskrivelsen af OM submodellen, svel som et mere omfattende datast baseret p markforsg vil vre ndvendig, hvis en mere akkurat kvantificering
af N dynamikken i de undersgte sdskifte skal opns.


XIII

Ngleord: kologisk jordbrug; Efterafgrder; Vrbyg; Kvlstof; Kvlstof udvaskning;

Grovsand; Jordens organiske indhold - model; Daisy

XIV