low input agriculture: feasible alternatives to ...

LOW INPUT AGRICULTURE: FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

Proceedings of the 1st Seminar

Louisiana State University at Eunice 30th Anniversary Celebrations

September 12-13, 1997 Eunice, LA

Edited by: Bruno Borsari and Malcolm F. Vidrine

Acknowledgements The First Seminar on "Low Input Agriculture: Feasible Alternatives to Conventional Agricultural Practices" was organized by Dr. Bruno Borsari. It was held in conjunction with the 30th Anniversary of Louisiana State University at Eunice on September 12 and 13, 1997. LSUE Chancellor William J. Nunez, III, in the newly erected Nursing and Allied Health Building Auditorium on campus, opened the Seminars. Nine speakers from local universities, the National Wetlands Center, local farms, and a distinguished guest seminar from Dr. Davide Neri of the Universita` degli Studi di Ancona (Italy) highlighted the event, which closed with a tour of a restored prairie on the LSUE campus. Seminar papers submitted to us are compiled in these proceedings. However, other speakers are here acknowledged: Dr. Charles E. Kome, (University of Southwestern Louisiana)-"Soil Management for Sustainable Agriculture". Dr. Eldred G. Blakewood (University of Southwestern Louisiana)"Bioregional Agriculture: Meeting Local Needs with Local Production". Larry Allain (National Wetlands Center, U.S. Geological Survey)"Importance of Wildlife Habitats to Agricultural Productivity". Dr. Gary F. Joye (Louisiana State University at Eunice)-"Plant Disease Management in Sustainable Agriculture". Shelton Fontenot (Organic Rice Producer)-"Organic Growing and Marketing in Louisiana". We thank all of the participants and the Faculty of the LSUE Division of Sciences for supporting this initiative, especially, Dr. James E. Cordes, Dr. Ray Robicheaux, Harland Guillory and Michael Scott McLendon for thoroughly reviewing this manuscript. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by preliminary estimates of $24 million losses and 37% more Louisiana farmers going out of business as a result of the 1998 drought and our reliance upon conventional agriculture, the need for more such seminars is readily evident. Further the need for a change in our primary agricultural paradigm and general education philosophy is also evident. OUR PRESENT PARADIGM AND EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY DO NOT PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY!!

1

Contents

Opening Remarks William J. Nunez, III...................................………………………....3

Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agriculture.................…………..4-13 Davide Neri

Sustainable Agriculture:Concepts and Educational Applications…14-19 Bruno Borsari

Holistic Management Decision-making:Producing a Profit while Considering Human Values and Restoring the Environment....…...20-26 Tina Pilione

Coastal Prairie: a Plausible Model for Sustainable Agriculture in Southwestern Louisiana......................................…………………..27-38 Malcolm F. Vidrine and Bruno Borsari

Vertebrate Biological Diversity at the University of Southwestern Louisiana Experimental Farm, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana USA..39-45 Jay V. Huner

Soil Macrofauna and Topsoil Depletion: a Comparative Study among Various Cultivated Fields and the Prairie..............…………46-52 Bruno Borsari, Suzanne LaHaye and Walton Sellers

2

Opening Remarks Greetings! Just as it was my sincere pleasure to welcome many of you to Louisiana State University at Eunice's first seminar on "Low Input Agriculture"--a contribution to LSUE's 30th anniversary celebrated on September 12-13 of this past year--it is now my pleasure to welcome your review of the proceedings of this interesting conference. Like most successful accomplishments, there is always someone whose vision has played a major role in making it all possible and, for this conference, that person was Dr. Bruno Borsari. Therefore, I would like to thank Dr. Borsari on behalf of LSUE, the 30th Anniversary Committee, and the "Low impact Agriculture" conference participants, for his hard work and successful efforts in bringing this worthwhile conference to fruition. Next, I would like to thank the conference presenters for their excellent contributions, which were essential to the success and quality of the conference's program. Finally, I would like to thank you, the reader, for your interest in this important topic, because you obviously appreciate the need for as well as the value in ecologicallybalanced approaches to agriculture-approaches which produce quality, marketable agricultural products while still maintaining the integrity of our environment. As you know, the rise and technological development of agriculture can also be related to our world's human population growth; and, this has concomitantly led to our increased impact on earth's physical and biotic environment. And, while we as people are responsible for our own environmental problems, we are also capable of creatively dealing with them. This conference on "Low Input Agriculture" is, I feel, just one example of a positive step in that direction, and, therefore, I hope you enjoy and benefit from your review of these published conference proceedings. William J. Nunez, III, Ph.D. Chancellor, LSU at Eunice

3

Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agriculture Davide Neri Dipartimento di Energetica Universita` di Ancona 60100 Ancona-Italy Abstract Sustainability is reached when a system uses only the resources which the system itself is able to naturally regenerate. Modern agriculture exploits soil fertility without trying to recover it in any cycle. Soil fertility is an intrinsic property of the soil which includes chemical, physical, biological and allelopathic characteristics, and these are related to organic matter content and quality. In the present paper, humification efficiency and conditions are discussed as well as root-soil interaction and soil fertility degradation in monocultural systems. The problem An optimal use of soil resources for agriculture is dependent on i) the reduction of losses outside the field (leaching, erosion), ii) the reduction of what is transformed in an unutilizable form (unsolubilization) and lastly iii) the increase of soil fertility and soil resilience to losses. The first items, erosion, leaching and plant nutrition (the absorption capability of the plant), are well established branches of soil science. Less information is available when we consider soil fertility and soil resiliency. Problems like wind or water erosion and nitrate accumulation in the ground water or in some foods in modern agriculture are debated all around the world. On the contrary, soil fertility and its resilience to losses, its impact on food quality and quantity and on the improvement of a more sustainable agriculture are much less debated. Initially, we need to define soil fertility, which is a condition where the growth processes proceed rapidly, smoothly and efficiently (Howard, 1956). The term connotes things such as: abundance of soil nutrients, high quality of food products and resistance to diseases. So, it is an intrinsic property of the soil which includes chemical, physical, biological and allelopathic characteristics. It cannot be recovered by the simple presence of nutrients (they could be present in a form not absorbable by the roots) neither by the availability of nutrients (they are in an absorbable form but the roots could not do so because of dyspathic soil conditions due to an odd 4

evolution of the matter (Elliot and Papendik, 1986, Patrick et al., 1964, Zucconi, 1993, Neri et al., 1996, Zucconi, 1996). Very simply, soil fertility cannot be evaluated by the presence of nutrients (even by studying its different forms). Fertility is related to the capability of the soil to manage nutrients and permit plant trophism. There is also a need, at this point, to define sustainability. Sustainability is a property of a system which uses only the part of the system's resources which regenerate naturally or artificially, depending on external inputs as an open system (Zucconi, 1996). From a natural point of view, if an agriculture system is not able to defend soil fertility, it is not sustainable! The soil will be more or less desertified, and more external inputs will be increasingly necessary. This evolution could be economically sustained even though the costs of higher external inputs could be covered by higher incomes. The recovery and protection of soil fertility becomes then a mandatory need, if the development of sustainable farming systems is truly sought. Only with this capability, will we depend less on external inputs, similar to those of modern, mechanized and chemicalized agriculture. The present study gives some ideas of the role of soil organic matter to increase soil fertility and to improve sustainability of agriculture through a higher root efficiency. Evolution of organic residues in the soil In temperate climatic zones, the increase of soil fertility is related to the accumulation of humified organic matter. The creation of vegetal soil is the main way to expand biomass production per unit of acreage(Zucconi, 1996). Nature does this process efficiently by humification of organic matter, but in agriculture, this process is completely neglected, impoverishing soil quality. In fact, humus is able to modify chemical (C.E.C., water holding capacity), physical (structure, porosity), biological (diversified microbial life), and allelopathic (evolution of organic residues) soil properties. The humification process is also the key to understanding natural suppressiveness of the soil pests (Zucconi, 1996). Organic matter degradation Organic residues are used by microorganisms as energy and matter sources. Simple molecules are easily and rapidly metabolized so that populations and communities grow very rapidly and then more complex and stable polymers are slowly degraded. The first very rapid degradation may generate a strong production of toxic metabolites (Fig. 1) followed by a lighter toxic 5

metabolism (Zucconi et al., 1984), called latent metabolism because it may happen or not, in relation to external conditions. The accumulation of residues from a sole crop disrupts the humification process, inducing odd decompositions that delay stabilization and release toxic metabolites (Zucconi et al., 1984, Zucconi, 1993). These, in turn, may induce specific allelopathic effects (dyspathy) accounting for "soil sickness" (Patrick et al., 1964, Elliot and Papendik, 1986, Zucconi and DeBertoldi, 1987, Stopes, 1990), an event that has also been recorded in rice crops (Chou, 1990). Root absorption, in particular, may be hindered by these toxins (Zucconi et al., 1984, 1993) ensuing dystrophies and root die-back (Fig. 2).

Test cress

Germination index (control=100)

140 120 100 80

aerobiosis 60 40

anaerobiosis

20 0 0

20

40

60

80

Time (day) Germination index (control=100)

140

Test rice

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

20

40

60

80

Time (day)

Fig 1. Rice straw metabolism in aerobic and anaerobic conditions described by the impact of toxic compounds on cress and rice seed germination (from Neri et al., 1996).

6

Factors and conditions for humification Humification processes are more important in temperate climates and less in tropical ones, although it could be discussed for these climates as well. The question is: when degradation may undergo through humification? Humification is a direct result of processes which may happen only in the presence of some factors and conditions (effectors, Fig. 3). It needs polygenicity (a substrate with very diverse origins), diverse populations of microorganisms, and microaerobic conditions. All together these conditions determine cenotrophism (Zucconi, 1996) to have trophic functions, as a whole. When cenotrophic conditions are set, it is possible to create humic compounds with great efficiency (low carbon loss). The process starts from degradation with low production of soluble molecules and very rapidly goes through polymerization and policondensation to create more complex structures. The creation of humic compounds is very important to enrich the soil with stable (even 200 years) organic matter with colloid properties that improve physicochemical, biological and allelopathic characteristics.

Fig 2. Morphological response of rice primary-root to the increasing toxicity of the substrate layer. A= standard behaviour; B= slight root dimorphism; C= root dimorphism and lack of absorption; D= erratic wandering and lack of absorption; E= die-back following the contact (from Neri et al., 1996).

7

Humus reduction in agricultural soils Modern agriculture disrupts the humification path and uses soil organic matter for crop growth through its mineralization. In this way the agricultural process is not sustainable because fertility (humus content) declines with each successive cycle of planting and harvesting. Moreover, this problem is not usually taken into account for nutrient and energy budgets of crop production.

Fig 3. Humification requires a diversified microflora and poligenicity of the substrates in the presence of microaerobic conditions (from Zucconi 1996a).

Erosion, mineralization, broken humification paths, and reduction of external organic matter inputs are the causes of a dramatic reduction of soil humus content in several countries, increasing the generalized desertification tendency. In Italy, several regions with intensive agriculture have lost, in less than 20 years, 1% of organic matter content in the soil. This means in the top 50 cm layer of soil about 65 tons per hectare of mineralized organic matter and the release of 2 tons of nitrogen (100 Kg/ha per year). This humus reduction determines a higher need of external inputs. In fact, humus supports equilibrate plant growth with high quality production and high natural suppressiveness, so it is one of the most important keys for a more sustainable agriculture. Organic residues can be mineralized in very short cycles but humus can naturally last for decades (1-2% of mineralization per year). 8

Soil sickness The denomination of "soil sickness" indicates, in agriculture, a condition of progressive soil inhospitality to frequent return of a single crop. The decline of productivity which follows is generally confined to the reiterated species, affecting less other plants, mostly if botanically unrelated (Zucconi, 1993). As we have seen, organic residues can evolve into humus and can increase soil fertility if there is cenotrophism, but if there are monocultural practices, toxic metabolic processes would be established. In this situation the generic incompatibility of a soil to host a determined species following itself indicates the impoverishment of the soil. This primary symptom of degrading soil fertility and disturbed trophism is usually followed by the outbreak of new pathogens and parasites, so the ethiology is generally attributed to soil pest increase or nutrient deficit. On the contrary, the real cause is related to the disruption of humification efficiency. Root growth and dynamism Allelopathic interactions. In nature the coexistence of self-incompatibility (autophobia) and interspecific compatibility (eupathy) causes a reiteration of the niche use-abandon process, leading to an alternation of species, none may occupy a place indefinitely (Zucconi, 1993). Primary (directly produced by roots) and secondary allelopathic factors (produced by the degradation of organic residues) determine the autonomous organizations of the plants and communities, the root distribution, the efficiency in soil sharing, and the equilibrium in cenoses. Allelopathies account for the specific group of plants (cortege) that characterizes a phytocenosis. The sequential niche use (root rotation) determines the possibility to stabilize their combined residues (humification). Root absorption and root territory. Roots have a very strong dynamism: rootlets absorb at a rate that exceeds diffusion or solubilization of mineral nutrients; rootlets require a continuous substrate renovation; rootlets must be replaced by a new absorbing net. The depletion of nutrients induces a continuous migration (micromigration), and many degradable residues are accumulated in the old soil that permits a high saprophytic life. Root renovation requires 35-75% of the total carbon budget of the plant depending on soil fertility and plant species (the lowest values are in the cultivated plants). Fertilization 9

practices reduce the need for root renovation. Root renovation is maximum when there is alternation of wet-dry conditions which determine a continuous shift of the root system. This dynamism means migration and shedding of an obsolete absorbing root-net. This determines a strong interaction with other species and competition and accumulation of residues which can be easily humified. So soil determines the root pattern, and roots change soil quality. Root macro-migration. Roots tend to avoid returning to their former, utilized territory because there is an allelopathic root repulsion (dyspathy or autophobia) to their own territory when this is marked with residues. The dyspathy depends upon the residues evolving in the soil induced by microorganisms. On the other hand, the residues from a given species may be accepted by other species, and this seems to account for the success of some crop rotations. Trophism (the capability of the plant to use nutrients) requires a control factor beyond the presence of nutrients. This situation determines a continuous search for new territories in the periphery of the root system. When the roots of neighboring plants are very close, the plant forms transmigrating roots (macromigration) to find new available territories. These roots are not absorbing roots. In the search for new territories, the roots follow the indication of the excreta of existing roots. In this way it is possible to find the shortest way to free niches. Macromigration prevails among juvenile plants. Use of soil niches. The soil with standing plants is separated into niches (discrete portions of territory used by a single root) (Zucconi, 1996b). The root is precluded to enter an occupied niche by the presence of primary allelopathic factors. The excreta ameliorate the soil, favor the absorption, and select favorable rhizospheres. This soil compartmentalization creates a very efficient condition to use the soil by the resident roots in the short period and by the cenosis in the long period. When the niche becomes older and older for the resident species, there will be a rotation in the niche, and a new root of a compatible plant will occupy the free space taking over absorption and micromigration in the vacant space. Conclusion Soil quality declines with excessive cultivation techniques, organic matter impoverishment, and humification path disruption. Soil quality can only be sustained if the availability of external inputs is increased with each cultural 10

cycle. Effectively, modern agriculture is working in this way. Continuously it creates new varieties, new pesticides, new chemicals for biocontrol, higher and new nutrients applications, and new machineries contributing to an increasing soil exploitation. The sustainability of an agricultural system can be much higher if we introduce a better control of soil organic matter evolution, mimicking the natural process of humification. All this can be achieved through crop rotation, use of organic amendments, reduction of pesticide and fertilizer use, and diminishing soil tillage practices. The restoration of humification efficiency would also recover a natural suppressiveness of soil-borne diseases. Moreover, a strong healthy plant would be less attacked by pathogens and parasites

Fig 4. Soil equilibrium in function of type of agriculture. Lower the soil equilibrium higher the level of external inputs and the risk of desertification (from Zucconi 1996a).

reducing the need for pesticides. Ancient migratory agricultural systems were organized, cultivating for a few years and then moving cultivation to another land, leaving the former cultivated soil without any culture to recover fertility. More sedentary agricultural systems were devised with the 11

introduction of rotation and intercropping of different species to maintain soil fertility to a lower than natural, but sustainable level (Fig. 4). At any time in history, when agriculture became monoculture, soil desertification expanded, and civilization declined, e.g., the Roman Empire collapsed when all the Mediterranean Region was monocultured in wheat production. Literature cited Chou, C.H. 1990. The role of allelopathy in agroecosystems: studies from tropical Taiwan. pp. 104-121, in: Agroecology-researching the ecological basis for sustainable agriculture (Gliessman, S., W. ed.). New York, USA: Springler-Verlag. Elliott, L.F. and Papendik, R.I. 1986. Crop residues management for improved soil fertility. pp.45-46 in: The role of microorganisms in a sustainable agriculture (J.M. Lopez de Real and R.D. Hodges eds.), Berkhamstead, UK: Academic Publishers. Howard, A. 1956. An agriculture testament. The other India Press, Goa, India: 262. Neri, D., Madia, T., Zucconi, F., Guardigli, G. 1996. Root growth of rice seedling in relation to crop residue metabolism. In: Roots and nitrogen in cropping systems of semi-arid tropics. Eds. O.Ito, C. Johansen, J.J. AduGyamfi, K. Katayama, J.V.D. Kkumar Rao, T.J. Rego. JIRCAS, JAPAN: 389-399. Patrick, Z.A., Toussoun, T.A. Koch, L.W. 1964. Effect of crop residue decomposition products on plant roots. Ann. Rev. Phytopathology, 2:267292. Stopes, C. 1990. Rotation design for organic systems. pp.125-160 in: Organic Farming (Lampkin, N. ed.), Ipswich, UK: Farming Books. Zucconi, F., Monaco, A. Forte, M., and DeBertoldi, M. 1984. Phytotoxins during the stabilization of organic matter. pp.73-86 in: Composting of agricultural and other wastes (Gasser, J>K>R> ed.), London, UK: Elsevier. Zucconi, F. and DeBertoldi, M. 1987. Organic waste stabilization throughout composting and its compatibility with agricultural uses. pp.10912

37 in: Global Bioconversion (Wise, D.L. ed.), vol.III, Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press. Zucconi, F. 1993. Allelopathies and biological degradation in agricultural soils: an introduction to the problem of soil sickness and other soil-born diseases. Acta Horticolturae, 324:11-21. Zucconi, F. 1996b. Root dynamics in natural and agricultural plants, and the making of domestication. In: Roots and nitrogen in cropping systems of semi-arid tropics. Eds. O. Ito, C. Johasnsen, J.J. Adu-Gyamfi, K. Katayama, J.V.D. Kkumar Rao, T.J. Rego. JIRCAS, JAPAN: 103-128.

13

Sustainable Agriculture: Concepts and Educational Applications Bruno Borsari Division of Sciences Louisiana State University at Eunice P.O.Box 1129 Eunice, LA 70535 Abstract The term "sustainable agriculture" has been used since the early 1980's to convey the innovative ideas of agricultural systems that are ecologically, economically and socially viable. This innovative approach entails the development of an integrated, holistic system of crops, livestock and management practices. Many colleges of agriculture have not yet embraced this philosophy, and thus have not attempted to gear their curricula toward more sustainable approaches. However, it is essential to consider these important concepts in modern, agricultural instruction. Education must play a vital role in bringing about the changes that, at the present time, can't lead mankind toward more sustainable living and farming practices. Introduction Most scientists today agree on the vulnerability of conventional agricultural systems. The environmental crisis caused by modern agricultural practices is spiraling out of control. For a couple of decades, sustainable agriculture has been the leading philosophy, aimed at restoring, partially, the equilibrium within natural systems, that had been lost when our ancestors began to farm. However, rather than standing for a specific set of farming practices, sustainable agriculture represents the end-goal of developing a food production system. As Gliessman (1992) pointed out, the management of an agroecosystem should comply with certain criteria, and these should include the following: * a low dependence on external, purchased, inputs * function primarily on the use of locally available and renewable resources * have beneficial or minimal negative impacts on both the on-and-off farm environments 14

* be adapted to or tolerant of local conditions, rather than dependent on the massive alteration or control of the environment * focus on long term productive capacity * conserve biological and cultural diversity * be built on knowledge and culture of local inhabitants * provide adequate domestic and exportable goods. Many different views exist regarding the nature of sustainable agriculture, as well as how it can be achieved. Of the many definitions proposed for sustainable agriculture, most address the criteria mentioned above. However, a variety of terms have been specifically developed to address different audiences. The most popular of these are alternative, low-input, regenerative and organic. Examples of other terms for approaches toward or concepts of sustainability are: natural, biodynamic, ecological, biologically sound, and permaculture. Every definition here has similar characteristics. A common starting point for all concepts is that working toward sustainability is much more intricate than adopting individual, food production techniques. Unfortunately, not too many colleges of agriculture have given the requisite attention to this philosophy. Few curricula in the agricultural sciences have considered these concepts of sustainability to be included in the training of new generations of agriculturists. At the same time, modern students are ecologically illiterate, and agriculture students are no exception. By failing to include ecological perspectives in any number of subjects, students are taught that ecology is unimportant for history, politics, economics, society and so forth, and through television they learn the earth is theirs for the taking. The result is a generation of ecologically challenged individuals without a clue as to why the color of the water in their rivers is related to their food supply, or why storms are becoming more severe as the planet warms. These same people as adults will create businesses, vote, have families, and above all, consume. If they come to reflect on the discrepancy between the splendor of their private lives in a hotter, more toxic, and violent world, as ecological illiterates they will have roughly the same success as one trying to balance a checkbook without knowing arithmetic (Orr, 1992). Our current, conventional form of agriculture, in place since World War II, is credited with the production of large quantities 15

of low-priced food. The choice of developing such a form of agriculture that also requires a heavy use of fossil fuels, synthetic chemicals, capital intensive technology and large-scale monoculture has generated extensive and problematic environmental, economic and social costs. This cumulative effect adds significantly to the final cost, thus food price turns out to be extremely high. Brief historical review of American agricultural education In the mind of Thomas Jefferson, farming, education and democratic liberty were indissolubly linked (Berry, 1996). This romantic and idealistic philosophy was quickly overcome in the 1860`s when the first land-grant college act became a law: the Morril Act. Morril's views about education were more practical and utilitarian. This more modern educational philosophy had a tremendous impact in the development of the colleges of agriculture and education throughout the nation. The Acts that later followed (Hatch, 1887 and Smith-Lever, 1914) fulfilled the obligation to assure agriculture a position in research similar to that of industry. As Wendell Berry explains, the term "agribusiness" indicates how the interests of industry have subjugated those of agriculture. This association has been responsible for educating large numbers of agriculturists who are specialists and/or agribusinessmen. Like other academic fields, agriculture has gone its separate way. It developed into an intellectual discipline, but it remained isolated from the liberal arts center of the university. This alienation has produced, for example, genetic research without attention to nutritional values, which has resulted in the so-called Green Revolution without concern for its genetic oversimplification or its social, political, and cultural dangers, and which keeps agriculture in a separate "field" from ecology (Berry, 1996). For these reasons the educational experience of the students of agriculture seems to be mediocre and ineffective for generating leaders and citizens, that according to the jeffersonian philosophy can contribute to the stabilization and prosperity of their own communities. The typical American "success story" moves from a modest rural beginning to urban affluence, from manual labor to office work. We must then ask what must be the educational effect, the influence of a farmer's son, who believes, with the absolute authorization of his society, that he has mightily improved himself by becoming a professor of agriculture. He has not improved himself by an "upward" motivation which by its nature avoids the issue of quality-which assumes simply that an agriculture specialist is better than a farmer? And does not he exemplify to his students the proposition that "the 16

way up" is away from home? How could he, who has "succeeded" by earning a Ph.D. and a nice place in town, advise his best students to go home and farm, or even assume that they might find good reasons for doing so? (Berry, 1996) If the purpose of education is truly the transmission of values, then it is essential to eliminate this careerism-oriented education from the colleges of agriculture. Only with the understanding of an agriculture that is contained in nature and that strictly depends on it, will the educated agriculturist be a responsible farmer and a key factor in the long-term sustenance of his/her community. Making farms more sustainable It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the methodology that needs to be applied in order to make farms more sustainable. Undoubtedly, it is imperative that to become sustainable, farming systems need to be designed and operated in cooperation with natural ecosystems. They also need to be tailored to the characteristics and resources specific to each farm. In order to pursue these objectives, a transition period of up to several years may be necessary to restore the biological equilibrium that was lost to monocultures and sustained by heavy applications of chemical products. From a renovated management perspective, the agroecological objective is to provide a balanced environment, sustained yields, biologically-mediated soil fertility and natural pest regulation through the design of diversified agroecosystems and the use of low input technologies (Altieri and Rosset, 1995). In essence the optimal behavior of agroecosystems depends on the level of biodiversity and the interactions occurring in the cultivated field between biotic and abiotic components. To make the transition, farmers find they need new kinds of skills and increased knowledge about the key elements and interactions in their farm system. The integration philosophy mentioned here depends upon making the best possible use of all natural resources before investing in fossil energy inputs. Successful examples of sustainable farming systems already exist in numerous countries. Among them I wish to mention the Lautenbach project in Germany, which was conceived to reach specified goals in reducing inputs, maintaining income, and improving ecological stability (El-Titi and Landes, 1990). Also in southwestern Louisiana, the study of remaining native prairies shows evidence of how important it is to preserve natural habitats, for developing sustainable farming systems. In a comparative study Borsari and Shirley (1993) measured the topsoil thickness in remnant prairie strips, a restored prairie (Eunice Cajun Prairie 17

Restoration Project) and cultivated farmland. The result of this study strongly indicates that the preservation of biodiversity as a means of sustaining agroecosystems is an emerging concept that can put the habitat "to work" (Borsari and Shirley, 1993). Wes Jackson's Land Institute has been investigating perennial polycultures for several years. The study of the remaining mid-west prairie has led him and his collaborators to a deeper understanding of the different plant species' interactions of this unique habitat. In his famous book "New Roots for Agriculture", he concludes:"We need to stare hard at America's fields for a long time and then reach into the vast literature in evolutionary biology and ecology to learn the rules and laws at work on the land before we got here, and out of this knowledge, put together a new synthesis, a truly new paradigm for agriculture." Conclusion Waldorf schools of biodynamic gardening have awesome educational programs. These institutions, inspired by the anthroposophical theory of Rudolph Steiner, should be looked at attentively, as possible models to include sustainability in modern agricultural curricula. To "teach the whole student - head, heart and hands" is the basis of Waldorf education. The garden gives the student a better sense of themselves, their place in the natural world, and where their food comes from. Biology, earth sciences, chemistry and even math take on a real meaning for [students] learning about plants and animals, soils and nutrient cycles (Ablemann, 1993). This and few other successful educational projects show evidence that major modifications are possible and that urgent implementation in modern agricultural education is necessary. At the present time, however, the education of the student of agriculture remains almost as absurd as it is dangerous: he/she is taught a course of practical knowledge and procedures that are often merciless on land, water and other natural resources. The interests of the big firms and food corporations are purely devoted to the lucrative and commercial aspects of modern agriculture. Therefore, as Berry (1996) points out "Public funds originally voted to provide for the liberal and practical education of farmers become, by moral default, an educational subsidy given to the farmers' competitors." Moreover, the employability of young college graduates becomes limited in this unique "business oriented scenario" to the agroindustry sector, thus deceiving the holistic paradigm I have been discussing, up to this point. "Knowledge," Wes Jackson wrote, "is not value free." He continues: "The purpose of education is the transmission of values." A new holistic approach is required for the study of 18

the agricultural sciences. This must embrace many other related disciplines such as biology, ecology and the environmental sciences. Besides, it is necessary to become ethically indifferent of academic specialization if a real change in agricultural education toward sustainability is truthfully desired. Literature cited Ablemann, M. 1993. From our good Earth. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Altieri, M. A. and P. Rosset. 1995. Agroecology and the conversion of largescale conventional systems to sustainable management. Intern. J. Environmental Studies, vol.#, pp. 1-21. Berry, W. 1996. The Unsettling of America. Culture and Agriculture. Sierra Club Books. Borsari, B. and V. B. Shirley. 1993. Preservation of Natural Habitats: Biodiversity and Farming. Ann. Proc. Amer. Soc. Environ. Sc., pp.181-187. El Titi, A. and Landes, H. 1990. Integrated Farming Systems of Lautenbach: A Practical Contribution Toward Sustainable Agriculture in Europe. Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, pp. 265-286. Gliessmann, S. R. 1992. Agroecology in the Tropics: Achieving a Balance Between Land Use and Preservation. Environmental Management, vol. 16, No. 6, pp.681-689. Jackson, W. 1985. New Roots for Agriculture. University of Nebraska Press. Orr, D. W. 1992. Ecological Literacy. Education and Transition to a Postmodern World. State University of New York Press.

19

Holistic Management Decision-making: Producing a Profit while Considering Human Values and Restoring the Environment Tina Pilione Whole Solutions P.O.Box 923 Eunice, LA 70535 Abstract When we look at different realms of human endeavor, we find tremendous success in many areas that is in the short term as long as we ignore the effects on the environment. To understand why human decision-making in non-mechanical areas of human endeavor has resulted in degrading environments, social breakdown and negative economic impacts, we discuss some of the characteristics of our decision-making. A new decision-making framework that can be used to develop an agriculture that will sustain civilization is discussed. That framework is Holistic Management decisionmaking. A holistic way to view the world is presented, and the main elements that make up this new decision-making framework are discussed. Information is given on the history of Holistic Management and how to learn more. Introduction In this presentation we will look at the universal human decision-making process, why we need a new way of viewing the world, and why we need to change the way we make decisions. Next, an overview of Holistic Management decision making will show a way forward, a way to produce a profit while restoring the environment and considering human values. Finally, we will talk about the Center for Holistic Management and how to learn more. Several scientists, philosophers and literary writers have recently begun to discuss the need to change our paradigms, or deeply held beliefs about how the world works. Thomas Kuhn (1970) has studied how science advances through shifting paradigms. David Orr has used the word "meme" (Dawkins, 1976) to talk about how our current way of viewing the world is not working to sustain civilizations. and will eventually lead to our demise if

20

we do not create new memes that are capable of sustaining civilizations (Orr, 1994). Our reductionist scientific paradigm has led to studying the parts and works on the premise that eventually we will know everything about every element of nature. This paradigm has not lead us to greater success in managing the natural world (rangelands, agriculture, forestry, wildlife, etc.), therefore, we need a new paradigm that will allow us to better manage and restore the damage we have done to our natural resources, which are more and more being recognized as finite. J.C.Smuts (1926) in his work Holism and Evolution coined the word "holism". He presented a new way of viewing the world, that the world and indeed the entire universe is made up of wholes within wholes, that this is the only functional unit in nature, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and that there are no boundaries in nature. Holism is the new meme that can help us toward a sustainable civilization and is the basis for the Holistic Management decision-making process. Allan Savory, while struggling to understand why natural resource management methods were not working (despite the largest number of scientists the world has ever known and indeed were heading to massive environmental degradation, social breakdown and failing economies), discovered that the universal cause of the massive loss of biodiversity and the symptoms associated with this loss was human decision-making. Holistic Management is the result of his over 35 years of work to develop a process of making decisions that are simultaneously socially, economically and environmentally sound (Savory, 1988). Why We Need to Change the Way We Make Decisions When we look at the different areas of human endeavors, we find tremendous success in many areas. We find that our decisions in these areas are correct 99% of the time in the short term, as long as we ignore the effects on the environment. These areas include development of transportation, communication, weapons, space technology, computers, medical technology, chemical technology, etc.. These areas use mechanical, linear thinking to produce these tremendous successes and have brought us to where we are today. But we are finding more and more examples of this mechanical, linear thinking leading to increasing problems in the nonmechanical areas of human endeavor, i.e. in our management of agriculture, rangelands, forests, economics, wildlife, human relations, etc.

21

To understand why human decision-making has failed in these nonmechanical areas of human endeavor, let's look at some of the characteristics of our decision-making. First, our decisions are based on narrow goals, i.e. production at all costs. For example, we produce an abundance of food, yet 40 million people die every year from hunger and related diseases - the equivalent of 300 jumbo jet crashes every day with half of the passengers being children (Ponting, 1991). There are also environmental costs involved, i.e. massive soil erosion, pesticide contamination, etc., when bring us to another characteristic of our decision-making. Second, the effects on the ecosystem and resource base are usually not considered. Our monocultural agricultural practices have led to tremendous productivity, but what are the true costs of these? The ecological concept of succession and stability has been ignored. It is well known to ecologists that when you simplify the ecosystem, instability increases. This is exemplified in increasing insect outbreaks. The chemical industry has not solved this "problem", because it is not really a problem, but a symptom of biodiversity loss; in the case of industrialized agriculture, eliminating all but one species, the agricultural crop. Despite of a 33-fold increase in pesticide use since 1945, there has not been a reduction in crop losses. In fact, between the 1940s and the 1980s there has been an increase in crop losses from 32% to 37% (Ponting, 1991). Third, our decision-making focuses on short-term, quick fixes that do not consider environmental or social consequences. Our technological solutions to deal with the symptoms of biodiversity loss that we have created with agricultural monocultures, i.e. increasing the use of chemicals and other fossil fuel products (the biodiversity of past millennia), have had severe consequences. For example, 20% of wells in California have pollution levels above official safe limits, and 1000 wells in Florida have been closed because of contamination (Ponting, 1991). Fourth, we do not monitor to see if our decision is correct in the long term, but rather, we monitor to record results. This is the result of our desire for short term, quick fixes, which technology has abundantly provided. As already stated, our current decision-making is correct 99% of the times, in the short term. For example, we have a corn borer infestation; we apply an insecticide and the pest is controlled. However, when considered in terms of the long term health and functioning of the whole, we more often than not create more "problems" (really symptoms of our decision making) than we solve by using these technological quick fixes. For example, what are the 22

long-term effects of that insecticide on the life in the soil, on the rate of soil erosion, on the effectiveness of the water cycle, on human health, etc.? We are constantly reacting to the latest symptom of our mechanical management of the non-mechanical world. Negative environmental, social and economic consequences are nothing new. Human decision-making has led to many failed civilizations. To cite just one example, the Sumerian civilization, the first to invent writing, flourished for some 2000 years until it succumbed to environmental degradation from irrigation. About 3500 BC equal amounts of wheat and barley were grown; but by 1700 BC salt levels were too high for wheat, yields decreased 65% and the agricultural base effectively collapsed. The focus of Mesopotamian society shifted north and Sumer declined into insignificance (Ponting, 1991). This scenario has been repeated over 26 times as civilizations grew, depleted their source base and declined into insignificance. They did this without chemicals or fossil fuels. Today we are beginning to recognize the signs of our depleted resource base, the symptoms of biodiversity loss. Today, our extensive use of fossil fuels has masked these inevitable consequences that will continue until we recognize that it is human decision-making that is causing biodiversity loss and its symptoms. We need a new decision-making framework to develop an agriculture that will sustain civilization. That framework is Holistic Management decision-making. Next, we will look at how the Holistic Management decision-making process can be used to produce a profit while restoring the environment and considering human values. What is Holistic Management? Holistic Management is based on the theory of holism. Holism is a new way of viewing the world. We must begin thinking holistically, i.e. in terms of wholes, the only functional units of nature. For example, the water molecule is made up of oxygen and hydrogen atoms. If we study the properties of oxygen and hydrogen in isolation, we will still know nothing about the properties of water. We must study the whole, the water molecule, which is greater than the sum of its apparent parts. When we begin thinking and making decisions holistically we clearly recognize that all of our decisions impact the ecosystem and that we depend on the ecosystem for everything we do as humans.

23

The Holistic Management decision-making process begins by defining the whole under management. Every whole includes: 1) the people responsible for the management of the whole - these are the decision makers; 2) the resource base - this includes all of the resources available including land, equipment, skills, knowledge, etc., and people who influence, or are influenced by the decision makers; and 3) money available for the management of the whole. For example, if you want to manage a "farm", then the whole might include the family living on and managing the farm, the land, and buildings and equipment, and the money the family has available or can generate from the farm. The minimum whole includes not only the land, but also the human values, culture, and money tied to the land. This is viewed as one entity for management. Next, the people in the whole define a holistic goal. The holistic goal is a description of what the people in the whole are managing in terms of the quality of life desired based on the values of the people in the whole, what must be produced to create this quality of life, and a description of the resource base as it has to be far into the future in order to sustain what the whole produces. Human values are the driving force. Here is where we define the prosperity level and define how the resource base will produce the profit necessary to support the quality of life desired, i.e. profit from livestock, crops or any other enterprise not in conflict with our values. Here, we are describing only what we want and not how to get there. Sustainability of the resource base is the foundation of the holistic goal and is necessary to support the profit and values defined in the holistic goal. The holistic goal is both the hardest and the most powerful element of the holistic decision-making process. Every decision is made with the holistic goal clearly in mind. Here is where we decide the best possible ways for our unique whole to move toward our holistic goal. For example, if we want to produce profit from livestock we will explore many possible livestock enterprises in terms of how much profit we can produce given our current resource base. All decisions are tested using seven specific testing guidelines to ensure that proposed tools or actions will lead toward the holistic goal and that decisions are simultaneously socially, environmentally and economically sound. In this way consideration is given to producing a profit and restoring the environment while considering human values. The testing guidelines are an aide to viewing the world holistically and to considering all the consequences of our decisions. They force us to blur the details and look at the big picture.

24

After a decision is made, it is then monitored to determine whether or not it is actually producing the desired results. A feedback loop is completed beginning with the decision, then monitoring the decision and if it is not leading in the right direction, making adjustments. This feedback is a continuous loop of planning, monitoring, controlling and re-planning while making steady progress toward the holistic goal. Holistic Management decision-making is proactive. Monitoring is conducted to produce the results described in the holistic goal. Holistic financial planning is an aide for generating real wealth, planning for profit up front, and staying on track. Holistic land development is an aide to producing the desired landscape described in the future resource base of the holistic goal. Holistic grazing planning (for livestock or livestock/cropping operations) is an aide to restoring the land while producing sellable products. Biological monitoring is used to detect early warnings that decisions affecting the land are moving the landscape toward or away from that described in the holistic goal. Holistic planning and monitoring are not done in isolation from one another but are integrated to move the whole toward the holistic goal. In this way, financially sound decisions must also be environmentally and socially sound; environmentally sound decisions must also be financially and socially sound; and socially sound decisions must also be financially and environmentally sound. The Center for Holistic Management The Center for Holistic Management was founded as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation in 1984 to advance the idea of Holistic Management. The primary purpose of the Center is to produce holistic Management practitioners. To accomplish this mission, an international network of Certified Educators affiliated with the Center work to teach others to practice Holistic Management. The Center produces educational materials (textbooks, videos, computer software, and a bimonthly newsletter) to further help people learn to practice. Since the Center's founding, more than 10,000 individuals in all 50 states and 28 countries have received training in Holistic Management. The Center manages ranches for absentee owners in the U.S. and internationally. Each of these properties becomes a Holistic Management learning site for the community in which it is located. The Center derives its revenues from foundation grants, international development agency contracts, trainer tuition fees, land management 25

services, membership contributions, subscriptions and general philanthropy. In addition, the Center has recently formed a for-profit corporation as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Center - Holistic Management International - which is engaged in joint ventures and other business that is related to Holistic Management, but is not necessarily defined as "educational". For more information about the Center and becoming a member contact the Center for Holistic Management 1010 Tijeras NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (505) 842-5252 E-mail: [email protected]. For training and facilitation of Holistic Management in Louisiana and surrounding states contact Tina Pilione, Certified Educator, c/o Whole Solutions, P.O.Box 923, Eunice , LA 70535. Phone: (318) 457-5024, E-mail: [email protected] Literature cited Butterfield, J. 1994. Struggling to generate wealth. Holistic Resource Management Quarterly. 45: 4-5. Davis, W. 1996. When your values run your ranch. Holistic Resource Management Quarterly. 51: 3-4. Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. TSSR-2nd ed. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Ill. Orr, D. 1994. Earth in Mind. Island Press. Covelo, Calif. Ponting, C. 1991. A green history of the world: the environment and the collapse of great civilizations. Penguin books. New York, NY. Savory, A. 1988. Holistic Resource Management. Island Press. Covelo, Calif. Smuts, J. C. 1926. Holism and Evolution. Gestalt Journal Press, Inc. Highland, New York.

26

Coastal Prairie: A Plausible Model For Sustainable Agriculture in Southwestern Louisiana Malcolm F. Vidrine and Bruno Borsari Louisiana State University at Eunice P. O. Box 1129 Eunice, LA 70535 Abstract The coastal prairie in southwestern Louisiana (Cajun Prairie) is essentially extinguished, but small communities of relict populations of native prairie plants and associated biota remain in remnants strips and small enclaves along the edges of developed lands. The habitat was destroyed by plowing for modern agricultural development, but recent agricultural models suggest that the restoration of native habitats (while they are still marginally extant) and the return to sustainable agriculture practices would, over time; increase crop yields, protect the soil from erosion, and reduce the needs for herbicides and pesticides. The perennial polyculture paradigm of The Land Institute is foremost among these ecosystem/agriculture restoration and preservation models and could serve well as a blueprint for the Cajun Prairie in southwestern Louisiana. Thus, our adaptation of the Land Institute paradigm, the Cajun Prairie paradigm; makes coastal prairies a model for farms, ranches, and urban yards. Soil building and soil protection practices are central to the paradigms and to the long-term vision of sustainability for future generations. Introduction Relict populations of plants in coastal prairie in Louisiana (Cajun Prairie) indicate the tremendous diversity of plant species and genomes in this ecosystem (Allen and Vidrine, 1989 and Allain and Johnson, 1997). Reconstruction of habitat in this ecosystem is dependent upon the preservation of the remaining plant populations on remnant prairies and upon a substantial effort by prairie enthusiasts to restore prairie (Vidrine et al., 1995). These efforts are built upon the land ethic (Leopold, 1949) which integrates plants and wildlife (Cajun Prairie), fire (Wright and Bailey, 1982), and land use (agriculture and urbanization) into a chain of life. Habitat restoration is now necessarily a part of the land ethic, and an articulation between the components must be developed for the next millennium. The weakest link in this chain is the massive loss of prairie organisms; the remaining acres of 27

recently unplowed prairie remnants are reduced from 500 acres in 1988 to 100 acres in 1998. At the time of Acadian (Cajun) settlement of southwestern Louisiana, approximately 2.5 million acres of treeless grasslands extended within a triangle from Ville Platte to Vinton to New Iberia. It was bordered to the south by freshwater marsh, to the north by flat pine forests with many savannahs, and to the east by the alluvial soils of the Mississippi delta with its bottomland hardwood and mixed upland forests (Newton, 1972, Allen et al., 1994, and Vidrine et al., 1995). Plant species in this tallgrass prairie probably exceeded 600 (Larry Allain, personal communication), and their ranges overlapped into the adjacent habitats. None of these prairies exist as virgin prairie to our knowledge; all of it has been plowed under; however, 100 acres of rather diverse remnant prairie remains unplowed to date. Some plowed areas have recently been observed to partially re-establish with prairie propagules remaining in the immediate area, but no research has been conducted to evaluate the recovery of these areas. The prairie has hosted prairie chickens, migrating winter fowl, and numerous other vertebrate (Lowery 1974a and 1974b) and invertebrate animals. The prairie includes streams, lakes, and marshes, and gallery forests. The inter-relationships of plants and animals are essentially unknown in this ecosystem. The entire panorama was historically maintained by fire and a hard claypan that was largely impervious to the roots of trees. Efforts to restore this prairie plant community as part of an ecosystem revitalization movement originated in Eunice with an experimental restoration plot of 10 acres leased from the railroad company by the city. After 10 years, the re-establishment of a community of prairie plants is evident, and it is apparent that a prairie community, notwithstanding presumed differences from the original community for which we have no documented description, has developed with the seeding aid of transplantations and annual controlled burns. During the sixth year of restoration the project, was evaluated native prairie plant species were found to 60-80% of the area seeded and transplanted with selected propagules (Vidrine et al.,). Only 5 of the 10 acres were initially planted, however and the remaining 5 acres have since overgrown with Chinese tallow trees. Growth indices for selected clump-forming grasses and forbs were determined for the site (Borsari and Vidrine, 1997). Borsari and Shirley (1993) demonstrated an increase in available humus (topsoil) in the site where prairie plants were thriving. The project has recently been abandoned by the city with the property being returned to the railroad company. The property is currently on the real estate market.

28

A second project was started in 1990. Less than an acre of the LSUE campus was treated to modified method of restoration. It has shown improvement in terms of species imposition, but annual mowing and other perturbations have delayed its maturation. As evidence of its progress, Borsari et al., (1998) demonstrated that soil macrofauna, especially earthworms, were significantly more common in the site than in nearby cultivated fields. This restoration effort continues, with the scope and land area showing marked increases as new projects are added. More recent attempts to restore prairie in southwestern Louisiana are using seed stock from Texas and Midwest prairies. However, an ideal restoration would contain only native genomes (those of populations from a 50 mile or less radius from the site to be restored). Numerous accounts exist that demonstrate the adaptations of prairie gardens to natural landscaping in most prairie states in the Midwest as well as Texas. It is a major goal of the authors to duplicate that effort in Louisiana with native propagules. In many locations, rice fields have been taken out of cultivation and sold as rural lots. The senior author has purchased such a lot and is using 1.5 acres for restoration of prairie, marais, and marsh habitats as demonstration gardens (Cajun Prairie Gardens). Cajun Prairie Ecology The study of prairie gardens and native prairie in the Midwest and in the coastal prairie clearly depict the beneficial impacts of reduced mowing and/or grazing on the soil. The plant community with its mycorrhizae, fungal root symbionts, reconstruct the soil horizons and create an underground habitat for numerous kinds of organisms which live in the interstices between soil particles and roots. The underground structure of the prairie is more complex than in other habitat, and a minimum ratio of 2 to 1 is commonly presented for the underground to aboveground plant biomass in the prairie. Thus, the prairie plants are soil builders and control erosion. In association with the prairie plants, a diverse biota develops with a myriad of inter-relationships. Faunal, fungal, moneran, and protist interactions with plants are well-documented for Midwest prairie ecosystems; however, very little is known of these in Cajun Prairie. With the restoration of plant communities, it is apparent that these associations tend to redevelop. The level of complexity and the full diversity of the historical ecosystems are probably not going to be re-established, but there appears to be sufficient diversity to recreate a sustainable system. In fact, many of these "gardens" that have been created in the Midwest by natural landscaping are advertised as "butterfly 29

gardens" and/or "pollinator gardens" (Daniels 1995, Ajilvsgi 1990, Buchmann and Nabhan 1996, Druse and Roach 1994, Kirk 1995, Packard and Mutel 1997, Roth 1997, Shirley 1994, Thompson, 1992, Wasowski and Wasowski, 1988 and 1992, and Wilson, 1992). The movement to this kind of landscaping is growing in the larger cities in Louisiana (Fontenot, 1992 and Ross, 1994), but it is very slow to start in rural Louisiana. Eunice and LSUE provide a prime location to develop model demonstration gardens for this rural landscape and ecosystem. Cajun Prairie and Sustainable Agriculture Relating Cajun Prairie to sustainable agriculture is most easily done by reflecting upon the philosophy and the perennial polyculture paradigm developed by Wes Jackson at The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas (Jackson 1980, 1987, and 1994). The perennial polyculture paradigms model agricultural systems that mimic Midwest prairie ecosystems. These models depict economic systems that not only support a rural livelihood but also build and protect soil. Benefits of perennial polyculture (Soule and Piper, 1992) include: 1. Soil building and erosion control by continual addition of root turnover materials to the soil and by the roots holding moisture and producing humus which holds moisture, 2. Advantages of intercropping and crop rotation since several species are planted together, 3. Preadapted water-use patterns of native plants already synchronized with the local habitat reduced need for irrigation, 4. Direct transfer of nitrogen into soil by the use of legumes reduced costs of inputs, 5. Increased biotic diversity in the field reduced pest and disease incidence and encouraged beneficial predators to reside in the field, 6. Weed management occurred by shading of weed seedlings with the perennial canopy and/or by allelopathy, 7. Decreased fossil fuel consumption in seed bed preparation, cultivation, and fertilizer, 8. Reduced contamination of water supply due to runoff of chemicals used to control pests and to add nitrogen to the crop, 9. And preserved genetic bank of unique adaptations of plants in the ecosystem.

30

The renewed interest in native grasses and forbs not only resurrects a forgotten paradigm of agroecology long since replaced by the paradigm of modern agribusiness but also provides an opportunity to reform agriculture and place primary emphasis on soil creation and protection. The current trend is the loss of 2 tons of topsoil for each ton of agricultural product. Southwestern Louisiana is no different from the Midwest in this manner of exploitation, and thus, Cajun Prairie is a realistic model for agriculture. There has been no effort to develop this model nor is it yet conceived, in part because we are yet to formally define the ecosystem called Cajun Prairie. The genomes of the prairie plants in southwestern Louisiana are unknown and in dire need of study and protection. Restoration projects become "stop-gap" measures to protect this flora, to provide propagules, and to provide the needed genetic material for study. The variety of plants native to southwestern Louisiana is enormous (Ajilvsgi 1979, Allen, 1984 and 1992, Allen et al., 1989 and 1994, Caillet and Mertzweiller, 1988, Dormon, 1958 and 1965, Gandhi and Thomas, 1989, Mire, 1989, Stones, 1991, Thomas and Allen, 1993 and 1996, and Vidrine et al., 1995). Their genetic diversity is a major resource with potential uses including drugs, food, fiber, and pleasure (Kindscher, 1987 and 1992, Ladd 1995, Madson, 1982 and 1993, and Touchstone, 1983). A list of realistic benefits of Cajun Prairie restoration includes: 1. A large number of native plant species are the same ornamentals currently used in the cut-flower industry all over the country. Our species bloom during seasons different from other members of the same or similar species because of their unique genetic adaptations to this climate and geography. These beautiful plants/flowers provide pleasure and beauty in the home, around the home, and in local businesses. 2. A diverse, native pollinator community, which is itself imperiled by the sheer reduction in the number of kinds and individuals of prairie plant hosts, is sustained and, in turn, the pollinators can sustain this plant community. These same native pollinators replace the naturalized honeybees, which are succumbing to mite infestations and to African dilution of genomes by poorer honey-producers. 3. Native grasses and forbs with not only high forage ratings for grazing ungulates but also high value as perennial hay and pasture crops are among the prairie plants that have been ignored by Louisiana ranchers (Stubbendieck et al. 1997), but these are re-established by restoration and landscaping.

31

4. The obvious soil building and erosion control capabilities of the plant community are well-documented and previously mentioned. 5. The potential edibility of native plants, like Apios americana, may provide new crops for human consumption (Kindscher, 1987). 6. Many native herbs, like Mamou coral bean, which may contain unique genes that lead to new, needed antibiotics and anti-cancer drugs are still surviving in remnants of Cajun Prairie. Other herbs, like Echinacea, provide well-known chemicals which enhance immune functions (Kindscher, 1992 and Foster and Duke, 1990). 7. New landscaping designs that teach our children about our heritage as well as demonstrate the interconnectedness of natural things within local ecosystems are developing with these plants. The reduction in costs of lawn maintenance and the reduction in overall pollution by chemicals in producing natural landscapes is enormous. Meadow and prairie plantings in the Midwest have increased into the thousands clearly indicating the growing interest in this kind of landscaping in an educated, progressive community (Roth, 1997). These also serve as outdoor classrooms for the youth and the mature student of life. 8. Beneficial animals like dragonflies and spiders provide protection from deleterious insects including mosquitoes, love-bugs, and other pests. An intact complex food chain is essential for sustainability in any ecosystem. Insects provide abundant food for birds, including resident and migrating species. The plants produce seeds and other parts that feed a large variety of birds and other animals essential to our well-being and the overall health of the ecosystem (Allen and Vidrine, 1990, Curry, 1994, Opler and Malikul, 1992, Price et al., 1991, Vidrine and Allen, 1993, Vidrine et al., 1992a, 1992b, and 1992c, and Weaver, 1954 and 1968). 9. Seed and propagules of these plants are requested often, and the numbers of requests grow annually, but few local retail sources exist. Jobs can be created and expanded by the development of this habitat. Not only research positions but also small business opportunities abound. Demonstration gardens, for example, can provide cut flowers, seed, propagules, information pamphlets, and other materials for minimal costs. Trained professional and paraprofessional individuals can provide landscaping assistance. 10. The habitat is in the final analysis a colorful and dynamic system with wildflowers whose reputations for attracting tourists are well documented. The restored habitat again serves as an outdoor classroom and as a "people pasture" (Madson, 1982). There is a certain "revery" just being in a wildflower meadow, but the "revery" redoubles with the restoration of such habitat. The gardener senses a deep feeling of "self-worth" that grows with 32

each succeeding year as the gardener observes the plants and their biotic associates redevelop a sustainable habitat. Conclusion The Cajun Prairie is essentially extinguished, but small communities of relict populations of native prairie plants and other biota remain in remnants and small out-of-the-way places. The habitat was destroyed by plowing for the modern agricultural development, but with the return to sustainable agriculture, the habitat needs to be developed as an ecosystem/agricultural model for southwestern Louisiana. A new paradigm for coastal prairies in which farms and pastures can be integrated with soil building and erosion control practices provided by native plant species and their associations is necessary. This paradigm recognizes the inherent values of the native ecosystem with its natural biodiversity and ability to withstand disease and climatic pressures. The activities of the faculty of LSUE in the development of this paradigm and in the preservation and restoration of the Cajun Prairie ecosystem signal the optimism needed for change toward a sustainable ecosystem with an agricultural base. Literature Cited Ajilvsgi, G. 1990. Butterfly gardening for the south. Taylor Publishing Co. (Dallas, TX). 348 pp. Ajilvsgi, G. 1979. Wild flowers of the Big Thicket: East Texas and western Louisiana. Texas A. and M. University Press (College Station). 361 pp. Allain, L. and S. Johnson. 1997. The prairies of coastal Texas and Acadiana. Wildflower (Spring): 42-45. Allen, C. 1984. A preliminary checklist of the vascular flora of Allen Parish, Louisiana. Contributions of the Herbarium of Northeast Louisiana University, No. 5: 57 pp. Allen, C. 1992. Grasses of Louisiana. Second Ed. Cajun Prairie Habitat Preservation Society (Eunice, LA). 320 pp. Allen, C. and M. Vidrine. 1989. Wildflowers of the Cajun Prairie. Louisiana Conservationist 41 (3): 20-25. 33

Allen, C. and M. Vidrine. 1990. Butterflies of the Cajun Prairie. Louisiana Conservationist 42 (2): 16-21. Allen, C., M. Vidrine, and R. McLaughlin. 1989. Weeds of rice fields of southwestern Louisiana. Proc. Louisiana Acad. Sci. 52: 8-16. Allen, C., M. Vidrine, and B. Borsari. 1994. Analysis of the woody vegetation of a beech forest area in the Louisiana Arboretum. The Louisiana Environmental Professional 10 & 11 (1): 17-26. Borsari, B. and V. Shirley. 1993. Preservation of natural habitats: biodiversity and farming. Ann. Proc. Amer. Soc. Environ. Sci. pp. 181-187. Borsari, B. and M. Vidrine. 1997. Estimates of clump size increase in clumpforming native perennials in the Cajun Prairie Restoration Project in Eunice, Louisiana. Proc. Louisiana Acad. Sci. 60: 54 (abstract). Borsari, B., S. LaHaye and W. Sellers. 1998. Soil macrofauna and topsoil depletion: a comparative study among various cultivated fields and the prairie. Louisiana State University at Eunice. Sust. Agric. Sem. Proc., Vol. 1. 46-52. Buchmann, S. and G. Nabhan. 1996. The forgotten pollinators. Island Press (Washington D. C.). 292 pp. Caillet, M. and J. Mertzweiller, eds. 1988. The Louisiana Iris: The history and culture of five native species and their hybrids. Texas Gardener Press (Waco, TX). 226 pp. Curry, J. P. 1994. Grassland Invertebrates. Chapman and Hall (London, UK). 437 pp. Daniels, S. 1995. The wild lawn handbook: Alternatives to the traditional front lawn. Macmillan (New York). 223 pp. Dormon, C. 1958. Flowers native to the deep south. Mt. Pleasant Press (Harrisburg, PA). 176 pp. Dormon, C. 1965. Natives preferred. Claitor's Book Store (Baton Rouge, LA). 217 pp. 34

Druse, K. and M. Roach. 1994. The natural habitat garden. Clarkson Potter Publ. (New York). 248 pp. Fontenot, W. 1992. Native gardening in the South. A Prairie Basse Publication (Carencro, LA). 153 pp. Foster, S. and J. Duke. 1990. A field guide to medicinal plants: Eastern and central North America. The Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company (Boston, Massachusetts). 366 pp. Gandhi, K. and R. Thomas. 1989. Asteraceae of Louisiana. SIDA, Botanical Miscellany No. 4: xii + 202 pp. Jackson, W. 1980. New roots for agriculture. University of Nebraska Press (Lincoln, Nebraska). 150 pp. Jackson, W. 1987. Alters of unhewn store: Science and the earth. North Point Press (New York). 158 pp. Jackson, W. 1994. Becoming native to this place. University Press of Kentucky (Lexington, Kentucky). 121 pp. Kindscher, K. 1987. Edible wild plants of the prairie: An ethnobotanical guide. University of Kansas Press (Lawrence, KS). 276. Kindscher, K. 1992. Medicinal plants of the prairie, an ethnobotanical guide. University of Kansas Press (Lawrence, KS). 340 pp. Kirk, R. 1995. Prairie plants of the Midwest: identification and ecology. Stipes Publishing L. L. C. (Champaign, Illinois). xvii + 137 pp. Ladd, D. 1995. Tallgrass prairie wildflowers: a Falcon field guide. Falcon Press (Helena, Montana). 262 pp. Leopold, A. 1949. A sand county almanac, and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, Inc. (New York). A Special Commemorative Edition, 1989. 228 pp.

35

Lowery, G. Jr. 1974a. Louisiana Birds. Third Edition. Louisiana State University Press (Baton Rouge). 651 pp. Lowery, G. Jr. 1974b. The Mammals of Louisiana and its Adjacent Waters. Louisiana State University Press (Baton Rouge). 565 pp. Madson, J. 1982. Where the sky began. Houghton Mifflin (Boston, Mass.). Madson, J. 1993. Tallgrass prairie. Falcon Press Publ. Co. (Helena, Montana). 112 pp. Mire, P. 1989. Wildflowers of the Cajun Prairie. Attakapas Productions. 30 minute video. Newton, M. Jr. 1972. Atlas of Louisiana. A Guide for Students. School of Geoscience Misc. Publ. 72-1, Louisiana State University. 195 pp. Opler, P. and V. Malikul. 1992. A field guide to eastern butterflies. Peterson Field Guides. Houghton Mifflin Co. (New York). 396 pp. Packard, S. and C. Mutel, Eds. 1997. The tallgrass restoration handbook: For prairies, savannas, and woodlands. Island Press (Washington D. C.). 463 pp. Price, P., T. Lewinsohn, G. W. Fernandes, and W. Benson. Eds. 1991. Pantanimal interactions: Evolutionary ecology in tropical and temperate regions. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (New York). 639 pp. Ross, G. 1994. Gardening for Butterflies in Louisiana. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Heritage Program (Baton Rouge, LA). 41 pp. Roth, S. 1997. Natural landscaping: Gardening with nature to create a backyard paradise. Rodale Press Inc. (Emmaus, Pennsylvania). 255 pp. Shirley, S. 1994. Restoring the tallgrass prairie: An illustrated manual for Iowa and the upper midwest. Univ. of Iowa Press (Iowa City, Iowa). 330 pp. Soule, J. D. and J. K. Piper. 1992. Farming in nature's image: An ecological approach to agriculture. Island Press (Washington D. C.). 286 pp.

36

Stones, M. 1991. Flora of Louisiana: water color drawings by Margaret Stones with botanical descriptions by Lowell Urbatsch. Louisiana State University Press (Baton Rouge). 220 pp. Stubbendieck, J., S. Hatch, and C. Butterfield. 1997. North American range plants. Fifth Ed. University of Nebraska Press (Lincoln, Nebraska). 501 pp. Thomas, R. and C. Allen. 1993. Atlas of the vascular flora of Louisiana: Volume I: Ferns & Fern Allies, Conifers, & Monocotyledons. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (Baton Rouge). 217 pp. Thomas, R. and C. Allen. 1996. Atlas of the vascular flora of Louisiana: Volume II and III: Dicotyledons. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (Baton Rouge). Thompson, J. 1992. Prairies, Forests, and Wetlands: The Restoration of Natural Landscape Communities in Iowa. Univ. of Iowa Press (Iowa City, IA). Touchstone, S. 1983. Herbal and folk medicine of Louisiana and adjacent states. Folk-Life Books (Princeton, LA). 175 pp. Vidrine, M. and C. Allen. 1993. Dragonflies of the Cajun Prairie. Louisiana Conservationist 45 (1): 10-13. Vidrine, M., C. Allen, and W. Fontenot. 1995. A Cajun Prairie Restoration Journal: 1988-1995. Gail Q. Vidrine Collectibles (Eunice, LA 70535). 183 pp. Vidrine, M., C. Allen, and H. Guillory. 1992a. List of parish distribution records of Odonata in Louisiana. The Louisiana Environmental Professional 9 (1): 19-39. Vidrine, M., C. Allen, and H. Guillory. 1992b. Flight records of Odonata in southwestern Louisiana. The Louisiana Environmental Professional 9 (1): 4053. Vidrine, M., C. Allen, and H. Guillory. 1992c. Flight records of Papilionoidea in southwestern Louisiana. The Louisiana Environmental Professional 9 (1): 54-66.

37

Wasowski, S. and A. Wasowski. 1988. Native Texas Plants. Landscaping region by region. Gulf Publishing Co. (Houston, TX). 406 pp. Wasowski, S. and A. Wasowski. 1992. Requiem for a lawnmower. Taylor Publishing Co. (Dallas, TX). 182 pp. Weaver, J. 1954. North American prairie. Johnson Publ. Co. (Lincoln, Nebraska). 348 pp. Weaver, J. 1968. Prairie plants and their environment: A fifty-year study in the midwest. Univ. of Nebraska Press (Lincoln, Nebraska). 276 pp. Wilson, J. 1992. Landscaping with wildflowers: An environmental approach to gardening. Houghton Mifflin Co. (Boston, Mass.). 244 pp. Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and Canada. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (New York). 501 pp.

38

Vertebrate Biological Diversity at the University of Southwestern Louisiana Experimental Farm, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana USA Jay V. Huner Department of Renewable Resources University of Southwestern Louisiana Lafayette, LA 70504-4650 USA BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY is an overall measure of the number of species of living organisms in a given area and the number of individuals of each species present. Healthy ecosystems provide a diversity of habitats and these are occupied by diverse plant (flora) and animal (fauna) assemblages. Many organizations including governmental entities and private foundations and groups have recognized the importance of maintaining as much biological diversity as possible in North America. As a result, many natural parks, preserves, management areas, forests, etc. have been developed during the twentieth century. The University of Southwestern Louisiana (USL) is committed to the concept of Biological Diversity. This is reflected in its strong commitment to the environment through its campus Sustainable Agriculture and Biology Programs and its partnerships with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Smithsonian Institution (SI). In fact, the USL Research Park houses the USGS' National Wetlands Research Center and NMFS and SI units. Much of the arable lands in North America has been converted to livestock and crop production on farms and ranches. However, there is much opportunity to provide habitat for all manner of organisms on these lands. This is evidenced by the development of many programs to assist the agricultural community in managing its lands to ensure that Biological Diversity is maintained.

39

The USL College of Applied Life Sciences has developed its 600 acre (240 ha) Experimental Farm in St. Martin Parish - south-central Louisiana - with the realization that the maintenance and enhancement of Biological Diversity must be an important component of any agricultural research program. This unit is situated astride the natural loessal terrace and adjacent alluvial lowland about 3 miles (5 km) west of Bayou Teche. Subunits include managed (aquaculture) and forested semi-natural, short-hydroperiod wetlands as well as livestock (beef, dairy, sheep and swine) pasture, organic waste lagoons, hay fields, and crop lands. Special attention has been paid to vertebrate biodiversity on this farm since the university acquired it in the 1980s. To date, July 1998, 186 North American bird, 30 mammal, 27 reptile, 13 amphibian, and 26 fish species have been documented on the farm. Additional species will be documented as they are encountered. For example, there are a number of fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species that should appear based on their presence in rural areas elsewhere in the surrounding environs. Some of these animals do interfere with production of food and fiber and research is underway to reduce conflict with man with minimal impact on the animal resources on the farm. Lists of the bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, and fish species confirmed as having been encountered on the farm follow. Currently accepted common names are used throughout. Acknowledgements The following individuals/groups are thanked for assisting in identifying the vertebrate speices documented here. Birds: W. J. Bernard, III, Mark J. Broussard, Paul C. Chadwick, Richard Delaloire, Albert P. Gaude', III, Paul Leberg, Billy Leonard, Tibor Mikuska, Mike Musumeche, T. Blaire Shields, II, and Bill Vermillion as well as members of the Acadian Chapter, American Audubon Society and the Louisiana Birders Anonymous organization with special thanks to Dave Patton and Judith O'Neale. Mammals: Mark J. Broussard and Paul Leberg.

40

Amphibians and Reptiles: Mark Konikoff, James F. Jackson, Douglas A. Rossman, and R. Mark Waters. Fishes: Mark Konikoff.

Table 1. Birds observed at the USL Experimental Farm, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. Common name * Pied-billed Grebe * American White Pelican * Double-crested Cormorant * Neotropic Cormorant * Anhinga * Magnificent Frigatebird * American Bittern * Least Bittern * Great Blue Heron * Great Egret * Snowy Egret * Little Blue Heron * Tricolored Heron * Reddish Egret * Cattle Egret * Green Heron * Black-crowned Night Heron * Yellow-crowned Night Heron * White Ibis * Glossy Ibis * White-faced Ibis * Roseate Spoonbill * Wood Stork * Fulvous Whistling Duck * Greater White-fronted Goose * Snow Goose * Canada Goose

* Mottled Duck * Mallard * Northern Pintail * Blue-winged Teal * Cinnamon Teal * Northern Shoveler * Gadwall * Redhead * Ring-necked Duck * Greater Scaup * Lesser Scaup * Bufflehead * Hooded Merganser * Red-breasted Merganser * Ruddy Duck * Black Vulture * Turkey Vulture * Osprey * Swallow-tailed Kite * Mississippi Kite * Northern Harrier * Sharp-shinned Hawk * Cooper's Hawk * Red-shouldered Hawk * Red-tailed Hawk * Merlin * Amerian Kestrel 41

* Wood Duck * Green-winged Teal *Virginia Rail * Sora * Purple Gallinuleq * Common Moorhen

* Northern Bobwhite * King Rail * Northern Flicker * Eastern Wood-pewee * Acadian Flycatcher * Eastern Phoebe

Table 1. Birds observed at the USL Experimental Farm, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. Common name * American Coot * Black-bellied Plover * Greater Yellowlegs * Lesser Yellowlegs * Solitary Sandpiper * Spotted Sandpiper * Western Sandpiper * Least Sandpiper * White-rumped Sandpiper * Pectoral Sandpiper * Stilt Sandpiper * Short-billed Dowitcher * Common Snipe * American Woodcock * Laughing Gull * Bonaparte's Gull * Ring-billed Gull * Herring Gull Caspian Tern * Forester's Tern * Rock Dove * Mourning Dove * Common Ground Dove * Yellow-billed Cuckoo * Barn Owl * Eastern Screech Owl * Great Horned Owl

* Vermillion Flycatcher * Great-crested Flycatcher * Eastern Kingbird * Scissor-tailed Flycatcher * Purple Martin * Tree Swallow * Northern Rough-winged Swallow * Barn Swallow * Blue Jay * American Crow * Fish Crow * Carolina Chickadee * Tufted Titmouse * Carolina Wren * Bewick's Wren * House Wren * Sedge Wren * Marsh Wren * Golden-crowned Kinglet * Ruby-crowned Kinglet * Blue-gray Gnatcatcher * Eastern Bluebird * Hermit Thrush * American Robin * Gray Catbird * Northern Mockingbird * Brown Thrasher 42

* Barred Owl * Long-eared Owl * Short-eared Owl * Common Nighthawk * Whip-poor-will * Chimney Swift

* American Pipit * Cedar Waxwing * Loggerhead Shrike * European Starling * White-eyed Vireo * Blue-headed Vireo

Table 1. Birds observed at the USL Experimental Farm, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. Common name * Ruby-throated Hummingbird * Belted Kingfisher * Red-headed Woodpecker * Red-bellied Woodpecker * Yellow-bellied Sapsucker * Downy Woodpecker * Hairy Woodpecker * Yellow-rumped Warbler * Blackburnian Warbler * Palm Warbler * American Redstart * Swainson's Warbler * Wilson's Warbler * Summer Tanager * Northern Cardinal * Blue Grosbeak * Painted Bunting * Eastern Towhee * Savannah Sparrow * Swamp Sparrow * Bobolink * Eastern Meadowlark * Rusty Blackbird * Common Grackle * Orchard Oriole * House Sparrow

* Yellow-throated Vireo * Philadelphia Vireo * Red-eyed Vireo * Tennessee Warbler * Orange-crowned Warbler * Northern Parula * Magnolia Warbler * Black-throated Green Warbler * Yellow-throated Warbler * Black-and-white Warbler * Prothonotary Warbler * Common Yellowthroat * Canada Warbler * Scarlet Tanager * Rose-breasted Grosbeak * Indigo Bunting * Dickcissel * Chipping Sparrow * Song Sparrow * White-throated Sparrow * Red-winged Blackbird * Yellow-headed Blackbird * Boat-tailed Grackle * Brown-headed Cowbird * American Goldfinch

43

Table 2. Mammals observed at the USL Experimental Farm, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. * Virginia Opossum * Least Shrew * Eastern Mole * Vespertilionid Bats * Nine-banded Armadillo * Eastern Cottontail * Swamp Rabbit * Gray Squirrel * Fox Squirrel * Southern Flying Squirrel * American Beaver * Marsh Rice Rat * Fulvous Harvest Mouse * White-footed Mouse * Hispid Cotton rat * Eastern Wood Rat * Common Muskrat * Norway Rat * House Mouse * Nutria * Coyote * Red Fox * Gray Fox * Northern Raccoon * North American Mink * Striped Skunk * Nearctic River Otter * Cougar * Bobcat * White-tailed Deer

Table 3. Amphibians and Reptiles observed at the USL Experimental Farm, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. Amphibians

Reptiles

44

* Three-toed Amphiuma * Western Lesser Siren * Gulf Coast Toad * Woodhouse's Toad * Northern Cricket Frog * Green Treefrog * Spring Peeper Amphibians

* Snapping Turtle * Painted Turtle * Cooter Turtle * Hieroglyphic River Cooter Turtle * Slider Turtle * Razor-backed Musk Turtle * Stinkpot turtle Reptiles

* Striped Chorus Frog * Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad * Eastern Spadefoot Toad * Bullfrog * Pig Frog * Southern Leopard Frog

* Spiny Softshell Turtle * Green Anole * Brown Skink * Racer * Corn Snake * Rat Snake * Mud Snake * Eastern Hog-Nosed Snake * Common Kingsnake * Western Green Water Snake * Plain-bellied Water Snake * Southern Water Snake * Diamond-backed Water Snake * Graham's Crayfish Snake * Western Ribbon Snake * Common Garter Snake * Copperhead * Cottonmouth * American Alligator

Table 4. Fishes observed at the USL Experimental Farm, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. * Bowfin * Redear Sunfish * Mosquitofish * Sailfin Molly * Black Bullhead * Brown Bullhead * Yellow Bullhead

* Green Sunfish * Least Killifish * Spotted Gar * Pirate Perch * Common Carp * Golden Shiner * Thread Fin Shad 45

* Channel Catfish * Northern Largemouth Bass * Warmouth * Bantam Sunfish * White Crappie * Flyer

* Gizzard Shad * Smallmouth Buffalo * Spotted Sunfish * Pygmy Sunfish * Black Crappie

Soil Macrofauna and Topsoil Depletion: a Comparative Study among Various Cultivated Fields and the Prairie Bruno Borsari, Suzanne LaHaye and Walton Sellers Louisiana State University at Eunice P.O.Box 1129 Eunice, LA 70535 Abstract Soil organisms are extremely important to the maintenance of soil fertility. Their presence seems to be strictly related to the amount of organic matter and detritus upon which they thrive. Modern agricultural practices have a decided impact on soil organism populations. The use of chemical products, tilling practices and the disposal of crop residues affects the soil fauna in the cultivated field. The comparison of data from cultivated fields with those collected in an undisturbed prairie suggests maximum soil fertility may occur where the highest level of biodiversity is maintained. Introduction Numerous field and laboratory studies have discussed the beneficial relationships between biodiversity and soil fertility. In 1989, Everts and his collaborators indicated that excessive ploughing and harrowing of previously untilled fields may have a greater detrimental effect on certain species of predatory arthropods (spiders) found in the soil. Clark (1993) has taken the "naturalistic" approach one step further by suggesting that what is required for the enhancement of soil fertility is not an increase in the variety of chemicals to combat soil predators, but, rather, an accelerated effort to cultivate plants such as jimson weed. These and many more native plant species manufacture their own toxins, thereby controlling noxious crop pests more efficiently. Within the last decade, several researchers have presented various viewpoints on the positive, direct relationship between biodiversity

46

and soil fertility. In early field studies, James (1988 , 1991) noted a dramatic increase in the biomass of native prairie earthworms after slash-and-burn agriculture had taken place. Further, he argued that the increased presence of native prairie earthworms had led to a significant (6-10%) increase in soil organic matter. Lastly, James credited earthworms for creating channels allowing for deeper penetration through hardpans and unstructured soils. He also conceded that the direct increase of soil organic matter could be attributed to different earthworm species, according to certain environmental conditions. Zhang and Hendrix (1995) supported James's basic contentions, adding that earthworms enhance mineralization and humification of organic matter, either by consuming it directly as food particles, or indirectly by mixing organic matter into the soil, thereby stimulating microbial activity in and around soil casts and their burrows. Logsdon and Linden (1992) questioned the importance of earthworm channels to improve plant root growth when alternative, low-resistance pathways for root growth were available (soil pores, cracks, ped faces, or packing voids). According to their research, some earthworm species do incorporate surface residues and surface-applied fertilizers, which would indicate that not all earthworms burrow deeply into the soil. Therefore, the amount of deep-water percolation to maintain a favorable moisture level in the soil for root growth will vary. Container studies have shown increased plant growth where unrealistically numbers of earthworms were introduced, but very few field studies have indicated high plant growth increases where large concentrations of earthworms were present. Is there a significant and obvious difference between cultivated fields and prairie remnants when each is sampled for earthworms and insects? The study that follows strives to provide an answer. Materials and Methods Soil samples were collected between November and December 1997 in five different locations in the vicinity of Eunice, Louisiana. The cultivated fields were located in St. Landry, Evangeline and Acadia parishes, and they were conventionally managed in a rotation system including rice, soybean and/or rye grass sown in winter, to allow cattle to graze. In each site, ten soil samples approximating a shovelful were examined for the presence of living organisms. These soil clods were broken by hand on a white cloth, and every macrospecies was counted. The data were compared with those collected on uncultivated land: the prairie in Frey (community south of Eunice, on HWY 861) and a prairie strip of limited dimensions that had been 47

restored on the LSU-E campus in 1990. The ten soil samples for each location were randomly taken at a distance of approximately 50 meters from each other. A representation of the collected data is shown in Table 1. A two-independent sample t-test was used in this study for earthworms only, in order to impart an appropriate degree of statistical significance to the results. SOIL SAMPLE

Vile platte

Iota 1

Plaisance

Iota 2

Duralde

Frey Prairie

LSUE Prairie

1

0

1 spider

0

0

0

8 earthworms

2

0

0

0

1 insect larva

0

3

1 insect larva

ants

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

9 earthworms ants 8 earthworms ants 7 earthworms

2 earthworms 1 spider 1 earwig ants 9 earthworms

5

0

0

0

0

9 earthworms

6 7

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 earthworm 1 insect larva 1 mole cricket 1 insect larva 0

0 0

0 1 insect unidentified

8

0

3 earthworms 1 insect larva

0

0

0

9

0

1 earthworm

0

1 spider

10

0

1 earthworm termites 0

1 insect larva 1 spider ants 0 0

1 earthworm 1 insect larva

0

0

7 earthworms 8 earthworms termites 14 earthworms

2 spiders 1 insect unidentified ants 1 spider 1 insect larva ants Ants 3 earthworms 3 spiders termites

Table 1. Summary of living organisms found in the soil samples at the different study sites.

Results

The results indicate that earthworms are significantly more abundant in noncultivated prairies than in cultivated fields. Therefore, earthworms may play a primary role in the overall process of humification of organic matter. The level of significance for this study (alpha) was set at 0.05 and t (68)= 6.32, p