an evaluation of the productivity of the native … · an evaluation of the productivity of the...

AN EVALUATION OF THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN

‘THREE SISTERS’ AGRICULTURE SYSTEM IN NORTHERN WISCONSIN

By

Rhea Trotman Martinez

A Thesis

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

NATURAL RESOURCES

College of Natural Resources

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-STEVENS POINT

Stevens Point, Wisconsin

August 2007

ii

APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE OF:

Senior Scientist - Forestry Discipline

Dr. Victor Phillips

Director, Global Environmental Management Education Center

and Professor ofF orestry

Dr. Michael Demchik

Associate Professor of Forestry

Dr. Greg Nowacki

Regional Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region

Dr. Wes Halverson

GEM Watershed Program Manager

iii

ABSTRACT

Traditional agriculture systems were once common practice among Native

Americans, who produced crops without the addition of synthetic fertilizers and

pesticides. Incorporation of Native American cropping practices may be an effective

strategy in the development of modern sustainable and organic gardens. Reintroduction

of these garden systems into Native American communities may also help increase

nutrition and preserve cultural traditions. The Three Sisters garden combines corn, beans

and squash, three vegetables that appear to symbiotically benefit each other, thus

reducing the need for fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, irrigation and weeding. Although

there are several accounts of the benefits of the Three Sisters approach in popular

gardening literature, no scientific studies documenting the effectiveness of the system

were found in published, peer-reviewed literature at the time of this study.

Through meetings and discussions with members of the Bad River and Red Cliff

tribal communities of Lake Superior Ojibwe in Northern Wisconsin held during the

summer and fall of 2005, the interests and needs of the these communities were assessed.

During this time, the communities expressed a desire to implement sustainable

agricultural systems, particularly reinstatement of the Three Sisters. Before promoting

the system, however, there was a need to further investigate its potential productivity.

This study took place at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center and at the Bad

River community gardens in Ashland County, WI during the 2006-cropping season. The

Three Sisters system was compared to monoculture plantations of corn, bean and squash

in terms of soil temperatures, gravimetric soil moisture content, weed cover, pest and

disease damage, adverse weather damage and crop yields (yield per plant and calories per

iv

acre). The heirloom crops used were analyzed for nutritional data and compared to

conventional varieties. Soil samples were collected from each plot before planting and

again the following spring, and changes in total soil nitrogen levels were determined.

Benefits of the Three Sisters system included increased soil drainage, a reduction

in raccoon damage, and a higher yield in calories per acre. Increased soil temperatures in

early stages of crop development and decreased soil temperatures in later stages of

growth were also observed in Three Sisters treatments. Weed cover in Three Sisters

treatments was lower than in monoculture corn and bean treatments, but this difference

was only significant for monoculture beans at the Bad River site. More damage to corn

plants resulting from adverse weather was observed in monoculture treatments than in

Three Sisters treatments; however this difference was not statistically significant. The

heirloom crops used (rattlesnake pole bean and Hopi orange squash) were higher in

certain nutrients than conventional varieties.

No significant difference in the number of cucumber beetles on squash plants and

damage caused by corn smut and corn earworm on corn plants was noted between

monoculture and Three Sisters treatments. Yield per plant was not significantly greater

in Three Sisters treatments than in monoculture treatments. There was also no significant

difference in changes in total soil nitrogen between treatments from 2006-2007.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor and graduate committee chair, Dr. Mai Phillips,

for her guidance and support during this project and throughout my career as a graduate

student. I would also like to thank the rest of my graduate committee: Dr. Michael

Demchik, Dr. Wes Halverson, Dr. Greg Nowacki and Dr. Victor Phillips for all of their

contributions. The development of my project and content of my thesis were greatly

enhanced by their recommendations. Tom Cogger of the Ashland County Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) helped me obtain the land and materials for my

fieldwork, assisted in setting up the project and provided technical assistance. The

Ashland County NRCS provided office space and the use of their equipment during my

field season. UWSP/GEM interns Azra Velagic and Andy Walker worked extra hard

throughout the entire summer in helping me with everything from setting up the study

sites, to planting, collecting data and harvesting produce. The Bad River AmeriCorps’

Volunteers In Service To America (VISTA) Eric Frank and Benjamin Wojahn also

helped immensely by providing seeds, tilling the soil, and assisting in the harvest of

produce. The Bad River community and the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center both

provided the land where my study took place. Dr. Tim Ginnett offered much of his time

guiding me through the various statistical procedures for analyzing my data. The Global

Environmental Management Education Center (GEM), USDA Forest Service District 9

and UWSP provided the opportunity and funding to make this project possible. I would

also like to thank my husband, Carlos Martinez and my fellow graduate students for

offering suggestions and continual support.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF APPENDICES xii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 4

A brief history of agriculture 4

Organic agriculture 6

Intercropping 7

The Three Sisters 8

Loss of indigenous knowledge and Native American health concerns 9

Chapter 3: OBJECTIVES 13

Chapter 4: EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS AND DESIGN 14

Study sites 14

Experimental design 15

Site preparation and care 16

CHAPTER 5: SOIL TEMPERATURES 19

Methods 19

Results 19

Discussion 31

CHAPTER 6: WEED COVER 33

Methods 33

Results 33

Discussion 37

CHAPTER 7: SOIL MOISTURE 40

Methods 40

Results 40

Discussion 45

vii

CHAPTER 8: DAMAGE DUE TO ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS 48

Methods 48

Results 48

Discussion 48

CHAPTER 9: PESTS AND DISEASE 50

Methods 50

Results 51

Discussion 55

CHAPTER 10: Yields 57

Methods 57

Results 58

Discussion 63

CHAPTER 11: NUTRITIONAL ANALYSIS 65

Methods 65

Results 65

Discussion 67

CHAPTER 12: CHANGES IN TOTAL SOIL NITROGEN 68

Methods 68

Results 68

Discussion 69

Chapter 13: SUMMARY 70

CHAPTER 14: RECOMMENDATIONS 77

LITERATURE CITATIONS 78

APPENDICES 82

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. Description Page

1 Corn and bean mound and squash mound 18 2 Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture

and Three Sisters bean plots at 0700 hours according to weeks after planting at site A

21

3 Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters bean plots at 1200 hours according to weeks after planting at site A

22

4 Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters bean plots at 1700 hours according to weeks after planting at site A

23

5 Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters corn plots at 0700 hours according to weeks after planting at site B

25


26


27

8 Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters squash plots at 0700 hours according to weeks after planting at site B

29


30


31

11 Mean weed cover with error bars (95% confidence interval) by weeks after planting according to treatment at site B

36

12 Mean gravimetric soil moisture content with error bars grouped by weeks after planting according to treatment at site A

41

13 Mean gravimetric soil moisture with error bars grouped by weeks after planting according to treatment at site B

44

14 Monthly rainfall (in.) for Ashland, WI for June, July and August 2006 46 15 Rainfall (in.) for the month of July in Ashland, WI 46 16 Mean number of corn plants out of total corn plants damaged by raccoons

at site A 55

17 Mean yield/plant in monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments at site A

59

18 Mean calories/acre in monoculture corn, monoculture bean, monoculture squash and Three Sisters treatments at site A

60

19 Mean yield/plant in monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments at

ix

site B 62 20 Mean calories/acre in monoculture corn, monoculture bean, monoculture

squash and Three Sisters treatments at site A 63

x

LIST OF TABLES Table Description Page

1 Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments at site A

20

2 Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters bean treatments at site A

21

3 Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments at site A

24

4 Means for diurnal variation in soil temperatures at a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters plots at site A

24

5 Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments at site B

25

6 Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters bean treatments at site B

28

7 Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments at site B

28

8 Means for diurnal variation in soil temperatures at a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters plots at site B

31

9 Analysis of variance of mean weed cover (%) at site A 34 10 Tukey Test results for differences in weed cover by treatment at site A 34 11 Tukey Test results for differences in weed cover (%) by weeks after

planting at site A 35

12 Analysis of variance of mean weed cover (%) at site B 35 13 Tukey Test results for differences in weed cover by treatment at site B 37 14 Tukey Test results for differences in weed cover by weeks after planting

(WAP) at site B 37

15 Analysis of variance of mean gravimetric soil moisture content (%) at site A

41

16 Tukey Test results for differences in mean gravimetric soil moisture content (%) by treatment at site A

42

17 Tukey Test results for differences in mean gravimetric soil moisture content (%) by weeks after planting at site A

42

18 Analysis of variance of mean gravimetric soil moisture content (%) at site B

43

19 Tukey Test results for differences in soil moisture by treatment at site B 44

20 Tukey Test results for differences in mean gravimetric soil moisture (%) by weeks after planting at site B

45

21 Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of corn ears damaged by adverse weather at site B

48

22 Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of cucumber beetles present on squash plants at site A

52

23 Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of cucumber beetles present on squash plants at site B

52

24 Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of corn ears damaged by corn

xi

smut at site A 52 25 Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of corn ears damaged by corn

smut at site B 53

26 Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of corn ears damaged by corn earworm at site A

53

27 Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of corn ears damaged by corn earworm at site B

53

28 Mann-Whitney U Test for mean percent raccoon damage to corn plants at site A

54

29 Analysis of variance of mean yield/plant in monoculture and Three Sisters treatments at site A

59

30 Analysis of variance of mean yield/plant in monoculture and Three Sisters treatments at site B

60

31 Analysis of Variance for mean calories/acre in monoculture corn, monoculture bean, monoculture squash and Three Sisters treatments at site A

61

32 Analysis of Variance for mean calories/acre in monoculture corn, monoculture bean, monoculture squash and Three Sisters treatments at site B

62

33 Nutritional information for Bear Island flint corn flour and whole-grain yellow corn flour

66

34 Nutritional information for mature raw rattlesnake pole bean and mature raw pinto beans

66

35 Analysis of Variance of changes in total soil nitrogen levels (ppm) between treatments at site A

68

36 Analysis of Variance of changes in total soil nitrogen levels (ppm) between treatments at site A

69

37 Summary of null hypotheses depicting rejection or failure to reject. 76

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Description Page

I Aerial photograph of the Bad River reservation taken on August 4, 1951 showing raised bed agricultural systems

83

II Aerial photo and soil map of study site A, Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC)

84

III Aerial photo and soil map of study site B, Bad River community garden

85

IV Soil test report for study site A, Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center 86 V Soil test report for study site B, Bad River community gardens 87 VI Photo of Student intern Azra Velagic tying support strings for

monoculture bean plot 88

VII Soil temperature data for monoculture and Three Sisters corn, bean and squash at site A

89

VIII Soil temperature data for monoculture and Three Sisters corn, bean and squash at site B

101

IX Photo of Student Intern Azra Velagic and Rhea Martinez determining weed cover at site A, 2 weeks after planting

113

X Photo. Determining weed cover at site B, 2 weeks after planting 114 XI Weed cover data for sites A and B 115 XII Weed types and percent (in descending order) at sites A and B by

date 118

XIII Photo of Three Sisters plots at site B, 2 weeks after planting 120 XIV Soil Moisture data for sites A and B 121 XV Photos of Corn plants in monoculture plots knocked over by strong

winds and rain on July 16, 2006 at site B 125

XVI Adverse weather damage data for site B 126 XVII Cucumber beetle data for sites A and B 127 XVIII Corn smut data for sites A and B 128 XIX Corn earworm data for sites A and B 129 XX Raccoon damage data for site A 130 XXI Corn yield data for sites A and B 131 XXII Bean yield data for sites A and B 132 XXIII Squash yield data for sites A and B 133 XXIV Calories/acre data for sites A and B 134 XXX Total nitrogen data for sites A and B 135

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Traditional agriculture systems were once common practice among Native

Americans (Struever and Vickery, 1973; Wilson, 1987). They ate a diverse diet of plant

and animal-based foods, and farmed without chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Struever

and Vickery, 1973; Wilson, 1987). The early American crops, corn (Zea mays), beans

(Phaseolus vulgaris) and squash (Cucurbita sp.) were often planted together in a

polyculture system (Dodson, 2001). The Iroquois called this ancient crop combination

the “Three Sisters.” Many gardeners who have grown Three Sisters gardens have

affirmed that the Three Sisters system produces higher yields than the same crops grown

separately in the same area of land (Creasy, 1988; Mt. Pleasant, 2001; Elliot, 2004).

According to several popular gardening publications, the three plants compliment one

another; corn provides support for pole beans to climb, beans replenish the soil with

nitrogen, and squash and pumpkin have large, broad leaves that protect the soil from

moisture loss and suppress the growth of weeds (Creasy, 1988; Erney, 1996; Dodson,

2001; Elliot, Munson-Scullin and Scullin, 2005). The prickly vines of the squash plants

may also repel pests such as deer and raccoons (Creasy, 1988; Erney 1996; Dodson, 2001;

Elliot, 2004; Munson-Scullin and Scullin 2005). When eaten together, the three plants

form a balanced meal complete with vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, and protein

(Lewandowski, 1987; Mt. Pleasant, 2001).

In the traditional Native American system, the crops are grown on hills. This may

improve root growth (Mt. Pleasant, 2001) because the soil is less compacted. Organic

material becomes concentrated on the hills when crop and topsoil accumulation

decompose, increasing soil fertility for subsequent crops (Mt. Pleasant, 2001). Planting

2

in hills may also increase soil drainage and temperature, as has been observed in raised

beds (Hochmuth, 1983; Nestby and Kongsrud, 1993), thus increasing crop productivity in

colder climates and in poorly drained soils.

The knowledge of sustainable Native American agricultural practices has become

lost as tribal members leave their reservations for jobs in the cities and adapt to western-

influenced lifestyles. Many traditional crop varieties that were bred for generations to

thrive in local conditions have disappeared due to the implementation of large-scale

monoculture, leading to a decline in genetic diversity (Visser, 1986; Altieri, 1999).

Obesity, diabetes and heart disease are leading health risks among Native

Americans (Kuhnlein and Receveur, 1996; Fox et al., 1998; Story et al., 1999).

Occurrences of these diseases have risen among Native American populations, which

may be due in part to the replacement of an active lifestyle of hunting, gathering and

agriculture, to diets low in fiber and high in saturated fats, sugars and refined foods, along

with reduced physical activity (Neel, 1962; Kuhnlein and Receveur, 1996; Fox et al.,

1998; Story et al., 1999).

During the summer of 2005, two student interns from the University of

Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UWSP), along with organizations including the Natural

Resource Conservation Service and Americorps’ Volunteers In Service To America

(VISTA), worked on sustainable agriculture projects with residents of the Bad River and

Red Cliff tribal communities of Lake Superior Ojibwe in Northern Wisconsin. UWSP’s

Global Environmental Management Education Center (GEM) recognized these

communities as underserved, and identified them as potential sites for a research project.

Through meetings and discussions conducted during the summer and fall of 2005, the

3

interests and needs of these communities were assessed. Community representatives

expressed a desire to implement sustainable agricultural systems, particularly Three

Sisters gardens, as a means of preserving indigenous knowledge and improving the diets

of tribal members. Before promoting the system in these communities, however, there

was a need to further investigate its potential productivity.

With an increasing number of environmentally conscious consumers and a

growing demand for natural products, organic agriculture has gained much popularity in

recent years (Greene, 2001). More growers are converting to organic practices to reduce

input costs (in the form of commercial fertilizers and synthetic pesticides), lessen impacts

on the environment and human health, and supplement incomes (Greene, 2001).

An examination of traditional systems used successfully by Native Americans for

centuries such as the Three Sisters may reveal important techniques to benefit the organic

gardening community today. Promoting these traditional systems in Native American

communities may also provide a means to improve economic and dietary conditions,

preserve cultural traditions and strengthen native ties to the land. The purpose of this

study was to evaluate the productivity of the Three Sisters agricultural strategy and to

assess the feasibility of implementing the Three Sisters agricultural technique in Native

American communities in Northern Wisconsin.

4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

A brief history of agriculture

Before the advent of agriculture, ancient humans survived by hunting and

gathering (De Vore and Lee, 1968; Smith, 2001). They migrated seasonally, following

the movement of wild animals and the availability of edible plants, eating a diverse diet

of wild meat and plant-based foods (Smith, 2001). Between 5, 000 and 10,000 years ago,

the domestication of plants and animals began independently in six to eight regions

around the world, including the Americas (Wade, 1997; Piperno, 2001).

Corn, beans and squash were important crops in early American agriculture.

Archaeological evidence suggests that corn was developed from the wild grass Teosinte

in southern Mexico about 7,000 years ago (Piperno, 2001). Squash seeds found in a cave

near Oaxaca, Mexico were dated at 8,000 to 10,000 years (Wade, 1997). The earliest

common beans in Mexico were found in a Coxcatlan cave in the Techuacan Valley and

date to 2,300 years old (Smith, 2001).

In addition to the tropical crops corn, beans and squash, which all appear to have

been domesticated in Mesoamerica, there is sufficient evidence that several native plants

were also cultivated in North America. These include pigweed (Amaranth sp.),

lambsquarter or goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), knotweed or smartweed (Polygonium sp.),

marshelder (Iva sp.), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), maygrass or canary grass

(Phalaris carolinania), and sunflower (Helianthus annua). Remains of these species

have been found in archaeological sites of the Early (150 B.C.), Middle (A.D. 450) and

Late (A.D. 750) Woodland periods, and they are therefore thought to be early crops in the

Midwest-Riverine area (Struever and Vickery, 1973).

5

Over the years, agriculture continued to evolve as new techniques were developed,

and humans gradually began to shift from a diverse, wild plant-based diet (Herber and

Boweman, 2001) to one dependent on cultivated seasonal crops. Through selective

breeding, new crop varieties were produced that were favorable in size, taste, drought and

heat tolerance and other desirable qualities (Kopper, 1986; Wertz, 2005). This enabled

agriculture to spread, and allowed early civilizations to thrive.

Agriculture in the United States gradually became characterized by the

exploitation of natural resources in favor of increased crop productivity. With the

continued conversion of wild lands to cropland and the growth and spread of civilization,

arable land became increasingly limited. This invoked a need to conserve remaining wild

lands, while increasing agricultural production on cultivated lands to keep up with rising

population levels. The Green Revolution was an attempt to increase food production to

meet the needs of growing populations by extensively incorporating agrochemicals,

machinery and large-scale irrigation into farming practices worldwide. By the mid 1900s,

agriculture had become a highly industrialized enterprise (Acquaah, 2002).

Extensive monocropping using hybrid varieties of high-yielding crops

accompanied by chemical fertilizers, pesticides, machinery and irrigation reduced

dependence on manual labor and allowed crop production to soar, but not without

consequences. The heavy use of machinery and petrochemicals led to a greater

dependence on fossil fuels, pollution from pesticides and fertilizers threatened the health

of humans and other living organisms, and tillage increased surface runoff and soil

erosion (Acquaah, 2002).

6

Organic agriculture

The demand for organic foods is on the rise and the current trend in agriculture is

shifting to organic systems. Since the late 1980s, demand by consumers for organically

grown food has increased 20% or more per year, and the amount of organically certified

cropland increased by more than 50% between 1992 and 1997 (Greene, 2001). Because

organic foods usually have a higher retail price than conventional foods, farmers have a

strong incentive to produce organically grown foods (Dimitri and Greene, 2002).

National standards require organic vegetable products to be grown on land that

has been free of prohibited substances (e.g., synthetic chemicals, genetically modified

organisms, sewage sludge) for at least 3 years. Soil fertility and crop nutrition are

maintained by conservation techniques such as composting, crop rotation, cover cropping

and supplementing with animal and green manures. Pests are controlled by integrated

pest management techniques and biological control methods (Greene, 2001; Pimentel et

al., 2005). While organic agriculture has gained popularity in recent years, it has been

around since the dawn of agriculture. Ancient Native Americans did not have access to

inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, and thus relied on the nutrients and organic material

in the soil to sustain their crops. Indeed, the Three Sisters system was productive without

the addition of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides.

Intercropping

Intercropping or companion planting, the practice of growing two or more crops

simultaneously, and has been practiced around the world for centuries. Compared to

monocultures, intercropping can increase crop yields, which may be due to different

species niches resulting in a more efficient use of resources by multiple crops (Kombiok,

7

2003; Jurik, 2004). Intercropping may suppress weeds, pests (Emeasor, 1997; Lal, 1991)

and/or disease (Willey and Orisu, 1972; Santalla, 1994), and is therefore a suitable

practice in organic systems. For example, in the production of bean and squash crops,

planting corn around the borders of the field can attract aphids away from the other crops

(Acquaah, 2002). An increase in ground cover in intercropped systems has led to greater

rainwater infiltration (Olasantan, 1998; Olasantan et al., 1996) and increased earthworm

activity (Lal, 1983; Olasantan et al., 1996) due to reduced summer soil temperatures

(Hulugalle and Ezumah, 1991; Olasantan et al., 1996).

Legumes have the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen and convert it into a form

that is useable by the plant. They also benefit other plants by increasing soil nitrogen and

organic matter (Kombiok and Clottey, 2003). The practice of intercropping cereals with

legumes is commonly implemented in Ghana to reduce the need of nitrogen fertilizer.

This is accomplished through nitrogen inputs by legumes in the system (Kombiok and

Clottey, 2003). A study of corn intercropped with nitrogen-fixing mucuna (Mucuna sp.)

showed increased corn yields compared to monocropped corn; however, the increase was

not significant until the third year of the study probably due to the gradual increase of

nutrients as the mucuna biomass was incorporated into the soil over time (Kombiok and

Clottey, 2003). Small-scale farmers who plant legumes with other crops improve soil

fertility while providing additional protein to their diets (Sagakkara, 1990).

Companion crops should be carefully selected to avoid competition. Choosing

the wrong combination of crops can lead to a reduction in crop yields, and may actually

increase pests or disease. Waddington and Bitman (1984) compared yields of pure stands

of alfalfa (Medicago media) and bromegrass (Bromus inermis) with and without

8

Argentine rapeseed (Brassica napus) as a companion crop in three tests. The forages

produced greater yields when established alone in all three tests. In two of the three tests,

bromegrass yields were greater than those of alfalfa. This may have been due to the

intense shading of the alfalfa by the rapeseed, thus limiting the number of leaves that the

alfalfa was able to produce. In comparison, bromegrass was able to tolerate the rapeseed

better because it was shaded less due to the vertical orientation if its leaves (Waddington

and Bitman, 1984). Even good companions can require maintenance to prevent

competition. In Kiombiok and Clottey’s (2003) maize-mucuna intercropping system,

mucuna vines were regularly pulled off of the corn plants and trampled to prevent

smothering and light competition.

The Three Sisters

After extensive searching, only one comparison between the yields of the Three

Sisters and conventional agricultural techniques was found in published, peer-reviewed

literature. Munson-Scullin and Scullin (2005) did a study to determine the productivity

of Native American gardening techniques in the Midwest, including the Three Sisters,

and compared these findings to common citations in historical literature of early Native

American crop yields. They recorded no difference in yield between corn and beans

grown alone or in combination over a three-year period. Their methodology may have

been a factor in these findings, however, as explained below.

Munson-Scullin and Scullin followed Wilson’s (1917) account of traditional

Hidatsa gardening, a style of gardening developed to thrive in the climate of the northern

Plains (Dodson, 2001). In traditional Hidatsa gardens, beans were planted in hills

between the rows of corn. This resulted in an area of bare soil, which the bean plants had

9

to cross in order to reach the corn. The bean vines thus were subject to the adverse

effects of the splashing of fungal and bacterial-carrying soil during rains. They noted,

however, that perhaps if the beans had been planted on the hills with the corn, as was the

technique in the Wampanoag corn and bean mound (traditionally practiced east of the

Mississippi) (Dodson, 2001), they would have been able to climb the corn stalks more

readily, resulting in greater exposure to sunlight and protection from soil splash.

Failure to add fertilizer may have been a possible reason that no difference in

yield was noted between treatments. Exact replication of prehistoric Native American

gardening was their reasoning for not adding fertilizer (Munson-Scullin and Scullin,

2005).

Loss of indigenous knowledge and Native American health concerns

The change in lifestyles of Native Americans has led to a disappearance of

indigenous knowledge. As an increasing number of indigenous people move away from

their tribal lands and customs, the cultural knowledge of local food processing,

distribution and consumption is being lost (Kuhnlein and Receveur, 1996).

Sharon Cloud, Director of the Native American Council at UWSP, along with her

family, participates in the annual harvesting and processing of corn. The variety they use

is a multi-colored “Indian corn,” and the seed has been saved from corn that had been

planted by her mother-in-law for years. Cloud is a member of the Oneida tribe, and her

husband is Ho-chunk. According to Cloud, the traditional processing of corn by the Ho-

chunk involves picking the corn in the milk stage, boiling it in a large pot for about 5

minutes, and scraping the kernels off the cob with a spoon. The corn is then covered with

a cloth and placed in the sun to dry. The dried corn can be stored all winter for use in

10

soups, cornmeal, casseroles and other dishes. Traditionally, the corn was also made into

hominy using ashes to make it “pop,” and was eaten fresh as well. Cloud’s mother-in-

law would make fresh corn pancakes using a batter made by scraping the fresh corn using

a mayonnaise jar lid punctured with nail holes. According to Cloud, fewer and fewer Ho-

chunk are still practicing the traditional processing of corn (albeit with modern utensils),

but the practice is “engraved” into her husband, and for their family, it is a part of their

lifestyle. (Martinez, 2007)

Andy Gokee, Outreach Specialist at UWSP’s Native American Center, is a

member of the Red Cliff band of the Ojibwe tribe. Gokee remembers from his childhood

the many jars of fruits and vegetables from his grandmother’s canning, “She would also

slice apples and hang them around the house to dry.” His mother would bake apple pies

using fruit from the apple orchards on the Red Cliff Reservation, and he remembers one

of the winter apple varieties to be the size of a soccer ball! Growing up, Gokee’s family

did not always keep a family garden, but he was surprised one year when his father

installed a garden, which he had not done before to Gokee’s recollection. According to

Gokee, his father must have helped his family tend gardens as a child, and he had

remembered how to do this (Martinez, 2006).

There is evidence that Ojibwe tribal members historically practiced raised-bed

agriculture in Northern Wisconsin. An aerial photograph (Appendix I) taken on August 4,

1951 captured several early raised-bed systems on the Bad River Reservation, which had

been built at an earlier time (date of construction unknown). These raised beds probably

improved soil drainage in the poorly drained silt loam soils and wet, rainy springs

11

characteristic of the area, and may also have increased soil temperatures to facilitate seed

germination in the cooler northern climate.

The loss of indigenous knowledge may be linked to rising health problems among

indigenous people. According to Gokee, many Native American families that he knows

have been affected by diabetes, including his mother and three brothers (Martinez, 2006).

In the past 1-2 generations, obesity has become a major health concern among Native

Americans. The rise in obesity among these populations has been attributed to an

abundance of high-fat foods and a change from active to sedentary lifestyles. Obesity has

been linked to chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, and occurrences of

these diseases is higher among Native American populations than that of the general US

population (Young, 1994; Indian Health Service, 1998; Story et al., 1999). This has been

attributed to the hypothesized “thrifty genotype.” Neel (1962) believed that a “thrifty

genotype” might have contributed to the survival of certain populations in times of

famine by the accumulation of fat stores during times of abundance. In environments

where there is year-round access to food and reduced physical activity, however, the

genotype would lead to obesity (Neel, 1962; Young, 1994; Fox et al., 1998).

Native American communities in Northern Wisconsin have expressed concern

regarding rising rates of diabetes and heart disease and a loss of indigenous knowledge.

Several groups and organizations, including Americorps’ VISTA, the USDA Natural

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Global Environmental Management Education Center (GEM), and Heifer International

are working with these communities on projects aimed at increasing access to nutritious

12

foods and preserving cultural traditions through sustainable agriculture and agroforestry

practices.

13

CHAPTER 3: OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was:

1) To analyze the effectiveness of the Three Sisters garden compared to

conventional, monoculture plantations of corn, bean and squash when grown

organically. Variables compared were crop yield (yield/plant and calories/acre),

diurnal variation in soil temperature, gravimetric soil moisture content, weed

cover, adverse weather damage, and pest and disease impact (specifically the

presence of or evidence of damage caused by corn smut, raccoon, corn earworm

and cucumber beetle).

2) To make nutritional comparisons between heirloom crops and commonly used,

conventional varieties.

3) To compare the differences in total soil nitrogen levels before planting and 1 year

after planting among treatments.

14

CHAPTER 4: EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS AND DESIGN

Study Sites

The experimental study was located in northern Wisconsin at the Northern Great

Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC) in the city of Ashland and at the community garden site

of the Bad River Reservation. The Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center is located at

29270 County Highway G, Ashland, WI 54806 (Appendix II) (hereafter referred to as

site A). The Bad River Reservation site (site B) is located eight miles east of Ashland on

Old Odanah Road off U.S. Highway 2, across from the powwow grounds (Appendix III).

The study was conducted during the 2006-cropping season.

The climate of northern Wisconsin is humid continental with four distinct seasons.

Average annual temperatures range from approximately –12.7 degrees Celsius in winter

to 19.9 degrees Celsius in summer. Average annual precipitation is approximately 73 cm,

and average snowfall is 123 cm (Curtis, 1959).

Soil type at site A is Portwing. It is classified as fine, mixed, frigid Oxyaquic

Glossudalfs. The soil texture is sandy clay loam with 58% sand, 14% silt and 28% clay

(Appendix IV). This study site had been covered with grass for the previous 5 years, and

before that, ostriches were raised there. No known synthetic chemicals have ever been

applied to the site. Soil type at site B is Spear. It is classified as coarse-silty, mixed,

superactive, rigid Aquic Glossudalfs. The soil texture is loam with 38% sand, 38% silt

and 24% clay (Appendix V). In 2005, the study site housed a vegetable garden (rutabaga,

turnip, tomatoes, and broccoli), in 2003-2004 the land was cleared, and in 2002, it had

been covered by brush. Again, no known synthetic chemicals have been used at this site.

15

Experimental design

The experimental design was a randomized complete block design (Little & Hills,

1978; Gomez and Gomez, 1984; Lal, 1991; Emeasor and Ezueh, 1997). There were 4

treatments with 5 replications at each site. Each treatment block was 3.7 m X 3.7 m (12

ft x 12 ft) in size with a 0.6 m (2 ft)-wide pathway in between each treatment and a 0.315

m (1 ft)-wide pathway bordering the outer edges of the study area. The dimensions of the

entire study area at site A were 21.3 m x 17.1 m (70 ft x 56 ft), while the dimensions of

the study area at site B were 42.7 m x 8.5 m (140 ft x 28 ft). Each study site contained

the same area of land, however the different dimensions were due to the available space

at each site. The treatments varied in crop type and planting methods as follows: 1)

squash planted in rows; 2) beans planted in rows; 3) corn planted in rows and 4) corn,

beans and squash planted on hills (the Three Sisters design). The experimental units

receiving each treatment were assigned randomly using a table of random numbers.

The planting materials were traditional, heirloom varieties that have historical and

cultural significance among Native Americans. Cultivars were Bear Island flint corn,

rattlesnake pole bean and Hopi orange squash. Traditionally used for flour, Bear Island

flint corn is a short (4-6 ft.), 85-93 day plant. Kernels on dry ears may be red, white,

yellow and/or lavender, with some ears being entirely burgundy. In order to prevent

cross-pollination, this was the sole corn species planted in the Bad River community

garden during the 2006 growing season. Seven-to-eight inch green pods with dark purple

streaks characterize the rattlesnake pole bean. The tan-colored seeds have dark brown to

black mottling, which may resemble a rattlesnake’s markings. It has a maturation period

of 60-90 days, and a good tolerance to drought. Hopi orange squash is a winter variety

16

(Cucurbita maxima). Vines bear 10-15 lb. orange fruit, with a characteristic green “star”

marking. Fruits reach maturity in 90-110 days. All seeds for this experiment were

obtained from the Bad River Americorps’ VISTA organization.

For the spacing of the row crops, recommended spacing for commercial vegetable

production was used. The corn planted in rows had a spacing of 91 cm X 31 cm (3 ft x 1

ft). The beans planted in rows had a spacing of 15 cm X 61 cm (6 in x 2 ft). Beans were

supported by cotton twine. One 5 ft. metal post was placed on both ends of each bean

row, and a thick plastic twine was tied across the top and bottom of the two posts. One

strand of cotton string was attached to the top and bottom piece of twine for each bean

seed planted (Appendix VI). The squash plants had a spacing of 183 cm X 183 cm (6 ft x

6 ft). All seeds were sown to a depth of 2.54 cm (1 in). Rows were oriented in a north-

south direction.

For the Three Sisters design, an adaptation of the Wampanoag design was used

(Dodson, 2001). Nine corn/bean mounds were laid out in rows with 122 cm between the

centers of the mounds. Each mound was 10 cm high, with a base diameter of 46 cm, and

narrowing to a flattened top 25 cm across. The outer corn/bean mounds were placed 38.1

cm from the edge of the plot. Four rounded squash mounds were constructed that were 8

cm high and 31 cm across at the base. The squash mounds were built between the corn-

and-bean mounds.

Site preparation and care

On April 15, 2006, soil samples were collected from both sites and sent to The

University of Wisconsin Soil & Forage Analysis Lab, located in Marshfield, WI. Based

on results from the analyses (Appendices V and VI), 20 lbs. organic fertilizer was

17

broadcasted onto study site A on June 2, 2006 and 40 lbs. organic fertilizer was

broadcasted onto site B on June 15, 2006. The fertilizer was derived from composted

poultry manure, and contained 5% total nitrogen (4.6% water-insoluble and 0.4% water-

soluble), 3.0% available phosphoric acid (P2O5 equivalents), 3.0% soluble potash (K2O),

and 10% calcium.

On May 23, 2006, study site A was tilled to a depth of 20 cm. [Note: historically

a Three Sisters garden site would not have been tilled, but rather the soil in the hills

would have been loosened before planting (Wilson, 1987); however due to the limitations

of the land available for this study, tilling was the best option. If this study were repeated

over a period of several years, eliminating tilling during consecutive years would be a

viable option]. The monoculture bean plots were planted on June 6, 2006. On June 7,

2006, the monoculture corn and squash plots were planted, and the corn and squash seeds

were sown into the Three Sisters plots. For the Three Sisters treatment, 4 corn seeds

were planted 15 cm apart and 3.8 cm deep in the top of each corn-bean mound. Squash

seeds were planted at the same time as the corn. Four seeds were planted in the top of

each squash mound, and thinned to 1 plant per hill on July 5, 2006 (germination of

squash seedlings was not a problem as nearly every seed germinated). Bean seeds were

sown in the Three Sisters plots on June 20, 2006. Four seeds were planted on each corn-

bean mound halfway down the side of the mound and evenly spaced apart (Figure 1).

18

Figure 1. Corn and bean mound and squash mound. Corn seeds were planted 6 inches apart in the flat top of the corn and bean mounds. Bean seeds were planted halfway down the slope on the side of the mound. Squash mounds were staggered between the corn and bean mounds.

On 15 June 2006, site B was tilled to a depth of 20 cm. On 16 June 2006, corn

and squash seedlings were sown into the Three Sisters Plots. Corn, squash and bean

seeds were sown into monoculture plots on 17 June 2006. Bean seeds were sown into

Three Sisters plots on 26 June 2006. The same seed depth and spacing were used at site

B as those at site A.

Because there was not adequate rainfall to ensure germination and seedling

success, all seeds were hand-watered immediately after planting and periodically

throughout the study. Site A was watered on 13 June, 20 June, 30 June, 7 July and 20

July 2006. Site B was watered on 16 June, 17 June, 23 June and 19 July 2006.

Site A was manually weeded three times, on 21-22 June 2006, 11-13 July 2006

and 8-10 August 2006. Site B was manually weeded twice, on 3-6 July 2006 and 31

July-3 August 2006. Percent weed cover was determined immediately prior to weeding

at each site.

19

CHAPTER 5: SOIL TEMPERATURES

Methods Diurnal variation in soil temperature was measured using a digital probe

thermometer inserted to a depth of 5 cm (Roe and Stoffella, 1994; Jurik, 2004). For

monoculture treatments, temperatures were taken from the center of each plot. For Three

Sisters treatments, temperatures were taken from the top-center of the corn-bean mound

(at approximate location of corn), the side of the corn-bean mound (at approximate

location of beans), the top of the squash mound (at approximate location of squash), and

at ground level (between mounds). Soil temperatures were recorded in the morning

(07:00 h-08:00 h), midday (13:00 h-14:00 h) and evening (17:00 h-18:00 h) (Roe and

Stoffella, 1994; Olasatan, 1996). At site A, soil temperatures were recorded on 6 June,

12 June, 10 July, 24 July, 7 August and 21 August 2006 (Appendix VII). At site B,

temperatures were recorded on 19 June, 3 July, 17 July, 31 July, 14 August and 28

August 2006 (Appendix VIII).

Results

A three-way repeated measures ANOVA with one between-subjects factor

(treatment) and two within-subjects factors (time of day and weeks after planting) was

performed using SAS software to test the significance of differences in soil temperatures

between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments at each site.

Site A

In comparing mean soil temperatures between monoculture corn and Three Sisters

corn treatments at site A, there was no significant difference between treatments (p =

20

2.174). Differences in soil temperatures were highly significant in both time of day (p <

0.0001) and in weeks after planting (p < 0.0001). The interaction of the two factors, time

of day and weeks after planting, was also highly significant (p < 0.0001). The interaction

of treatment and time of day, however, was not significant (p = 0.4040), while the

interaction of treatment and weeks after planting was highly significant (p < 0.0001).

The interaction of the three factors (treatment, time of day and weeks after planting) was

also significant (p = 0.0002) (Table 1).

Table 1. Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments at site A Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F-value P-value Treatment 1 13.833 13.833 1.79 0.2174 TODa 2 4422.104 2211.052 1447.78 <0.0001 WAPb 5 541.777 108.355 70.95 <0.0001 TOD*WAP 10 412.900 41.290 27.04 <0.0001 Trtc*TOD 2 2.787 1.393 0.91 0.4040 Trt*WAP 5 51.110 10.222 6.69 <0.0001 Trt*TOD*WAP 10 55.688 5.569 3.65 0.0002 aTime of day, bweeks after planting, ctreatment

In comparing mean soil temperatures between monoculture bean and Three

Sisters bean treatments at site A, there was a significant difference between treatments (p

= 0.0070) (Figures 2, 3 and 4). Differences in soil temperatures were highly significant

in both time of day (p < 0.0001) and in weeks after planting (p < 0.0001). The

interaction of the two factors, time of day and weeks after planting, was also highly

significant (p < 0.0001), as was the interaction of treatment and time of day (p < 0.0001).

The interaction of treatment and weeks after planting was not significant (p = 0.3756).


significant (p = 0.0548) (Table 2).

21

Table 2. Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters bean treatments at site A Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F-value P-value Treatment 1 26.758 26.758 7.50 0.0070 TODa 2 4285.886 2142.943 601.03 <0.0001 WAPb 5 952.531 190.506 601.03 <0.0001 TOD*WAP 10 624.811 62.481 17.52 <0.0001 Trtc*TOD 2 110.004 55.002 15.43 <0.0001 Trt*WAP 5 19.210 3.842 1.08 0.3756 Trt*TOD*WAP 10 66.603 6.660 1.87 0.0548 aTime of Day. bWeeks after planting. cTreatment.

Figure 2. Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters bean plots at 0700 hours according to weeks after planting at site A. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval for the mean. Treatments are slightly offset to facilitate viewing of the error bars.

1086420Weeks After Planting

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

Soil

Tem

pera

ture

C

Monoculture

Three Sisters

22



32

30

28

25

22

Soil

Tem

pera

ture

C

Monoculture

Three Sisters

23



36

33

30

27

24

Soil

Tem

pera

ture

C

Three Sisters

Monoculture

In comparing in mean soil temperatures between monoculture squash and Three

Sisters squash treatments at site A, there was no significant difference between treatments

(p = 0.3403). Differences in soil temperatures were highly significant in both time of day

(p < 0.0001) and in weeks after planting (p < 0.0001). The interaction of the two factors,

time of day and weeks after planting, was also highly significant (p < 0.0001). The

interaction of treatment and time of day, however, was not significant (p = 0.0496), while

the interaction of treatment and weeks after planting was highly significant (p < 0.0001).


also highly significant (p < 0.0001) (Table 3).

24

Table 3. Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments at site A Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F-value P-value Treatment 1 2.113 2.113 0.92 0.3403 TODa 2 3799.437 1899.719 823.63 <0.0001 WAPb 5 560.890 112.178 823.63 <0.0001 TOD*WAP 10 434.418 43.442 18.83 <0.0001 Trtc*TOD 2 14.169 7.085 3.07 0.0496 Trt*WAP 5 100.771 20.154 8.74 <0.0001 Trt*TOD*WAP 10 93.181 9.318 4.04 <0.0001 aTime of Day. bWeeks after planting. cTreatment.

Temperature means for each treatment according to time of day and weeks after

planting are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Means for diurnal variation in soil temperatures (ºC) at a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters plots at site A. Trt. = treatment, WAP = weeks after planting, MC = monoculture corn, MB = monoculture beans, MS = monoculture squash, SC = Three Sisters corn, SB = Three Sisters beans and SS = Three Sisters squash. Trt 0 WAP 2 WAP 4 WAP 6 WAP 8 WAP 10 WAP

7a 12 17 7 12 17 7 12 17 7 12 17 7 12 17 7 12 17 MC 13.2 26.0 27.6 18.3 29.2 32.1 19.2 26.4 27.9 21.2 30.0 31.7 18.3 25.8 27.8 19.7 27.3 29.7 SC 11.3 27.3 29.2 17.1 31.6 35.1 18.4 25.6 26.7 20.7 27.1 29.9 18.1 23.8 26.4 19.4 25.5 28.2 MB 13.4 25.2 25.8 18.4 29.3 31.9 19.2 27.0 26.2 21.4 30.1 31.2 18.2 26.1 27.6 19.4 25.1 27.1 SB 13.2 27.5 29.3 16.3 32.5 34.4 18.8 25.9 28.9 21.0 26.6 29.0 18.0 22.7 25.6 19.4 23.7 26.2 MS 14.0 27.4 27.6 19.6 30.6 32.4 18.9 27.2 25.9 21.3 29.1 30.9 18.7 24.5 23.2 17.7 22.2 23.6 SS 10.9 29.6 29.8 16.0 33.0 33.3 19.4 26.5 28.4 21.1 30.6 32.7 17.9 29.7 24.8 16.1 23.0 25.7

aHour of Day.

Site B

In comparing mean soil temperatures between monoculture corn and Three Sisters

corn treatments at site B, there was a significant difference between treatments (p =

0.0010) (Figures 5, 6 and 7). Soil temperature differences were highly significant in both

time of day (p < 0.0001) and in weeks after planting (p < 0.0001). The interaction of the

two factors, time of day and weeks after planting, was also highly significant (p < 0.0001),

as was the interaction of treatment and time of day (p = 0.0007). The interaction of the

25

three factors (treatment, time of day and weeks after planting) was highly significant as

well (p < 0.0001) (Table 5).

Table 5. Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments at site B. Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F-value P-value Treatment 1 13.584 13.584 11.25 0.0010 TODa 2 2254.823 1127.412 933.35 <0.0001 WAPb 5 1853.220 370.644 306.85 <0.0001 TOD*WAP 9 265.174 29.464 24.39 <0.0001 Trtc*TOD 2 18.572 9.286 7.69 0.0007 Trt*WAP 5 64.075 12.815 10.61 <0.0001 Trt*TOD*WAP 9 104.452 11.606 9.61 <0.0001 aTime of day, bweeks after planting, ctreatment.

Figure 5. Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters corn plots at 0700 hours according to weeks after planting at site B. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval for the mean. Treatments are slightly offset to facilitate viewing of the error bars.


27.5

25.0

22.5

20.0

17.5

15.0

Soil

Tem

pera

ture

C

MonocultureThree Sisters

26



35

30

25

20

Soil

Tem

pera

ture

C

Monoculture

Three Sisters

27



35

32

30

28

25

22

Soil

Tem

pera

ture

C

Monoculture

Three Sisters

In comparing mean soil temperatures between monoculture bean and Three

Sisters bean treatments at site B, the difference between treatments was not significant

(0.0690). Differences in soil temperatures were highly significant in both time of day (p

< 0.0001) and in weeks after planting (p < 0.0001). The interaction of the two factors,

time of day and weeks after planting, was also highly significant (p < 0.0001). The

interaction of treatment and time of day however was not (p = 0.7131). The interaction

of the three factors (treatment, time of day and weeks after planting) also was not

significant (p < 0.0565) (Table 6).

28

Table 6. Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters bean treatments at site B. Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F-value P-value Treatment 1 7.470 7.470 3.36 0.0690 TODa 2 2247.528 1123.764 506.15 <0.0001 WAPb 5 1988.965 397.793 179.17 <0.0001 TOD*WAP 9 288.805 32.089 14.45 <0.0001 Trtc*TOD 2 1.505 0.753 0.34 0.7131 Trt*WAP 5 29.904 5.981 2.69 0.0238 Trt*TOD*WAP 9 38.113 4.235 1.91 0.0565 aTime of day, bweeks after planting, ctreatment.

In comparing mean soil temperatures between monoculture squash and Three

Sisters squash treatments at site B, the difference between treatments was highly

significant (p < 0.0001) (Figures 8, 9 and 10). Soil temperature differences were highly

significant in both time of day (p < 0.0001) and in weeks after planting (p < 0.0001). The

interaction of the two factors, time of day and weeks after planting, was highly significant

(p < 0.0001) as was the interaction of treatment and time of day (p < 0.0001). The

interaction of the three factors (treatment, time of day and weeks after planting) was also

highly significant (p < 0.0001) (Table 7).

Table 7. Analysis of Variance of mean soil temperatures to 5 cm depth for monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments at site B. Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F-value P-value Treatment 1 86.174 86.174 70.03 <0.0001 TODa 2 2380.177 1190.088 967.11 <0.0001 WAPb 5 1998.406 399.681 324.80 <0.0001 TOD*WAP 9 290.007 32.223 26.19 <0.0001 Trtc*TOD 2 35.373 17.687 14.37 <0.0001 Trt*WAP 5 100.362 20.072 16.31 <0.0001 Trt*TOD*WAP 9 92.538 10.282 8.36 <0.0001 aTime of day, bweeks after planting, ctreatment.

29

Figure 8. Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters squash plots at 0700 hours according to weeks after planting at site B. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval for the mean. Treatments are slightly offset to facilitate viewing of the error bars.


27.5

25.0

22.5

20.0

17.5

15.0

Soil

Tem

pera

ture

C

Monoculture

Three Sisters

30



35

30

25

20

Soil

Tem

pera

ture

C

Monoculture

Three Sisters

31



39

36

33

30

27

24

21

Soil

Tem

pera

ture

C

Monoculture

Three Sisters

Temperature means for each treatment according to time of day and weeks after

planting are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8. Means for diurnal variation in soil temperatures (ºC) at a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters plots at site B. Trt. = treatment, WAP = weeks after planting, MC = monoculture corn, MB = monoculture beans, MS = monoculture squash, SC = Three Sisters corn, SB = Three Sisters beans and SS = Three Sisters squash. (.) = missing data. Trt 0 WAP 2 WAP 4 WAP 6 WAP 8 WAP 10 WAP

7b 12 17 7 12 17 7 12 17 7 12 17 7 12 17 7 12 17 MC 19.2 26.1 31.0 21.0 28.3 30.0 27.5 30.6 34.9 22.8 31.4 30.1 18.2 26.5 . 17.9 21.7 23.2 SC 18.2 26.5 34.3 19.8 28.5 32.9 27.6 32.4 33.1 22.7 26.8 29.0 17.3 20.9 . 16.5 21.2 23.8 MB 19.3 26.4 31.9 21.0 27.9 31.6 27.4 34.0 34.2 22.7 31.0 30.5 18.0 23.9 . 17.6 21.0 23.2 SB 18.3 25.4 32.4 20.0 29.7 33.3 27.7 32.2 32.3 22.7 28.0 28.6 17.3 23.5 . 17.0 21.7 24.1 MS 19.5 26.1 31.1 20.6 29.1 32.4 27.8 34.2 35.5 22.8 32.3 32.6 17.7 25.7 . 17.9 21.8 23.4 SS 18.3 27.3 34.1 19.5 27.7 33.6 27.3 30.1 32.2 22.7 25.8 28.3 17.7 21.3 . 16.6 20.8 22.8

aHour of Day.

32

Discussion

At 0-2 weeks after planting, afternoon and evening soil temperatures in

Three Sisters treatments were overall higher than in monoculture bean treatments.

Increased temperatures did not persist into the morning, however. More heat was

absorbed on the Three Sisters hills during the warmer daytime hours, but more heat was

lost during the cooler nighttime temperatures, leading to a greater fluctuation in

temperatures. At 4-10 weeks after planting, morning, afternoon and evening soil

temperatures in Three Sisters treatments were overall lower than in monoculture

treatments.

At 0-2 weeks after planting, lower morning soil temperatures in the Three Sisters

treatments may have resulted from a higher night-back radiation of the Three Sisters hills

before the crops had developed vegetation cover (Olasantan et al., 1996), while at 4-10

weeks after planting, this may have been due to greater crop coverage in the Three Sisters

treatments blocking more incoming solar radiation during the afternoon and evening and

leading to lower temperatures throughout the morning, afternoon and evening.

It would be interesting to study the rates of germination in Three Sisters versus

monoculture treatments in relation to soil temperatures, as it has been suggested that

higher temperatures on raised beds may speed up germination in cooler climates (Nestby,

1993). A comparison of temperatures in relation to ground cover and earthworm activity

between treatments would also verify the findings that and that decreased soil

temperatures as a result of intercropping (Hulugalle and Ezumah, 1991) causes increased

ground cover, leading to increased earthworm activity (Lal, 1983) and improved

rainwater infiltration (Olasantan, 1988).

33

CHAPTER 6: WEED COVER

Methods

Weed populations were evaluated at Site A on 21 June, 10 July and 7 August

2006 and at Site B on 3 July and 31 July2006. Percent weed cover was determined using

the line-intercept method (Mt. Pleasant, 1994; Sloneker and Moldenhauer, 1997). Two

measuring tapes were stretched diagonally across each plot to form an X (Appendix IX).

Starting at the 2 ft. mark, a weed was identified and counted if it intersected the tape at 4-

inch increments. Percent weed cover was determined by dividing the number of

intersections recorded by 86, the total number of possible intersections on both measuring

tapes combined (Appendix XI) and weed types and percent present were recorded

(Appendix XII). Sites were manually weeded following weed cover estimations using a

combination of hoeing and hand pulling.

Results

A two-way repeated measure ANOVA with one between-subjects factor

(treatment) and one within-subjects factor (weeks after planting) was performed using

SAS software to test the significance of differences in weed cover between treatments at

each site. Plots were considered as blocks and specified as a random effect. All

other factors were considered fixed effects. Post hoc tests were carried out in SAS using

the Tukey Studentized Range (HSD) Test to show which pairs of groups were

statistically significant.

34

Site A

There was no significant difference in weed cover between treatments at site A (p

= 0.6543), however there was a highly significant difference in weed cover between dates

of weed cover analysis (weeks after planting) (p < 0.0001). The interaction of the 2

factors was not significant (p = 0.3471), thus the different treatments did not result in

significantly different amounts of weed cover according to the amount of time that had

passed since planting (Table 9).

Table 9. Analysis of variance of mean weed cover (%) at site A

Source df Type III SS MS F P-value Treatment 3 417.353 139.118 0.55 0.6543 WAP1 2 7854.964 3927.482 84.14 <0.0001 Treatment*WAP1 6 327.402 54.567 1.17 0.3471 1Weeks after planting

Post hoc testing for differences in weed cover according to treatment at site A

revealed that although there was no significant difference in weed cover between Three

Sisters treatments and monoculture corn, bean and squash treatments, there was a

significant difference in weed cover between monoculture corn and squash plots, with

weed cover in squash plots being significantly lower than that in corn plots (Table 10).

Table 10. Tukey Test results for differences in weed cover by treatment at site A. Treatments are listed in descending order of means. Means with the same letter are not statistically significant.

Treatment N Mean Tukey

Grouping Corn-mono 15 32.102 A Beans-mono 15 30.543 A, B Three Sisters 15 29.844 A, B Squash-mono 15 25.039 B

35

Post hoc testing for differences in weed cover according to weeks after planting at

site A revealed that weed cover was significantly lower at 2 weeks after planting than at 5

or 9 weeks after planting. There was no difference in weed cover between 5 and 9 weeks

after planting (Table 11).

Table 11. Tukey Test results for differences in weed cover (%) by weeks after planting (WAP) at site A. Weeks after planting are listed in descending order of means. Means with the same letter are not statistically significant.

WAP N Mean Tukey

Grouping 5 20 39.709 A 9 20 35.007 A 2 20 13.430 B

Site B

There was a significant difference in weed cover between treatments (p = 0.0008),

as well as a highly significant difference in weed cover between dates of weed cover

analysis in weeks after planting (p < 0.0001) (Figure 11). The interaction of the 2 factors

was not significant (p = 0.4982), thus the different treatments did not result in

significantly different amounts of weed cover according to the amount of time that had

passed since planting (Table 12).

Table 12. Analysis of variance of mean weed cover (%) at site B

Source df Type III SS MS F P-value Treatment 3 2115.346 705.115 9.33 0.0008 WAP1 1 13838 13838 154.30 <0.0001 Treatment*WAP1 3 222.467 74.156 0.83 0.4982 1Weeks after planting

36

Figure 11. Mean weed cover with error bars (95% confidence interval) by weeks after planting according to treatment at site B. B = monoculture beans, C = monoculture corn, S = monoculture squash and TS = Three Sisters.


80

60

40

20

0

Mea

n W

eed

Cov

er (%

)

TSSCB

Treatment

Post hoc testing for differences in weed cover according to treatment at site B

showed that weed cover was significantly lower for the Three Sisters treatments than for

monoculture bean treatments. There was no significant difference in weed cover between

Three Sisters treatments and monoculture corn or monoculture squash treatments.

Monoculture squash plots were also significantly lower in weed cover than monoculture

bean plots (Table 13).

37

Table 13. Tukey Test results for differences in weed cover by treatment at site B. Treatments are listed in descending order of means. Means with the same letter are not statistically significant.


Grouping Beans-mono 10 42.906 A Corn-mono 10 37.790 A, B

Squash-mono 10 26.629 B Three Sisters 10 25.911 B

Post hoc testing for differences in weed cover according to weeks after planting at

site B revealed that weed cover was significantly lower at 5 weeks after planting than at 2

weeks after planting (Table 14).

Table 14. Tukey Test results for differences in weed cover by weeks after planting (WAP) at site B. Weeks after planting are listed in descending order of means. Means with the same letter are not statistically significant.

WAP N Mean Tukey

Grouping 2 20 51.909 A 5 20 14.710 B

Discussion

With weed cover being lowest in monoculture squash and Three Sisters (which

also incorporates squash) treatments at both sites, it appears that planting squash or

incorporating it into a polyculture system with corn and beans may reduce weed cover.

However, this difference was only significant for monoculture beans at site B. There

may be an advantage to the Three Sisters system over monoculture corn and bean

plantations, which may be due to the ability of the large, broad leaves of the squash plants

in the system to block sunlight and thus suppress weed growth. This implies that the

Three Sisters may reduce the need for herbicides and/or the manual removal of weeds.

38

The differences in weed cover according to weeks after planting at the two sites

was probably due to the dominant weed species present at each site. Site A was

dominated by perennial grasses (fam. Poaceae), while site B was dominated by lamb’s

quarters (Chenopodium album), an annual species. Site A was lowest in weed cover at 2

weeks after planting, probably because the grasses, which had been tilled into the soil,

had not yet fully emerged from their underground rhizomes (Appendix IX). Weed cover

was highest at site B at 2 weeks after planting, because conditions were optimal for

germination of the lamb’s quarters seeds, which covered the site like a blanket (Appendix

X). After an initial weeding, the weed cover at this site was significantly reduced,

because many of these annual seeds had already germinated, thus reducing the seed bank.

At site A, however, grasses were able to continually emerge from their underground

rhizomes.

One interesting observation that was made at site B, which probably accounted

for a reduction in weed cover in the Three Sisters plots at two weeks after planting, was

that lamb’s quarters were highly reduced on the Three Sisters hills, while it seemed to

virtually carpet the surrounding ground (Appendix XIII). This may have been due to the

improved drainage of the hills (see chapter 3), resulting in drier soil, which may not have

had adequate moisture for germination of the lamb’s quarters seeds.

It should also be noted that a number of “weed” species present at both sites were

edible, good sources of nutrients, and may have been early crops in North America

(Struever and Vickery, 1973). Lamb’s quarters, for example, is high in calcium, vitamin

C, vitamin A, and is also a good source of phosphorous, iron, thiamin, riboflavin and

niacin. While one must consider the possibility of reduction in yield of crop plants due to

39

weed competition for light, water and soil nutrients, some weeds could also be considered

benefits to the garden and diet, adding important nutrients and trace minerals.

40

CHAPTER 7: SOIL MOISTURE

Methods

In order to compare gravimetric soil moisture content between treatments, soil

samples were extracted using a soil sampling probe inserted to 10 cm depth in all Three

Sisters plots at ground level (between mounds) and from the top-center of the corn-bean

mounds. A soil sample was also obtained from the center of each monoculture plot. Soil

samples were collected from both sites on 17 July, 3 August and 15 August 2006.

Samples were oven dried at 105 degrees Celsius for 24 hours (Olasatan, 1996), and

gravimetric soil moisture content was determined by dividing the wet weight by the

difference in wet weight and dry weight (% moisture = wet wt./(wet wt. – dry wt.))

(Appendix XIV).

Results

A two-way repeated measures ANOVA with one between-subjects factor

(treatment) and one within-subjects factor (weeks after planting) was performed using

SAS software to test the significance of differences in gravimetric soil moisture content

between treatments at each site. Plots were considered as blocks and specified as random

effects. All other factors were considered fixed effects. Post hoc tests were carried out in

SAS using the Tukey Studentized Range (HSD) Test to show which pairs of groups were

statistically significant.

Site A

There was a highly significant difference in gravimetric soil moisture content

between treatments (p = 0.0006) and between dates of soil moisture analysis in weeks

41

after planting (p < 0.0001) at site A (Figure 12). The interaction of the 2 factors is also

significant (p = 0.0291); therefore the different treatments resulted in significantly

different amounts of soil moisture according to the amount of time that had passed since

planting (Table 15).

Table 15. Analysis of variance of mean gravimetric soil moisture content (%) at site A

Source df Type III SS MS F P Value Treatment 4 222.062 55.516 7.68 0.0006 WAP1 2 1856.666 928.333 195.10 <0.0001 Treatment*WAP1 8 93.331 11.666 2.45 0.0291 1Weeks after planting Figure 12. Mean gravimetric soil moisture content with error bars (95% confidence interval) grouped by weeks after planting according to treatment at site A. B = monoculture beans, C = monoculture corn, G = Three Sisters at ground level, H = Three Sisters Hill and S = monoculture squash.


40

30

20

10

0

Mea

n So

il M

oist

ure

(%)

SHGCB

Treatment

42

Post hoc testing for differences in soil moisture according to treatment at site A

showed that soil moisture was significantly lower on the Three Sisters corn-bean hills

than for monoculture corn plots, monoculture bean plots, monoculture squash plots and

Three Sisters plots at ground level. There was no significant difference in soil moisture

content for monoculture corn or bean plots compared to the Three Sisters plots at ground

level; however, soil moisture was significantly lower in the Three Sisters plots at ground

level than in the monoculture squash plots. Soil moisture was also significantly lower for

monoculture bean plots compared to monoculture squash plots (Table 16).

Table 16. Tukey Test results for differences in mean gravimetric soil moisture content (%) by treatment at site A. Treatments are listed in descending order of means. Means with the same letter are not statistically significant.


Grouping Squash-mono1 15 22.483 A

Corn-mono 15 20.824 A, B Beans-mono 15 20.163 B Ground-TS2 15 20.031 B

Hills-TS 15 17.168 C 1Monoculture, 2Three Sisters

Post hoc testing for differences in soil moisture according to weeks after planting

at site A revealed that soil moisture was significantly different between all dates that

measurements were taken (Table 17).

Table 17. Tukey Test results for differences in mean gravimetric soil moisture content (%) by weeks after planting at site A. Treatments are listed in descending order of means. Means with the same letter are not statistically significant.

Weeks After Planting

N Mean Tukey Grouping

8 25 26.860 A 10 25 18.560 B 6 25 14.981 C

43

Site B

There was a highly significant difference in gravimetric soil moisture content

between treatments (p <0.0001) and between dates of soil moisture analysis in weeks

after planting (p < 0.0001) at site B (Figure 13). The interaction of the 2 factors is also

significant (p = 0.0065); thus the different treatments resulted in significantly different

amounts of soil moisture according to the number of weeks that had passed since planting

(Table 18).

Table 18. Analysis of variance of mean gravimetric soil moisture content (%) at site B

Source df Type III SS MS F P-value Treatment 4 305.865 76.466 19.05 <0.0001 WAP1 2 2168.766 1084.383 362.61 <0.0001 Treatment*WAP1 8 77.320 9.665 3.23 0.0065 1Weeks after planting

44

Figure 13. Mean gravimetric soil moisture with error bars (95% confidence interval) grouped by weeks after planting according to treatment at site B. B = monoculture beans, C = monoculture corn, G = Three Sisters at ground level, H = Three Sisters Hill and S = monoculture squash.


40

30

20

10

0

Mea

n So

il M

oist

ure

(%)

SHGCB

Treatment

Post hoc testing for differences in soil moisture according to treatment at site B

showed that soil moisture was significantly lower on the Three Sisters corn-bean hills

than for monoculture corn plots, monoculture bean plots, monoculture squash plots and

Three Sisters plots at ground level. Soil moisture in monoculture bean plots and in Three

Sisters plots at ground level was also significantly lower than in monoculture corn plots

(Table 19).

Table 19. Tukey Test results for differences in soil moisture by treatment at site B. Treatments are listed in descending order of means. Means with the same letter are not statistically significant.


Grouping Corn-mono 15 18.769 A Squash-mono 15 17.252 A, B Ground-TS 15 16.571 B Beans-mono 15 15.959 B Hills-TS 15 12.675 C

45

Post hoc testing for differences in soil moisture according to weeks after planting

at site B revealed that soil moisture was significantly different between all dates that

measurements were taken (Table 20).

Table 20. Tukey Test results for differences in mean gravimetric soil moisture (%) by weeks after planting at site B. Treatments are listed in descending order of means. Means with the same letter are not statistically significant.

Weeks After Planting

N Mean Tukey Grouping

6 5 13.004 A 8 5 25.720 B 10 5 17.288 C

Discussion

Soil moisture levels were lowest on the Three Sisters hills at 6 and 10 weeks after

planting at site A and 4 and 8 weeks after planting at site B. Whether or not decreased

soil moisture as a result of improved drainage is an advantage, however, depends on the

climate, seasonal rainfall and soil type. Improved drainage may be advantageous in

regions where very wet and rainy springs can cause standing water in poorly drained soils,

leading to seedling loss. In arid regions, well-drained soils and/or drier springs, the

improved drainage would not be an advantage, however, and may even impede

germination and seedling development if supplemental irrigation is not available.

Although Northern Wisconsin springs are typically rainy, 2006 was quite dry in

Ashland County. June and August rainfall were both several inches below average

(Figure 14), and although July rainfall was above average, most of the precipitation fell

during the last 5 days of the month (Figure 15). Due to the shortage of rain during the

2006 growing season, there was probably no advantage or a possible disadvantage to

planting the Three Sisters crops on hills, as improved drainage was not necessary.

46

A study investigating different ways of combining the Three Sisters crops, for

example planting in hills versus depressions, would be interesting in order to determine

the best planting method for a particular climate or soil type.

Figure 14. Monthly rainfall (in.) for Ashland, WI for June, July and August 2006. Precipitation data obtained from The Weather Channel, http://www.weather.com.

012345678

Jun July Aug

Month

Prec

ipita

tion

(in.)

2006

Average

Figure 15 . Rainfall (in.) for the month of July in Ashland, WI. Precipitation data obtained from The Weather Channel, http://www.weather.com.

0

0.20.4

0.60.8

1

1.21.4

1.6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Day

P

reci

pita

tion

(in.)

At site A, soil moisture levels were highest in monoculture squash and corn plots

(Figure 12 and Table 14), while at site B soil moisture levels were highest in Three

47

Sisters plots at ground level, followed by corn (Figure 13 and Table 17). Based on these

results, it cannot be concluded that the squash plants in the Three Sisters system

contribute to a reduction in moisture loss.

There was not a significant difference in soil moisture levels between treatments

at 8 weeks after planting at site A and 6 weeks after planting at site B. This was due to

the fact that it had rained the day prior to collecting the soil samples, and the moisture did

not have adequate time to drain and/or evaporate.

48

CHAPTER 8: DAMAGE DUE TO ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS

Methods

On 16 July 2006, rain and strong winds caused several corn plants at site B to be

knocked down (Appendix XV). On 17 July 2006, the number of corn stalks that had

been knocked down in monoculture corn and Three Sisters plots was recorded, and the

proportion of corn plants affected out of the total in each plot was determined (XVI).

Results

Mann Whitney U tests were carried out using SPSS software to test the

significance of differences in the proportion of corn plants knocked over due to adverse

weather conditions in monoculture and Three Sisters plots at site B. Damage was not

assessed at site A, as little to no damage occurred.

There was no significant difference in the proportion of corn ears damaged by

adverse weather between monoculture and Three Sisters plots at site B (p = 0.310) (Table

21).

Table 21. Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of corn ears damaged by adverse weather at site B

Treatment N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks P-value Monoculture Three Sisters Total

5 5 10

6.60 4.40

33.00 22.00

0.310

Discussion

The comparison of damage due to adverse weather conditions in monoculture

versus Three Sisters plots was not in the original plans for this project; however

following a storm with heavy rains and high winds, it was noted that several of the corn

49

plants had been knocked over at site A, and it appeared that a greater number of plants

had been affected in monoculture plots than in Three Sisters plots.

Although the difference was not significant, a higher percentage of corn plants

were affected in monoculture plots than in Three Sisters plots. Small sample size was

probably the reason that the difference in the percentage of plants affected between

treatments was not significantly different, and increasing sample size would probably

reveal a smaller percent of plants affected in Three Sisters treatments than in monoculture

treatments.

In the past, soil probably would have been drawn around the base of the corn

plants (Wilson, 1987), which would have induced secondary root formation and added

stability. Further studies to compare wind damage in monoculture and Three Sisters plots,

and an examination of the roots of the crops in each type of system is recommended to

determine whether or not root growth is indeed improved by planting crops in hills.

50

CHAPTER 9: PESTS AND DISEASE

Methods

Cucumber beetle

The proportion of spotted (Diabrotica undecimpunctata) and striped (Acalymma

vittatum) cucumber beetles per squash plant in Three Sisters and monoculture squash

plots was estimated on 2 August 2006. One squash plant from each plot was randomly

selected and the number of spotted and striped cucumber beetles present was recorded

(Appendix XVII).

Corn smut

Corn smut (Ustilago maydis) damage was estimated on 15 September 2006 at site

B and 16 September 2006 at site A. The number of corn ears affected by corn smut was

recorded in Three Sisters and monoculture corn plots. In monoculture corn plots, plants

located within the inner 10 feet of the middle 2 rows were examined. In three sisters

plots, the plants located on the centermost corn-bean mound were examined. The

proportion of affected ears per plant was estimated by dividing the number of affected

ears by the number of corn plants examined (Appendix XVIII).

Corn earworm

Corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) damage was estimated on 15 September 2006 at

site B and 16 September 2006 at site A. The number of corn ears affected by corn

earworm was recorded in Three Sisters and monoculture corn plots (Appendix XIX). In

monoculture corn plots, plants located within the inner 10 feet of the middle 2 rows were

examined. In three sisters plots, plants located on the centermost corn-bean mound were

51

examined. The proportion of affected ears per plant was estimated by dividing the

number of affected ears by the total number of corn plants examined.

Raccoon damage

Raccoon (Proycon lotor) damage was estimated on 16 September 2006 at site A.

Because there was no damage noted at site B, raccoon damage was not assessed at this

site. The number of corn plants damaged by raccoon(s) was recorded for monoculture

corn and Three Sisters plots. In monoculture corn plots, plants located within the inner

10 feet of the middle 2 rows were examined. In the Three Sisters plots, corn plants

located on the centermost corn-bean mound were examined. The proportion of affected

plants per acre was estimated (Appendix XX).

Results

Mann Whitney U tests were carried out using SPSS software to test the

significance of differences in the presence of and/or damage caused by the following

pests and disease: cucumber beetles, raccoons, corn smut and corn earworm.

Cucumber Beetles

Site A

There was no significant difference in the proportion of cucumber beetles on

monoculture squash plants compared to Three Sisters squash plants at site A (p = 0.310)

(Table 22).

52

Table 22. Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of cucumber beetles present on squash plants at site A.


5 5 10

6.50 4.50

32.50 22.50

0.310

Site B

Again, there was no significant difference in the proportion of cucumber beetles

on monoculture squash plants compared to Three Sisters squash plants at site B (p =

0.841) (Table 23).

Table 23. Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of cucumber beetles present on squash plants at site B.


5 5 10

5.80 5.20

29.00 26.00

0.841

Corn Smut

Site A


corn smut between monoculture plots and Three Sisters plots at site A (p = 0.151) (Table

24).

Table 24. Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of corn ears damaged by corn smut at site A


5 5 10

7.00 4.00

35.00 20.00

0.151

53

Site B

Similarly, there was no significant difference in the proportion of corn ears

damaged by corn smut between monoculture and Three Sisters plots at site B (p = .421)

(Table 25).

Table 25. Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of corn ears damaged by corn smut at site B


5 5 10

4.60 6.40

23.00 32.00

0.421

Corn Earworm

Site A


corn earworm between monoculture and Three Sisters plots at site A (p = .548) (Table

26).

Table 26. Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of corn ears damaged by corn earworm at site A


5 5 10

4.80 6.20

24.00 31.00

0.548

Site B

Likewise, there was no significant difference in the proportion of corn ears

damaged by corn earworm between monoculture and Three Sisters plots at site B (p =

1.000) (Table 27).

54

Table 27. Mann-Whitney U Test for mean number of corn ears damaged by corn earworm at site B


5 5 10

5.40 5.60

27.00 28.00

1.000

Raccoon damage

Site A

The proportion of corn plants damaged by raccoons was significantly greater in

monoculture plots than in Three Sisters plots at site A (p = 0.009) (Table 28; Figure 16).

Table 28. Mann-Whitney U Test for mean percent raccoon damage to corn plants at site A.


5 5 10

7.90 3.10

39.50 15.50

0.009

55

Figure 16. Mean number of corn plants out of total corn plants damaged by raccoons at site A. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval for the mean.

Three SistersMonocultureTreatment

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

-0.10

Prop

ortio

n D

amag

ed P

lant

s

Site B

Raccoon damage was not assessed at site B, as there was no raccoon damage

noted.

Discussion

While there was no significant difference in the presence of cucumber beetles,

corn earworms and corn smut between treatments, the experimental design may not have

been adequate for the comparison of insect and disease damage between treatments.

Because the plots were small (3.66 m2) and close together (60.96 cm space between

56

treatments), the insects and fungal spores may have been able to travel freely and non-

discriminatorily between plots. A comparison on a larger scale may better determine

whether a significant difference exists between the presence of these insects and disease

in monoculture versus Three Sisters treatments.

While corn smut is considered a pest in most parts of the U.S., it should be noted

that it is consumed in some parts of the world, such as Mexico, where it is considered a

delicacy. Because it is edible, corn smut is not necessarily a problem, and may even

bring in a high value in the Mexican marketplace.

The damage caused by raccoons to corn plants in monoculture plots was

significantly greater than damage to corn in Three Sisters plots at site A. The animals

seemed to prefer corn to the other two crops present. In order to reach the corn in the

Three Sisters plots, the raccoons had to climb through prickly squash vines, and past a

tangle of bean vines, which may have discouraged access compared to the easily

accessible monoculture corn plots nearby.

The absences of raccoon damage at site B probably was a consequence of the

surrounding vegetation, or possibly lower population density of raccoons in the vicinity.

The study area at site A was located in the center of a large, open, mowed field, while the

study area at site B was surrounded by crops and forest. At the northernmost end of the

study area at site B, there was a 7.92 m2 plot of corn and beans planted. Snap beans, corn

and squash were also planted in a 54.86 m x 9.14 m sized plot to the east of the study area.

To the west and south of the study area were large patches of weeds and brush. These

additional crops and vegetation may have protected the site from raccoon damage, while

the study area at site A was more open and easily accessible.

57

CHAPTER 10: YIELDS

Methods

Produce was harvested by hand at physiological maturity. Corn and squash were

harvested on 15 September 2006 at site B and 16 September 2006 at site A. Beans were

harvested on 20 October 2006 at site B and 21 October 2006 at site A. Corn and beans

were shade-dried and yield was expressed as dry weight in grams, while squash yield was

expressed as wet weight in kilograms. To determine gravimetric moisture content of corn

and beans, a sample was shelled, weighed, oven-dried for 3 days at 65 degrees Celsius,

and then reweighed. Yields were expressed as yield per plant (Appendices XXI, XXII

and XXIII) and calories per acre (Appendix XXIV). Calorie information for rattlesnake

pole beans and Bear Island flint corn was obtained from a nutritional analysis performed

by NutriData (Chapter 7). For the Hopi orange squash, calorie information for pumpkin,

a close relative, was used, as a nutritional analysis was not performed. This information

was obtained from the USDA National Nutrient Database.

Corn

Corn ears from plants located within the inner 10 feet of the middle 2 rows were

harvested. Husks were peeled back and ears were dried in the shade to an average

moisture content of 20.4% (site A) and 35.2% (site B).

Squash

For squash, the fruit from the entire plot were counted, harvested and weighed.

58

Beans

To reduce edge effect, pods on plants located within the inner 10 feet of the

middle 2 rows were harvested. Beans were dried in the shade to an average moisture

content of 9.3% (site A) and 8.4% (site B).

Results

Single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) using EXCEL software was used to

test the significance of differences in the average yield/plant and average calories/acre

between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments at each site.

Site A

As illustrated in Table 29, there was no significant difference in mean yield/plant

between monoculture and Three Sisters corn plots (p = 0.232); there was a significantly

greater mean yield/plant for monoculture squash plots than for the Three Sisters squash

plots (p = 0.007) (Figure 17) and there was no significant difference in mean yield/plant

between monoculture and Three Sisters bean plots (p = 0.103) at site A.

There was a significant difference in calories per acre between treatments (p =

0.009), with calories per acre being greater in Three Sisters plots than in monoculture

corn, bean or squash plots (Table 30 and Figure 19) at site A.

59

Table 29. Analysis of Variance of mean yield/plant in monoculture (mono) and Three Sisters (TS) treatments at site A. Corn and bean yields were reported in grams, while squash yields were reported in kilograms. Treatment Source of

Variation SS df MS F P-value

Corn-mono *Corn-TS

Between Groups Within Groups Total

1206.922 5785.455 6992.377

1 8 9

1206.921 723.182

1.670 0.232

Squash-mono *Squash-TS


35.081 21.525 56.606

1 8 9

35.081 2.691

13.039 0.007

Beans-mono *Beans-TS


480.804 1137.851 1618.654

1 8 9

480.8036 142.231

3.380 0.103

Figure 17. Mean yield/plant (kg) in monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments at Site A. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval for the mean.

Three SistersMonocultureTreatment

10

8

6

4

2

Squa

sh Y

ield

/Pla

nt (k

g)

60

Table 30. Analysis of Variance for mean calories/acre in monoculture corn, monoculture bean, monoculture squash and Three Sisters treatments at site A. Source of Variation

SS df MS F P-value


1.1E+13 1.09E+13 2.19E+14

3 16 19

3.67E+12 6.79E+11

5.41 0.009

Figure 18. Mean calories/acre in monoculture corn, monoculture bean, monoculture squash and Three Sisters treatments at site A.

Site B

As illustrated in Table 31, there was no significant difference in mean yield/plant

between monoculture and Three Sisters corn plots (p = 0.581); there was no significant

difference in mean yield/plant between monoculture and Three Sisters squash plots (p =

61

0.962) and mean yield/plant for monoculture bean plots were significantly greater than

yield/plant for Three Sisters bean plots (p < 0.001) (Figure 19).

Again, calories/acre were greater in Three Sisters plots than in monoculture corn,

bean or squash plots, though the difference in calories per acre between treatments was

not statistically significant (p = 0.058) (Table 32 and Figure 20) at site B.

Table 31. Analysis of Variance of mean yield/plant in monoculture (mono) and Three Sisters (TS) treatments at site B. Corn and bean yields are reported in grams, while squash yields are reported in kilograms. Treatment Source of

Variation SS df MS F P-value

Corn-mono *Corn-TS


448.230 10858.92 11307.15

1 8 9

448.230 1357.365

0.330 0.581

Squash-mono *Squash-TS


0.259 885.937 886.196

1 8 9

0.259 110.742

0.002 0.962

Beans-mono *Beans-TS


6124.14 1940.75 8064.89

1 8 9

6124.14 242.594

25.244 0.001

62

Figure 19. Mean yield/plant (g) in monoculture and Three Sisters bean treatments at Site B. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval for the mean.

Three SistersMonoculture

80

60

40

20

0

Bean

Yie

ld /

Plan

t (g)

Table 32. Analysis of Variance for mean calories/acre in monoculture corn, monoculture bean, monoculture squash and Three Sisters treatments at site B. Source of Variation

SS df MS F P-value


5.38E+15 9.33E+14 1.47E+14

3 16 19

1.79E+13 5.83E+12

3.08 0.058

63

Figure 20. Mean calories/acre in monoculture corn, monoculture bean, monoculture squash and Three Sisters treatments at site B.

Discussion

Statistical analysis of the yield data showed that yield/plant was not significantly

greater for corn, squash or beans when grown together in the Three Sisters System versus

conventional monoculture row cropping. On the contrary, squash yield/plant at site A

and bean yield/plant at site B were significantly higher in monoculture treatments than in

Three Sisters treatments.

When calories/acre were compared, however, the Three Sisters produced more

calories/acre than monoculture corn, beans or squash at both sites A and B. While each

individual plant was not more productive in the Three Sisters systems than in

monoculture systems, it was possible to produce a greater variety of foods in a small area

64

using the Three Sisters design, which in combination produced more calories than any

individual plot of monoculture corn, beans or squash. This would be particularly

advantageous to the subsistence farmer and backyard gardener.

The poor germination of beans planted in the Three Sisters plots at site B may

have been due to a poor viability of the seeds planted there. These seeds were obtained at

a later date than the seeds planted in the monoculture bean plots and may have been

stored under different conditions. Another possible cause for poor germination and

growth could have been the lack of precipitation before and after planting of the Three

Sisters beans, combined with the increased drainage on the Three Sisters hills (see

chapter 3).

It is recommended that for future studies, seed viability be tested before planting.

For this study, however, there was not enough time between the dates that the seeds were

obtained and planted to test for viability. It is also recommended that the study be

repeated for at least 2 more years to allow enough time for significant changes in total

nitrogen to occur, which may affect yields.

65

CHAPTER 11: NUTRITIONAL VALUES

Methods

One hundred gram samples of each heirloom crop variety from the study were

sent to NutriData (http://www.nutridata.com/) for nutritional analysis. The Bear Island

flint corn was first ground into flour, as this is the most common use of this variety.

Rattlesnake pole beans were sent dry; and peeled, fresh Hopi orange squash was packed

in dry ice and sent in a Styrofoam container. All samples were sent via Express Mail.

The samples were not received in a timely manner, however, and the squash was not in

good condition, therefore, a nutritional analysis was only performed for the corn and

beans.

Results

The following tables list nutritional information for Bear Island flint corn (Table

33) and rattlesnake pole bean (Table 34), as obtained from a nutritional analysis

performed by NutriData. Also included in the tables is nutritional information for whole-

grain yellow corn flour (Table 33) and mature pinto bean (Table 34), obtained from the

USDA National Nutrient Database (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/).

This information was included so that comparisons can be made between the traditional

heirloom varieties used and common, conventional varieties.

66

Table 33. Nutritional information for Bear Island flint corn flour and whole-grain yellow corn flour. (.) = Data unavailable. Nutrient Bear Island Flint Yellow corn DifferenceProtein 10.01 g 6.93 g 3.08 g Carbohydrate 75.11 g 76.85 g -1.74g Dietary fiber 13.52 g 7.3 g 6.22 g Fat 5.07 g 3.86 g 1.21 g Moisture (water) 8.37 g 10.91 g -2.54 g Ash 1.44 g 1.45 g -0.01 g Calories 386.11 g 361 g 0.11 g Vitamin A 8.43 IU 214 IU -205.57 IU Vitamin C 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg Calcium 7.83 mg 7 mg 0.83 mg Iron 2.55 mg 2.38 mg 0.17 mg Sodium 6.23 mg 5 mg 1.23 mg Cholesterol 0 mg . . Polyunsaturated fat 0.14 g 1.76 g -1.62 g Monounsaturated fat 3.48 g 1.02 g 2.46 g Saturated fat 1.41 g 0.54 g 0.87 g Monosaccharides 2.39 g . . Disaccharides 0.50 g . . Total Sugars 2.89 g 0.64 g 2.25 g Table 34. Nutritional information for mature raw rattlesnake pole bean and mature raw pinto beans. (.) = Data unavailable.

Nutrient

Rattle Snake Pole Bean Pinto Bean Difference

Protein 19.73 g 21.42 g -1.69 g Carbohydrate 67.46 g 62.55 g 4.91 g Dietary fiber 34.95 g 15.5 g 19.45 g Fat 1.73 g 1.23 g 0.5 g Moisture (water) 7.31 g 11.33 g -4.02 g Ash 3.77 g 3.46 g 0.31 g Calories 364.33 g 347 g 17.33 Cal Vitamin A 49.63 IU 0 IU 49.63 IU Vitamin C 0 mg 6.3 mg -6.3 mg Calcium 120.78 mg 113 mg 7.78 mg Iron 6.6 mg 5.07 mg 1.53 mg Sodium 2.43 mg 12 mg -9.57 mg Cholesterol 0 mg . . Polyunsaturated fat 1.09 g 0.41 g 0.68 g Monounsaturated fat 1.75 g 0.23 g 1.52 g Saturated fat 0.34 g 0.24 g 0.1 g Monosaccharides 0.05 g . . Disaccharides 0.34 g . . Total Sugars 1.42 g 2.11 g -0.69 g

67

As seen in Tables 33 and 34 above, the heirloom varieties used are higher in

certain nutrients than their conventional counterparts. Bear Island flint corn is higher

than yellow corn in protein, dietary fiber, fat, calories, calcium, iron, sodium,

monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats and sugars, while yellow corn is higher in

carbohydrates, ash, vitamin A and polyunsaturated fat. Rattlesnake pole bean is higher in

carbohydrates, dietary fiber, fat, ash, calories, vitamin A, calcium, iron and

polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and saturated fats, while pinto bean is higher in

protein, vitamin C, sodium and sugars.

Discussion

Because flint corn is usually higher than dent corn, it was expected that the Bear

Island flint would contain higher protein content than yellow corn. While it does appear

that the heirloom varieties are overall more nutritious than their conventional

counterparts, each individual’s dietary needs would have to be taken into consideration to

determine whether he/she would benefit more from a particular variety. These values

should be used generally, as nutritional values will vary according to soil nutrient

availability and other growing conditions.

It is interesting to note the differences in fats between Bear Island flint and yellow

corns. Yellow corn is 1.62g greater in polyunsaturated fat, while Bear Island flint corn is

2.46g greater in monounsaturated fat and 0.87g greater in saturated fat per 100 grams

corn. Also, Bear Island flint corn contains 2.25g more total sugars than its conventional

counterpart, which would result in a more flavorful corn.

68

CHAPTER 12: CHANGES IN TOTAL SOIL NITROGEN

Methods

In order to compare changes in total soil nitrogen between treatments from one

growing season to the next, soil samples were collected from each plot in June, and again

approximately 1 year afterward. Samples were collected to a depth of 6 inches using a

soil probe from 5 random locations in each plot. Samples were collected at site A on 12

June 2006 and at site B on 16 June 2006. Samples were collected again from both sites

on 3 May 2007. Samples were analyzed for total nitrogen at the University of Wisconsin

Madison/Extension Soil and Forage Analysis Laboratory in Marshfield, WI (Appendix

XXX).

Results

Single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) using EXCEL software was used to

test the significance of differences in changes in total soil nitrogen (ppm) from June 2006

to May 2007 in monoculture and Three Sisters treatments at site A and site B.

Site A

As illustrated in Table 35, there was no significant difference in changes in total

soil nitrogen between treatments (p = 0.097) at site A.

Table 35. Analysis of Variance of changes in total soil nitrogen levels (ppm) between treatments at site A. Source of Variation

SS df MS F P-value


2481713 5306096 7787809

3 16 19

827237.7 331631

2.494 0.097

69

Site B

As illustrated in Table 36, there was no significant difference in changes in total

soil nitrogen between treatments (p = 0.119) at site B.

Table 36. Analysis of Variance of changes in total soil nitrogen levels (ppm) between treatments at site A. Source of Variation

SS df MS F P-value


221679.8 623685 889864.8

3 16 19

88726.59 38980.31

2.27619 0.118894

Discussion While there was no significant difference in total soil nitrogen between treatments,

a continuation of this study for at least 2 more growing seasons may reveal a significant

difference in total soil nitrogen as nitrogen is depleted from the soil in some treatments

and accumulates in others.

In Hidatsa agriculture, corn was planted in the same mounds year after year

(Wilson 1987). While it may be expected that the beans in the Three Sisters system will

contribute to an accumulation of nitrogen over time due to the nitrogen-fixing abilities of

legumes, a continual planting of the Three Sisters in the same location over multiple

growing seasons may deplete the soil of other nutrients, eventually leading to a decrease

in crop production. Considering planting the Three Sisters in rotation with other crops

may be advantageous in avoiding the depletion of certain soil nutrients.

70

CHAPTER 13: SUMMARY

Since the dawn of agriculture, farming techniques have continually changed and

evolved. The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides often results in an initial increase

in production while negatively affecting the health of humans and the environment. With

an increasing awareness of the effects of industrial agriculture on the environment and

human health, organic systems and sustainable methods of farming are making a

comeback. Incorporation of Native American cropping practices may be an effective

strategy in the development of sustainable and productive practices for farmers today.

The reintroduction of traditional Native American agricultural systems and the

incorporation of these foods into the diet may also help to prevent obesity, diabetes and

heart disease and preserve indigenous knowledge.

The Three Sisters garden combines corn, beans and squash - three vegetables that

may benefit each other, thus reducing the need for fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and

irrigation. Although there are several accounts of the benefits of the Three Sisters garden

in popular gardening literature, no scientific literature documenting the effectiveness of

the system were found at the time that this study took place. Munson-Scullin and

Scullin’s (2005) comparison of two of the Three Sisters (corn and beans) showed no

increase in yield between planting methods (alone versus in combination); however, the

beans might have been planted too far from the corn to allow the two plants to benefit

each other. In utilizing organic farming systems, most gardeners are likely to add organic

fertilizers and other soil amendments. The purpose of the Munson-Scullin and Scullin

(2005) study, however, was to verify what the historic yields may have been, and not to

determine the productivity of the Three Sisters in a modern system.

71

Returning to the M.S. thesis analysis of the Three Sisters productivity, the null

hypothesis for each objective was tested and the following results were found (these

results are summarized in Table 37):

Objective 1:

1a. H0: There is no difference in diurnal variations in soil temperatures between

monoculture and Three Sisters corn, bean and squash treatments.

Based on the results of this study, at site A there was no significant difference in

diurnal variations in soil temperatures between monoculture and Three Sisters corn

treatments, there was a significant difference in between monoculture and Three Sisters

bean treatments, and there was no significant difference in diurnal variation in soil

temperatures between monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments. At site B, there

was a significant difference in diurnal variations in soil temperatures between

monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments, there was no significant difference

between monoculture and Three Sisters bean treatments, and there was a significant

difference between monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments.

Because results varied between crop and site, no conclusions may be drawn based

on these results. It appears that there are several variables to consider, including soil type

and climate in addition to crop treatment when comparing soil temperatures.

1b. H0: There is no difference in weed cover between monoculture and Three Sisters

corn, bean and squash treatments.

There was no significant difference in weed cover between monoculture and

Three Sisters treatments at site A. At site B, there was a significant difference in weed

72

cover between monoculture and Three Sisters bean treatments, with weed cover being

greater in monoculture bean treatments. There was no significant difference in weed

cover between monoculture and Three Sisters corn and squash treatments.

Based on these results, the null hypotheses that there is no difference in weed

cover between monoculture and Three Sisters corn and between monoculture and Three

Sisters squash cannot be rejected. Because results for differences in weed cover between

monoculture and Three Sisters bean treatments varied between sites, no conclusions can

be drawn without further studies.

1c. H0: There is no difference in gravimetric soil moisture content between

monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

At both sites A and B, there was a significant difference between monoculture

treatments and Three Sisters hills, with soil moisture being lowest on Three Sisters Hills,

thus the null hypothesis was rejected.

1d. H0: There is no difference in damage due to adverse weather conditions between


There was no significant difference in the number of corn ears damaged due to

adverse weather conditions (strong wind and rain) at site B, thus the null hypothesis was

not rejected.

73

1e. H0: There is no difference in the presence of and/or damage caused by the

following pests and disease: A) corn smut, B) corn earworm, C) cucumber beetle and D)

raccoons between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

A) There was no difference in damage caused by corn smut between monoculture

and Three Sisters corn treatments at sites A and B, thus the null hypothesis

was not rejected.

B) There was no difference in damage caused by corn earworm between

monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments at sites A and B, thus the null

hypothesis was not rejected.

C) There was no difference in the number of cucumber beetles between

monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments at sites A and B, thus the

null hypothesis was not rejected.

D) There was a significant difference in damage caused by raccoons between

monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments at site A, thus the null

hypothesis was rejected.

1f. A) H0: There is no difference in crop yield in terms of yield per plant between


There was no significant difference in crop yields in terms of yield per plant, thus

the null hypothesis was not rejected.

B) H0: There is no significant difference in crop yields in terms of calories per

acre between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

74

Calories per acre were greater in Three Sisters treatments than in monoculture

treatments (although the difference was only statistically significant at site A), thus the

null hypothesis was rejected.

Objective 2:

A nutritional analysis of the heirloom corn and bean varieties used in this study (Bear

Island flint corn, rattlesnake pole bean) was performed, and results were reported along

with nutritional data for their conventional counterparts (yellow corn, pinto bean). As

this information was included solely for informational purposes, no statistical analyses

were performed for these data.

There are differences in the nutritional content of the Heirloom crop

varieties used in this study compared to similar varieties of commonly used conventional

crops. Bear Island flint corn is higher than yellow corn in protein, dietary fiber, fat,

calories, calcium, iron, sodium, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats and sugars,

while yellow corn is higher in carbohydrates, ash, vitamin A and polyunsaturated fat.

Rattlesnake pole bean is higher in carbohydrates, dietary fiber, fat, ash, calories, vitamin

A, calcium, iron and polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and saturated fats, while pinto

bean is higher in protein, vitamin C, sodium and sugars.

Objective 3:

There is no difference in total soil nitrogen levels before planting and 1 year after

planting between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

75

There was no significant difference in total soil nitrogen between treatments, thus

the null hypothesis was not rejected. A continuation of this study for at least 2 more

growing seasons may reveal a significant difference in total soil nitrogen as nitrogen is

depleted from the soil in some treatments and accumulates in others.

According to these results, the major positive findings of this study include lower

soil moisture levels on Three Sisters hills (an advantage in areas where excess water can

lead to seedling loss), a decrease in raccoon damage to Three Sisters plots, and an

increase in yield in terms of calories per acre in Three Sisters plots.

While yield per plant was not greater in Three Sisters plots than in monoculture

plots, the Three Sisters system as a whole outperformed the monoculture plots on a

calories per acre basis. This finding is important evidence of the performance of the

Three Sisters and should be emphasized. The utilization of space in the Three Sisters

system is more efficient than monocultures, resulting in a more productive system.

76

Table 37. Summary of null hypotheses depicting rejection or failure to reject. Objective Null Hypothesis Reject or fail to

reject 1a. There is no difference in diurnal variations in soil

temperatures between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

Fail to reject

1b. There is no difference in weed cover between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

Fail to reject

1c. There is no difference in gravimetric soil moisture content between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

Reject

1d. There is no difference in adverse weather conditions between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

Fail to reject

1e. A. There is no difference in damage caused by corn smut between monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments.

Fail to reject

1e. B. There is no difference in damage caused by corn earworm between monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments.

Fail to reject

1e. C. There is no difference in the umber of cucumber beetles between monoculture and Three Sisters squash treatments.

Fail to reject

1e. D. There is no difference in damage caused by raccoons between monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments.

Reject

1f. A. There is no difference in crop yield per plant between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

Fail to reject

1f. B. There is no difference in crop yield in terms of calories per acre between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

Reject

2. Nutritional comparison of Heirloom and conventional crops (no statistical analysis performed).

N/A

3. There is no difference in total soil nitrogen levels before planting and 1 year after planting between monoculture and Three Sisters treatments.

Fail to reject

77

CHAPTER 14: RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this project was to investigate several productivity factors of the

Three Sisters system to gain a base of knowledge about the system, as published, peer-

reviewed, scientific literature on the subject is lacking. As indicated in Table 35, soil

moisture, calories per acre, presence of raccoons, and nutritional content of heirloom

seeds were discriminating factors. Soil temperature, weed cover, adverse weather

conditions, pest and disease damage (except for raccoon), crop yield per plant, and soil

nitrogen levels were not discriminating factors in this study.

It is difficult to draw conclusions based on the findings of this study alone due to

the short duration of the study (only one growing season) and the limited spatial scope of

the experimental design. It is recommended that either the study as whole, or different

parts of the study be repeated over a period of several years to gain more consistent

results and to observe any patterns that may arise. A site-specific study is also important,

as differences arose between sites due to differences in soil type, dominant weed species

present, and other factors, such as block size.

Because the Three Sisters design is able to produce more calories than corn, beans

or squash grown alone in the same area of land, the polyculture system may be

considered a more productive system. It is recommended that the cultural reintroduction

of the Three Sisters Native American polyculture system be promoted in Native

American community as a means of improving diets to reduce the risk of diabetes,

obesity and heart disease, and to preserve the knowledge of this cultural tradition.

78

LITERATRE CITED Acquaah, G. 2002. Principles of Crop Production: Theory, Techniques and Technology. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. 460 p. Altieri, M. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74:19-31. Clark, J. 1997. Strategies for the prevention of the development of pesticide resistance in the UK-lessons for and from the use of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. Pesticide Science 51:391-397. Creasy, R. 1998. Three sisters of life: squash, beans and corn in the Native American garden. Harrowsmith 3(17):80-87. Curtis, J. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Dimitri, C. and Greene, C. 2002. Organic foods industry taps growing American market. Economic Research Survey, USDA. Agricultural Outlook. October 2002. p. 4-7. Dodson, M. 2001. Ancient companions: an appendix to companion planting: basic concepts and resources. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas www.attra.ncat.org. Dover, M. and Croft, B. 1986. Pesticide Resistance and Public Policy. BioScience 36(2): 78-85. Elliot, B. 2004. Companion planting and the Three Sisters. Small Farm Today 21(2):16-21. Emeasor, K.C. and Ezueh, M. I. 1997. The influence of companion crops in the control of insect pests of cowpea in intercropping systems. Tropical Agriculture 74(4):285-289. Erney, D. 1996. Long live the three sisters. Organic Gardner 43:37-40. Fox, C., Esparza, J., Nicolson, M., Bennett, P., Schulz, L., Valencia, M., and Ravussin, E. 1998. Is a low leptin concentration, a low resting metabolic rate, or both the expression of the “thrifty genotype”? Results from Mexican Pima Indians. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1998(68):1053-1057. Gomez, K and Gomez, A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Greene, C. 2001. U.S. organic farming emerges in the 1990s: adoption of certified systems. Economic Research Service, USDA. (AIB770) 28 p.

79

Herber, D. and Bowerman, S. 2001. Applying science to changing dietary patterns. American Institute for Cancer Research 11th Annual Research Conference on Diet, Nutrition and Cancer. American Society for Nutritional Sciences. Hochmuth, G. 1983. HortScience; a publication of the American Society for Horticultural Science 18:467-468. Holmes, D. and Barrett, G. 1997. Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica) disperhal behavior in innercropped vs. monoculture soybean agroecosystems. American Midland Naturalist 137:312-319. Huang, J., Pray, C., & Rozelle, S. 2002. Enhancing the crops to feed the poor. Nature 418:678-684. Hulugalle, N.R. and Ezumah, R.G. 1991. Effects of cassava-based cropping system on physiological properties of soil and earthworm casts in tropical Alfsol. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 35:55-63 Indian Health Service. 1996. Trends in Indian health. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. Jutsum, A. 1998. Pesticide resistance; assessment of risk and the development and implementation of effective management strategies. Pesticide Science 54(4):435-446. Jurik, T. 2004. Microenvironment of a corn-soybean-oat strip intercrop system. Field Crops Research 90:335-349 Kombiok, J. M. and Clottey, V.A. 2003. Maize yields and soil N as affected by date of planting mucuna in maize-mucuna intercropping in Ghana. Tropical Agriculture 80(2):77-82. Kopper, Philip. 1986. The Smithsonian Book of North American Indians Before the Coming of the Europeans. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. 288 p. Kuhnlein, H.V. and Receveur, O. 1996. Dietary change and traditional food systems of indigenous peoples. Annual Review of Nutrition 16:417-442. Lal, R. 1983. No-till Farming: Soil and Water Conservation and Management in the Humid and Subhumid Tropics. Monograph No. 2, IITA, Nigeria, 64 p. Lal, L. 1991. Effect of inter-cropping on the incidence of potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 36:185-190. Lewandowski, S. 1987. Diohe’ko, the Three Sisters in Senca life: Implications for a native agriculture in the finger lakes region of New York State. Agriculture and Human Values 4(2-3):76-93.

80

Little, T. and Hills, J. 1978. Agricultural Experimentation: Design and Analysis. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Martinez, R. (2006, 12 December) [Personal interview with Andy Gokee]. Martinez, R. (2007, 16 May) [Personal interview with Sharon Cloud]. Mijares, A., Pacheco, R., Martínez, S., Cantón, L., and Ambrosio, G. 1999. The Romanomermis iyengari parasite for Anopheles pseudopunctipennis suppression in natural habitats in Oaxaca State, Mexico. Rev Panam Salud Publica 5(1):23-28. Mt. Pleasant, J. 1994. Competitive abilities of six maize hybrids with four weed control practices. Weed Technology 8:124-128. Mt.Pleasant, J. 2001. The Three Sisters care for the land and the people. Chapter 19. Science and Native American Communities: Legacies of Pain, Visions of Promise. James, K. (Ed.) University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London. Munson-Scullin, W. and Scullin, M. 2005. Potential productivity of Midwestern native American gardens. Plains Anthropologist 50(193):9-21. Neel, J. 1962. A ‘thrifty” genotype rendered detrimental by “progress.” American Journal of Human Genetics 14:353-362. Nestby, R. 1993. Effect of broadcasted and fertigated nitrogen and raised beds on yield and freeze injuryof the red raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.). Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 7(2):249-259. Olasantan, F.O. 1998. The effects of soil temperature and moisture content and crop growth and yield of intercropping maize with melon (Colocynthisis vulgaris). Experimental Agriculture 24: 67-74. Olasantan, F.O. 1996. Effects of intercropping with maize on the microenvironment, growth and yield of cassava. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 57:149-158. Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seindel, R. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55(7):573-582. Piper, J., Handley, M., and Kulakow, A. Incidence and severity of viral disease symptoms on eastern gamagrass within monoculture and polycultures. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 59(3):139-147. Piperno, D. 2001. On maize and the sunflower. Science 292(5525):2260-2261.

81

Roe, N. E. and Stoffella, P. J. 1994. Growth and yields of bell pepper and winter squash grown with organic living mulches. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science. 119(6):1193-1199. Sartori, L. 2005. Energy use and economic evaluation of a three year crop rotation for conservation and organic farming in NE Italy. Biosystems Engineering 91:245-256. Santalla, M. 1994. Effect of intercropping bush bean populations with maize on agronomic traits and their implications for selection. Field Crops Research 36:185-189. Sagakkara, U.R. 1990. Response of selected legume companion crops to irrigation frequencies. Agricultural Water Management 17:257-263. Sloenker, L.L. and Moldenhauer, W.C. 1997. Measuring the amounts of crop residue remaining after tillage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 32:231-236. Smith, B. 2001. Documenting plant domestication: the consilience of biological and archaeological approaches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98(4):1324-1326. Story, M., Evans, M., Fabistz, R., Clay, T., Rock, B.H., and Broussard, B. 1999. The epidemic of obesity in American Indian communities and the need for childhood obesity-prevention programs. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 69:747S-754S. Struever, S. and Vickery, K.D. 1973. The beginnings of cultivation in the Midwest-Riverine area of the United States. American Anthropologist. 75(5):1197-1220. USDA National Nutrient Database. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/. Site last visited on June 19, 2007. Visser, Margaret. 1986. Much Depends on Dinner: The Extraordinary History and Mythology, Allure and Obsessions, Perils and Taboos of an Ordinary Meal. New York: Grove Press. 354 p. Waddingtton, J. and Bitman, S. 1984. Establishment and subsequent productivity of bromegrass and alfalfa seeded with an Argentine rapseed companion crop in northeastern Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 64:303-308. Wade, R. 1997. Squash seeds yield new view of early American farming. Science 276(5314):894-895. Willey, R. and Osuru, D. 1972. Studies on mixtures of maize and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular reference to plant population. Journal of Agricultural Science 79:517-529.

82

Wertz, S. K. 2005. Maize: the Native North American’s legacy of cultural diversity and biodiversity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18:131-156. Wilson, G. L. 1917. Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians: An Indian interpretation. Studies in the Social Sciences Number 9. Bulletin of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Young, T. K. 1994. The Health of Native Americans: Toward a Biocultural Epidemiology. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba. 275 p. Zinsou, V., Wydra,K., Ahohuendo, B and Hau, B. 2004. Effects of soil amendments, intercropping and planting time in combination on the severity of cassava bacterial blight and yield in two ecozones of West Africa. Plant Pathology 53(5):585-595.

83

Appendix I. Aerial photograph of the Bad River reservation taken on August 4, 1951. Arrows point to raised-bed agricultural systems (date of raised bed construction unknown). Photo provided by the Ashland County Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).

':.• . ~,

84

Appendix II. Aerial photo and soil map of study site A, Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC). Arrow points to study site A.

Soil Survey of Bayfield County, Wisconsin TO\\IIShip 47N Range S

Thb map was prepared by tht U.S. OepaJll'l)tiU of Agrlculrure., N'.arunl Rt:IOUrets Conservation Service usin& the BayftPid Coumy. WI SSVR.GO <.:t:r:ufl«idau~of200Sl01S. Thton.bopboc:o l:t.\a&tWN cre.1edfrom2005 NAJPpholopapby.

:'Oonhhmman Datum of 1963(!'0•083~ GIU-80 Spheroid. UaiVt"rul Tra!U\ene Me:rt:I&Or, IOI'Itt 1)

, ........ '.I. •• W,.....,•k'P'+t t • n'W''P......,P !xoScaiC5D.<tW~.~ .... WuWts.-\-alt tht w Ilia M.wt .... ,.,......., ... p c.odllwabld sst--aGO e«WM IOIIuWir Mid .,.u.t.l......_

Section 2

oc====5~oo===='~·ooo~========2.oo~o========3~-~~~ 0 ~ ~

C===~====~==========~M~

0 NRCS Not .. ol ~,_ret> ~ ,.., ......... Str<itt

85

Appendix III. Aerial photo and soil map of study site B, Bad River community garden. Arrow points to study site B.

U . S. DE P A RTMEN T O F AGR ICU LTUR E SO I L C0N$S:A'VA TION SERVICE

C00""t.l't "" 'HN0 W !T H

ST A T E AGR IC U LT U R A L EXPER IM ENT S YA T I ON

AP PROX. SC A\..E 1" ~ 1667' SOIL

ASHLAI' AOVAIICE

' """ " ..... , ·· o• ... . . lil t. ~ ...

86

Appendix IV. Soil test report for study site A, Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center.

.amplos Analyzed By: Soil & Forage 1\JlalysiS lab 8396 Yellowstone Drive Marshfield, Wl54449 ph'l.._"1'if15) 387·2523

.AB ft· 08 =:=J Aca>uo'< No

SOIL TEST REPORT

Resul1s also available cn .. line at http:/luwlab.t:oils.wisc.edu/reports lab number: 6408 access code: zhckr

This Report is for: Rhea Martinez

~II:""''""C-A'IIO"Ur'~Ntflof)l flf WIKGN1n -£whll"!ll'lt un,..r..ey Of WIKOI'Itln-Medltor

Otoltlr'llnt ol Sol Saero

OU>Iy Ashland 557666 at. Roc.oye~ IM!e Pu:~ee!IS64S

UWSP ·College o f Natural Resources · Rhea Ma~lnez UWSP, C/0 Tammy Gomez Stevens Point, WI 54481

College of Natural Resources • UWSP Stevens Poinl. Wl54481

412112006 4/2512006 NUTRIENT RECOMMENDATIONS

,_ -· ,_,.,., 0% 0 1" YieldGoot I .. cr·~~"'~.. f't11'111%*'Ctedll ' NIJI..,..,,oA&lir

,.. 11"205 ~ _ l..,...., ""f"""""=::=":=.:,P205~==1<20=--::.•---';rniii•'===l<20== -- ..... -- - .... _ ...... ....... .. -unknown (SSG 0) Com, grain Snapbean Squash (noaop)

71·90 bu .:::. 30 25 0 0 0 0 .::.. 30 25 -- 5001·7000 bs 40 lS 60 0 0 0 0 40 lS 60

vc 12·161oos 60 120 175 20 0 0 0 40 120 175 nla -c. ..

--no~c~r~op~~~~~;~~~~;;~:he~UGG;re"'ls=e;er: ~ .... n;"'l~"'00

"'n"'~~T"'E"'S""F"'O"'R"'co=R"'N"'C"'G"'RA71=N) AT DIFFERENT N:CORN PRICE RATIOS

Previous Crop I N·COfn Prlco Ratio (SIIb N:Sibu) Q~ ~w ~e MedlumJlow Yi•kl Potenti~l Sod$ 0.20

Rate' Rang• Rate• Range Rate1 Range Rate Range

lb N/o (Total to Appty)2

Corn, Forage legumes, Leguminous 120 100·140 105 90·120 95 85-110 l_;__o 80.100 vegetab-les. Green manures)

Soybean, Smalgrains' 90 75- t10 60 45·70 50 40-60 45 35-55 1 Rate IS tne N ra1e !hal pcoYiOes the ml)c)mum telum to H (MRTH). Range is the mnge or prOfiUtbit N 1'8lel1htl provlda an ccono~ retvm to N ;~,. ol the MRf N I ThntlliW• • rc f01 10tat N 'PJ)I..ed Including N n atarior f011ilitc:r •nd N 1.1SOd in hnleldo appttc:ouon•. • Sutlllraet N credits tor fomgo legumH, ~Inoue wg.Cables, green manures a,d anrnal ,.,.nurtt T'- iriCt.KiH 1M. 2nd ard 3rd yeat a.d~l v.ntre •~bit Do no!. aubllriC1 N creditS for legurnirous ~talbltt Cl' tatd end lOamy urd &Oils

1 Subtract N credit$ for ~I I'I'\3!'HJI'M It'd 2ncf Y'Uf lotiOt leQI.me:$.

~IOellles (Of ChOQ$inQ an approodate N tootgton rtte for com klrain. H If there is more 11\an SO% residue covet at pllntong, use !he upper en:! of the range. 2) For smal gram grown on medO.m and r.,., text..-ed $011$, the micf to !ow end of the ptofoallle range os tile rMSt appropnate. 3) If 1~ o1 the N Will oome lrom organic: aourc.s, use the top end of"" range. In addtiJOft, up 10 20 It> N.a In starter temlizer may be appled In II ... alblatlOn 4) For medium and r.,. textured soils with 10% or more organoe matter, use the low end of the renge: lor med1um and fine textured s<>IS With less 11\an 2% O<ganOC

matter, use the hogh end ol the range. 5)11 there is a bkelihood ol residual N, then use lhelow end of the range or use the high end ollhe range an<l subtract prel)lant nitrate tesl {PPI>IT) cred~s

For mOte inlonnation on lhe new N sppNc81/or> roro guidfJ/inos for com"'" http://uwlab.so/ls WISC odu/pubs/MRTN.pdf. AOOITIONALINFORMAT:;,IO~N:.._ __________________ _

4.R.=Not required for calculation ofllme requirement when soil pH is 6.6or higher.

~etest fields used for those high value crops evety 2 year&.

rear 1: II corn harvested for silage matead or grain add extra 30 lbs P20i per acre and 90 tbs K20 per acre ro nex1 crop.

)t•rter fertilizer (e.g. 10+20+20 lba N•P205~K20/;) is advisable for row crops on sods slow to w•rm in the spring.

~;,gs.q..., ..

Corn. grain

Squash

(no crop)

Rotation pH

TEST INTERPRETATION

~fY.. Low Low mum

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPpPPPPPP KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKOO

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP KKKKKJO(l(KKJ<KKI<KKJ<Kl(J(J(I(

PPPPPPPPPPPPP KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

High ---- Vory Hlgh Excesstve

=-ro== ,....,=...,"'=:='""iE.;;..T--'i,':::=:c.:;- :=::::::-r-,,--,===r.:==-r-;:=-,--;.~~~,.._.. ""''~"

--~~~-L----~~-----------L----~------L-----J-----~------L-~--~~; J ~~.

87

Appendix V. Soil test report for study site B, Bad River community gardens.

amples Analyted By; Soil & Fo1age Analysis Lab 8396 Yellowstone Olive Marshfield. Wl 54449 ~hone: {715.!387·2523

AS#: 6408

SOIL TEST REPORT

Results also available on· line at http://uwlab.soils.wisc.e(futrepons lab number: 6408 access code: Zhckr

This Report is for: Rhea Martinez

\,.oUVP'I:t'V\I I Vt:. C A tCI'C;)IVR

Univw5ly cl WoseotiSif\oExtMs.IOr l)ni.Jcrsi!y Qt Wi$-::onsin.Madlsor

DtPfrln::ent o! Soil Sciei'Ct

'"""' Aooount NQ

1\shland 557666 .w R«*:WCj. D&teProceu6<1

UWSP - College of Natural Resources .. Rhea Martinet UWSP, C/0 Tammy Gomez Stevens Poln!, WI 54481

College of Natural Resoorces • UWSP Stevens Point, Wl54481

4/2112006 412512006 .,. -· Pklw Dtlilh J% 0 1"

~1I NM1&

unknown (SSG D)

oleiN~

BR

.. vious Cfop no crop

Cropping Sequence Ytel<l Go<111

" '" 101' ..

Com, grain 71·90 bu Snapbean 5001-7000 lbS Squash 12·16 tons (no etop) nia

There IS no ltme recommendatiOn.

NUTRIENT RECOMMENDATIONS

N "-«~!) N~~~l '"'%o • "' ; er CiiC!t L.9QtUmtN Man.-c~ P20> 1<20 -· - IWII '''" ••• 0 65 0 0 0 0 btiOW

40 0 10 0 0 0 0 60 40 215 20 0 0 0

SUGGESTED N APPLICATION RATES FOR CORN (GRAIN) AT DIFFERENT N:CORN PRICE RATIOS

----Previous Crop

Mediumll.ow Yield Potential Soils 0.05 Rate, Range Range

corn, Forage legl.li'JU!s. Leguminous vegetabses. Green manures'

120 100·140 95 85-110

Soybean, Small grains• 90 75-110 50 40-60

" NW•&1114l0 APf*t

P205 K20 -· . .. 0 65 "'""" 40 0 70 40 40 215

0.20 Rate1 Range

90 80.100

45 35-55

Rate is tho N fate tt.at fXOvides the maximum t eh.tm lo N (MRTN). Range is lhe range of profitable N ~'elM that ptovide an eoonomlc retum toN wihin $t/a of the MRTN. Tlle~t: •ates efe ror total N applied including N in starter fcrtilitcr <:~nod N vs.cd in hetbieide •wbttons. $ub1rae! N ctedila for forage logumos. leguminous. vegetables, green manures and at~imal manures . Thi& M ludes. 1 S-l 21\Cf .-nd 3rd year a edits whete applicable. Oo nots.ubtrad N c redts for leguminous vegotables on s~nd and loamy sand soils. Sublrac1 N etedits roran!mat manures and 2nd year forage legumes.

3uidelines fOr Choosing an aooroprlate N application rate for corn (grain) 1) If there is more than 50% tesldue cover at planting, use the upper end of the rang e. 2) For small grains grown on medium amd fine textured soils. the mid to k>w end of the profitable range is the most ap-proPf'iale. 3) If 100% of the N wil come from organic sources, use the top end of the range. In adctlbon, up 10 20 lb N/a in starter fertili:ler may be appl:ed In this srtuatlon. 4) For medium and fine teldured soils with 10% or more organic; matter, use the low end of the range; for medium and fine textured SOliS wltn less than 2% organic

matler. use the 11igh end of the range. 5) If there is a likelihood of residual N, then use the low end of the range or use the high end of the range and s ubtract preplant nlrate test {PPNT) credits. =or more information on the new N appllcatlort rate gukJelines for com see http://uwlab.soils.wisc.edu/pubSIMRTN.pdf.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I.R.=Not required for calculation of lime requirement when sojl pH is 6.6 or higher.

:etest fields used for thBso high value crops every 2 years.

'ear 1: If corn harvested for silage Instead of grain apply extra 90 lbs K20 per acre to next etop.

·tarter ferti lizer (e g. 10+20+20 lbs N +P205+K20/a) is advisable for row c rops on soils slow to ~rm in t he spt ing.

Verylow Low Optimum High Very High Excessive

~om. grain

~napboan

Squash

no crop)

-..........

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP KKKKKKK

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP KKKKKK

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP, PPPPPPPPPPP KKKKKK

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXlOO\

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

""'" .... N.R.

88

Appendix VI. Student intern Azra Velagic tying support strings for monoculture bean plot.

89

Appendix VII. Soil temperature data for monoculture and Three Sisters corn (a), bean (b) and squash (c) at site A. a. Soil temperatures data for monoculture and Three Sisters corn at site A. MC = monoculture corn, TC = Three Sisters corn. Plot ID Treatment WAP TOD Temp

1 MC 0 7:00 12.11 MC 0 12:00 23.91 MC 0 17:00 27.21 MC 2 7:00 16.61 MC 2 12:00 27.51 MC 2 17:00 31.91 MC 4 7:00 18.51 MC 4 12:00 25.91 MC 4 17:00 28.31 MC 6 7:00 20.71 MC 6 12:00 291 MC 6 17:00 30.91 MC 8 7:00 17.91 MC 8 12:00 26.61 MC 8 17:00 28.71 MC 10 7:00 19.51 MC 10 12:00 25.81 MC 10 17:00 27.65 MC 0 7:00 12.35 MC 0 12:00 24.35 MC 0 17:00 27.45 MC 2 7:00 175 MC 2 12:00 28.75 MC 2 17:00 31.15 MC 4 7:00 18.75 MC 4 12:00 22.65 MC 4 17:00 27.25 MC 6 7:00 20.75 MC 6 12:00 29.65 MC 6 17:00 29.85 MC 8 7:00 17.75 MC 8 12:00 24.15 MC 8 17:00 26.75 MC 10 7:00 19.35 MC 10 12:00 27.25 MC 10 17:00 29.88 MC 0 7:00 13.38 MC 0 12:00 25.68 MC 0 17:00 27.58 MC 2 7:00 18.3

90

8 MC 2 12:00 308 MC 2 17:00 338 MC 4 7:00 19.58 MC 4 12:00 26.38 MC 4 17:00 27.78 MC 6 7:00 21.28 MC 6 12:00 318 MC 6 17:00 32.48 MC 8 7:00 18.78 MC 8 12:00 27.58 MC 8 17:00 30.58 MC 10 7:00 19.88 MC 10 12:00 27.48 MC 10 17:00 29.2

11 MC 0 7:00 13.711 MC 0 12:00 27.611 MC 0 17:00 27.611 MC 2 7:00 19.911 MC 2 12:00 29.711 MC 2 17:00 31.411 MC 4 7:00 19.911 MC 4 12:00 28.711 MC 4 17:00 27.811 MC 6 7:00 21.711 MC 6 12:00 29.311 MC 6 17:00 31.211 MC 8 7:00 18.211 MC 8 12:00 24.211 MC 8 17:00 2311 MC 10 7:00 19.711 MC 10 12:00 30.811 MC 10 17:00 30.316 MC 0 7:00 14.516 MC 0 12:00 28.416 MC 0 17:00 28.516 MC 2 7:00 19.716 MC 2 12:00 30.316 MC 2 17:00 33.216 MC 4 7:00 19.616 MC 4 12:00 28.416 MC 4 17:00 28.616 MC 6 7:00 21.616 MC 6 12:00 31.116 MC 6 17:00 3416 MC 8 7:00 18.816 MC 8 12:00 26.816 MC 8 17:00 3016 MC 10 7:00 20.4

91

16 MC 10 12:00 25.416 MC 10 17:00 31.82 SC 0 7:00 11.52 SC 0 12:00 26.12 SC 0 17:00 28.22 SC 2 7:00 18.12 SC 2 12:00 30.72 SC 2 17:00 34.62 SC 4 7:00 18.32 SC 4 12:00 25.82 SC 4 17:00 27.62 SC 6 7:00 20.22 SC 6 12:00 26.62 SC 6 17:00 26.42 SC 8 7:00 17.92 SC 8 12:00 242 SC 8 17:00 25.92 SC 10 7:00 19.42 SC 10 12:00 232 SC 10 17:00 29.34 SC 0 7:00 12.14 SC 0 12:00 27.74 SC 0 17:00 29.64 SC 2 7:00 16.74 SC 2 12:00 30.34 SC 2 17:00 36.14 SC 4 7:00 18.64 SC 4 12:00 22.94 SC 4 17:00 28.14 SC 6 7:00 20.84 SC 6 12:00 26.44 SC 6 17:00 30.74 SC 8 7:00 18.54 SC 8 12:00 22.94 SC 8 17:00 25.64 SC 10 7:00 19.44 SC 10 12:00 27.84 SC 10 17:00 26.27 SC 0 7:00 11.47 SC 0 12:00 27.27 SC 0 17:00 29.57 SC 2 7:00 16.77 SC 2 12:00 33.67 SC 2 17:00 36.27 SC 4 7:00 18.47 SC 4 12:00 287 SC 4 17:00 27.77 SC 6 7:00 20.8

92

7 SC 6 12:00 29.37 SC 6 17:00 307 SC 8 7:00 18.47 SC 8 12:00 25.17 SC 8 17:00 267 SC 10 7:00 19.87 SC 10 12:00 25.67 SC 10 17:00 28.79 SC 0 7:00 10.29 SC 0 12:00 25.89 SC 0 17:00 29.19 SC 2 7:00 16.69 SC 2 12:00 31.29 SC 2 17:00 359 SC 4 7:00 17.99 SC 4 12:00 259 SC 4 17:00 259 SC 6 7:00 20.69 SC 6 12:00 26.39 SC 6 17:00 30.89 SC 8 7:00 17.59 SC 8 12:00 23.29 SC 8 17:00 27.99 SC 10 7:00 19.29 SC 10 12:00 25.69 SC 10 17:00 31.2

10 SC 0 7:00 11.410 SC 0 12:00 29.510 SC 0 17:00 29.810 SC 2 7:00 17.510 SC 2 12:00 32.110 SC 2 17:00 33.410 SC 4 7:00 1910 SC 4 12:00 26.310 SC 4 17:00 25.310 SC 6 7:00 2110 SC 6 12:00 26.910 SC 6 17:00 31.810 SC 8 7:00 18.310 SC 8 12:00 23.610 SC 8 17:00 26.510 SC 10 7:00 19.310 SC 10 12:00 25.710 SC 10 17:00 25.7

93

b. Soil temperature data for monoculture and Three Sisters beans at site A. MB = monoculture bean, TB = Three Sisters bean. Plot ID Treatment WAP TOD Temp

12 MB 0 7:00 1412 MB 0 12:00 28.712 MB 0 17:00 28.712 MB 2 7:00 18.512 MB 2 12:00 31.812 MB 2 17:00 31.112 MB 4 7:00 1912 MB 4 12:00 28.312 MB 4 17:00 26.812 MB 6 7:00 21.612 MB 6 12:00 31.412 MB 6 17:00 29.412 MB 8 7:00 18.412 MB 8 12:00 26.112 MB 8 17:00 16.612 MB 10 7:00 22.512 MB 10 12:00 25.412 MB 10 17:00 24.613 MB 0 7:00 1413 MB 0 12:00 26.313 MB 0 17:00 26.413 MB 2 7:00 19.713 MB 2 12:00 30.913 MB 2 17:00 32.113 MB 4 7:00 19.213 MB 4 12:00 25.513 MB 4 17:00 23.513 MB 6 7:00 20.913 MB 6 12:00 25.513 MB 6 17:00 29.213 MB 8 7:00 1913 MB 8 12:00 21.413 MB 8 17:00 2313 MB 10 7:00 16.113 MB 10 12:00 20.413 MB 10 17:00 22.814 MB 0 7:00 13.814 MB 0 12:00 27.314 MB 0 17:00 28.114 MB 2 7:00 20.614 MB 2 12:00 3114 MB 2 17:00 32.314 MB 4 7:00 18.4

94

14 MB 4 12:00 28.514 MB 4 17:00 26.814 MB 6 7:00 21.214 MB 6 12:00 30.514 MB 6 17:00 30.414 MB 8 7:00 18.414 MB 8 12:00 23.914 MB 8 17:00 24.614 MB 10 7:00 16.514 MB 10 12:00 22.114 MB 10 17:00 23.719 MB 0 7:00 14.519 MB 0 12:00 2819 MB 0 17:00 26.719 MB 2 7:00 19.419 MB 2 12:00 30.219 MB 2 17:00 33.819 MB 4 7:00 18.919 MB 4 12:00 26.519 MB 4 17:00 25.919 MB 6 7:00 21.319 MB 6 12:00 27.219 MB 6 17:00 31.919 MB 8 7:00 18.719 MB 8 12:00 22.119 MB 8 17:00 23.819 MB 10 7:00 16.919 MB 10 12:00 21.319 MB 10 17:00 22.620 MB 0 7:00 13.920 MB 0 12:00 26.620 MB 0 17:00 28.220 MB 2 7:00 19.620 MB 2 12:00 2920 MB 2 17:00 32.820 MB 4 7:00 18.820 MB 4 12:00 27.320 MB 4 17:00 26.420 MB 6 7:00 21.720 MB 6 12:00 30.920 MB 6 17:00 33.420 MB 8 7:00 1920 MB 8 12:00 2920 MB 8 17:00 27.920 MB 10 7:00 16.320 MB 10 12:00 2220 MB 10 17:00 24.22 SB 0 7:00 10.7

95

2 SB 0 12:00 27.92 SB 0 17:00 29.62 SB 2 7:00 152 SB 2 12:00 31.52 SB 2 17:00 34.12 SB 4 7:00 19.52 SB 4 12:00 26.72 SB 4 17:00 29.32 SB 6 7:00 20.82 SB 6 12:00 35.62 SB 6 17:00 26.22 SB 8 7:00 17.92 SB 8 12:00 30.62 SB 8 17:00 23.52 SB 10 7:00 15.62 SB 10 12:00 23.82 SB 10 17:00 26.74 SB 0 7:00 12.34 SB 0 12:00 29.84 SB 0 17:00 324 SB 2 7:00 15.64 SB 2 12:00 32.64 SB 2 17:00 32.84 SB 4 7:00 18.34 SB 4 12:00 24.44 SB 4 17:00 30.54 SB 6 7:00 21.14 SB 6 12:00 25.64 SB 6 17:00 35.24 SB 8 7:00 18.44 SB 8 12:00 22.74 SB 8 17:00 25.34 SB 10 7:00 17.34 SB 10 12:00 21.34 SB 10 17:00 25.57 SB 0 7:00 11.37 SB 0 12:00 27.27 SB 0 17:00 28.17 SB 2 7:00 167 SB 2 12:00 33.97 SB 2 17:00 33.77 SB 4 7:00 19.87 SB 4 12:00 29.37 SB 4 17:00 27.87 SB 6 7:00 21.17 SB 6 12:00 34.87 SB 6 17:00 32.27 SB 8 7:00 18.1

96

7 SB 8 12:00 32.97 SB 8 17:00 24.87 SB 10 7:00 16.27 SB 10 12:00 23.97 SB 10 17:00 269 SB 0 7:00 109 SB 0 12:00 31.49 SB 0 17:00 29.89 SB 2 7:00 16.59 SB 2 12:00 33.39 SB 2 17:00 32.19 SB 4 7:00 18.89 SB 4 12:00 27.49 SB 4 17:00 25.69 SB 6 7:00 21.19 SB 6 12:00 309 SB 6 17:00 34.69 SB 8 7:00 17.29 SB 8 12:00 32.39 SB 8 17:00 27.19 SB 10 7:00 15.19 SB 10 12:00 21.69 SB 10 17:00 26.2

10 SB 0 7:00 10.310 SB 0 12:00 31.610 SB 0 17:00 29.510 SB 2 7:00 1710 SB 2 12:00 33.710 SB 2 17:00 3410 SB 4 7:00 20.710 SB 4 12:00 24.710 SB 4 17:00 28.710 SB 6 7:00 21.410 SB 6 12:00 26.910 SB 6 17:00 35.110 SB 8 7:00 1810 SB 8 12:00 3010 SB 8 17:00 23.510 SB 10 7:00 16.510 SB 10 12:00 24.210 SB 10 17:00 24.3

97

c. Soil temperature data for monoculture and Three Sisters squash at site A. MS = monoculture squash, SS = Three Sisters squash. Plot ID Treatment WAP TOD Temp

3 MS 0 7:00 13.53 MS 0 12:00 24.13 MS 0 17:00 26.53 MS 2 7:00 17.33 MS 2 12:00 28.23 MS 2 17:00 32.63 MS 4 7:00 19.93 MS 4 12:00 26.33 MS 4 17:00 26.63 MS 6 7:00 213 MS 6 12:00 29.43 MS 6 17:00 30.33 MS 8 7:00 19.13 MS 8 12:00 24.93 MS 8 17:00 25.73 MS 10 7:00 19.73 MS 10 12:00 28.73 MS 10 17:00 32.66 MS 0 7:00 12.76 MS 0 12:00 25.66 MS 0 17:00 27.76 MS 2 7:00 17.26 MS 2 12:00 28.76 MS 2 17:00 31.46 MS 4 7:00 18.56 MS 4 12:00 276 MS 4 17:00 30.96 MS 6 7:00 216 MS 6 12:00 30.76 MS 6 17:00 316 MS 8 7:00 17.86 MS 8 12:00 276 MS 8 17:00 30.96 MS 10 7:00 19.46 MS 10 12:00 27.86 MS 10 17:00 26.2

15 MS 0 7:00 14.115 MS 0 12:00 23.815 MS 0 17:00 26.915 MS 2 7:00 19.315 MS 2 12:00 31.115 MS 2 17:00 31.115 MS 4 7:00 19.7

98

15 MS 4 12:00 27.315 MS 4 17:00 25.515 MS 6 7:00 2215 MS 6 12:00 30.615 MS 6 17:00 32.515 MS 8 7:00 18.515 MS 8 12:00 28.115 MS 8 17:00 29.915 MS 10 7:00 19.315 MS 10 12:00 22.715 MS 10 17:00 26.517 MS 0 7:00 13.617 MS 0 12:00 26.517 MS 0 17:00 25.317 MS 2 7:00 18.717 MS 2 12:00 28.617 MS 2 17:00 3117 MS 4 7:00 19.517 MS 4 12:00 26.717 MS 4 17:00 24.117 MS 6 7:00 21.617 MS 6 12:00 29.617 MS 6 17:00 31.217 MS 8 7:00 1817 MS 8 12:00 22.417 MS 8 17:00 22.117 MS 10 7:00 19.217 MS 10 12:00 23.117 MS 10 17:00 25.218 MS 0 7:00 1318 MS 0 12:00 25.818 MS 0 17:00 22.818 MS 2 7:00 19.718 MS 2 12:00 30.118 MS 2 17:00 33.418 MS 4 7:00 18.618 MS 4 12:00 27.618 MS 4 17:00 23.918 MS 6 7:00 21.518 MS 6 12:00 30.418 MS 6 17:00 31.218 MS 8 7:00 17.718 MS 8 12:00 27.918 MS 8 17:00 29.418 MS 10 7:00 19.418 MS 10 12:00 23.418 MS 10 17:00 24.92 SS 0 7:00 12

99

2 SS 0 12:00 28.62 SS 0 17:00 29.52 SS 2 7:00 14.82 SS 2 12:00 31.12 SS 2 17:00 342 SS 4 7:00 18.52 SS 4 12:00 262 SS 4 17:00 302 SS 6 7:00 20.42 SS 6 12:00 26.52 SS 6 17:00 30.12 SS 8 7:00 17.42 SS 8 12:00 22.12 SS 8 17:00 25.22 SS 10 7:00 19.22 SS 10 12:00 222 SS 10 17:00 25.94 SS 0 7:00 134 SS 0 12:00 28.44 SS 0 17:00 30.94 SS 2 7:00 16.34 SS 2 12:00 33.34 SS 2 17:00 36.24 SS 4 7:00 18.84 SS 4 12:00 254 SS 4 17:00 28.14 SS 6 7:00 20.94 SS 6 12:00 26.64 SS 6 17:00 314 SS 8 7:00 18.34 SS 8 12:00 234 SS 8 17:00 23.24 SS 10 7:00 19.74 SS 10 12:00 23.84 SS 10 17:00 25.77 SS 0 7:00 13.37 SS 0 12:00 29.27 SS 0 17:00 28.97 SS 2 7:00 187 SS 2 12:00 30.17 SS 2 17:00 32.97 SS 4 7:00 18.77 SS 4 12:00 26.17 SS 4 17:00 28.97 SS 6 7:00 217 SS 6 12:00 26.57 SS 6 17:00 28.17 SS 8 7:00 18.3

100

7 SS 8 12:00 22.87 SS 8 17:00 27.47 SS 10 7:00 19.77 SS 10 12:00 25.57 SS 10 17:00 23.49 SS 0 7:00 14.29 SS 0 12:00 23.69 SS 0 17:00 28.19 SS 2 7:00 16.49 SS 2 12:00 34.99 SS 2 17:00 349 SS 4 7:00 18.89 SS 4 12:00 24.79 SS 4 17:00 29.59 SS 6 7:00 21.69 SS 6 12:00 26.79 SS 6 17:00 289 SS 8 7:00 17.99 SS 8 12:00 22.69 SS 8 17:00 25.59 SS 10 7:00 19.29 SS 10 12:00 21.79 SS 10 17:00 27.6

10 SS 0 7:00 13.510 SS 0 12:00 27.510 SS 0 17:00 29.310 SS 2 7:00 16.210 SS 2 12:00 32.910 SS 2 17:00 34.810 SS 4 7:00 19.410 SS 4 12:00 27.810 SS 4 17:00 28.310 SS 6 7:00 2110 SS 6 12:00 26.510 SS 6 17:00 26.810 SS 8 7:00 18.310 SS 8 12:00 22.810 SS 8 17:00 26.810 SS 10 7:00 19.310 SS 10 12:00 25.510 SS 10 17:00 28.4

101

Appendix VIII. Soil temperature data for monoculture and Three Sisters corn (a), bean (b) and squash (c) at site B. TOD = time of day (hour), Temp = soil temperature (C). Period (.) = missing data. a. Soil temperature data for monoculture corn at site B. MC = monoculture corn, TC = Three Sisters corn. Plot ID Treatment WAP TOD Temp

8 MC 0 7:00 19.38 MC 0 12:00 25.58 MC 0 17:00 31.38 MC 2 7:00 21.58 MC 2 12:00 26.48 MC 2 17:00 27.78 MC 4 7:00 27.58 MC 4 12:00 30.28 MC 4 17:00 358 MC 6 7:00 22.78 MC 6 12:00 29.98 MC 6 17:00 31.18 MC 8 7:00 18.38 MC 8 12:00 24.28 MC 8 17:00 . 8 MC 10 7:00 17.78 MC 10 12:00 21.18 MC 10 17:00 22.7

10 MC 0 7:00 19.510 MC 0 12:00 24.810 MC 0 17:00 31.210 MC 2 7:00 21.710 MC 2 12:00 30.610 MC 2 17:00 30.110 MC 4 7:00 27.610 MC 4 12:00 3010 MC 4 17:00 35.810 MC 6 7:00 22.710 MC 6 12:00 30.310 MC 6 17:00 29.210 MC 8 7:00 18.410 MC 8 12:00 27.310 MC 8 17:00 . 10 MC 10 7:00 17.810 MC 10 12:00 21.210 MC 10 17:00 23.213 MC 0 7:00 18.113 MC 0 12:00 2613 MC 0 17:00 31

102

13 MC 2 7:00 20.613 MC 2 12:00 28.713 MC 2 17:00 31.113 MC 4 7:00 27.213 MC 4 12:00 24.413 MC 4 17:00 34.213 MC 6 7:00 22.713 MC 6 12:00 32.113 MC 6 17:00 29.813 MC 8 7:00 1813 MC 8 12:00 27.313 MC 8 17:00 . 13 MC 10 7:00 17.613 MC 10 12:00 21.513 MC 10 17:00 23.217 MC 0 7:00 19.517 MC 0 12:00 26.517 MC 0 17:00 31.417 MC 2 7:00 20.617 MC 2 12:00 27.117 MC 2 17:00 30.417 MC 4 7:00 27.217 MC 4 12:00 33.617 MC 4 17:00 34.817 MC 6 7:00 22.917 MC 6 12:00 31.317 MC 6 17:00 30.517 MC 8 7:00 18.217 MC 8 12:00 25.817 MC 8 17:00 . 17 MC 10 7:00 18.217 MC 10 12:00 22.317 MC 10 17:00 23.218 MC 0 7:00 19.718 MC 0 12:00 27.518 MC 0 17:00 30.318 MC 2 7:00 20.618 MC 2 12:00 28.818 MC 2 17:00 30.818 MC 4 7:00 27.818 MC 4 12:00 34.718 MC 4 17:00 34.818 MC 6 7:00 22.818 MC 6 12:00 33.418 MC 6 17:00 30.118 MC 8 7:00 1818 MC 8 12:00 27.918 MC 8 17:00 .

103

18 MC 10 7:00 18.218 MC 10 12:00 22.218 MC 10 17:00 23.93 SC 0 7:00 17.93 SC 0 12:00 25.63 SC 0 17:00 34.53 SC 2 7:00 19.63 SC 2 12:00 29.53 SC 2 17:00 31.93 SC 4 7:00 27.63 SC 4 12:00 32.43 SC 4 17:00 31.23 SC 6 7:00 22.73 SC 6 12:00 253 SC 6 17:00 27.93 SC 8 7:00 17.33 SC 8 12:00 20.53 SC 8 17:00 . 3 SC 10 7:00 163 SC 10 12:00 20.83 SC 10 17:00 23.44 SC 0 7:00 17.84 SC 0 12:00 26.84 SC 0 17:00 35.64 SC 2 7:00 19.54 SC 2 12:00 26.94 SC 2 17:00 33.84 SC 4 7:00 27.64 SC 4 12:00 30.64 SC 4 17:00 33.34 SC 6 7:00 22.84 SC 6 12:00 26.34 SC 6 17:00 28.24 SC 8 7:00 17.34 SC 8 12:00 20.54 SC 8 17:00 . 4 SC 10 7:00 16.44 SC 10 12:00 20.74 SC 10 17:00 23.26 SC 0 7:00 18.16 SC 0 12:00 276 SC 0 17:00 34.66 SC 2 7:00 18.96 SC 2 12:00 28.16 SC 2 17:00 34.66 SC 4 7:00 27.76 SC 4 12:00 35.66 SC 4 17:00 33.8

104

6 SC 6 7:00 22.76 SC 6 12:00 28.76 SC 6 17:00 30.36 SC 8 7:00 17.16 SC 8 12:00 22.46 SC 8 17:00 . 6 SC 10 7:00 17.16 SC 10 12:00 20.96 SC 10 17:00 24.2

11 SC 0 7:00 1911 SC 0 12:00 27.111 SC 0 17:00 33.711 SC 2 7:00 21.511 SC 2 12:00 2811 SC 2 17:00 31.111 SC 4 7:00 27.311 SC 4 12:00 3211 SC 4 17:00 34.511 SC 6 7:00 22.611 SC 6 12:00 27.411 SC 6 17:00 28.911 SC 8 7:00 17.911 SC 8 12:00 20.811 SC 8 17:00 . 11 SC 10 7:00 1611 SC 10 12:00 21.111 SC 10 17:00 22.914 SC 0 7:00 18.114 SC 0 12:00 25.814 SC 0 17:00 32.914 SC 2 7:00 19.414 SC 2 12:00 29.814 SC 2 17:00 33.114 SC 4 7:00 27.714 SC 4 12:00 31.614 SC 4 17:00 32.614 SC 6 7:00 22.714 SC 6 12:00 26.614 SC 6 17:00 29.914 SC 8 7:00 1714 SC 8 12:00 20.514 SC 8 17:00 . 14 SC 10 7:00 16.914 SC 10 12:00 22.314 SC 10 17:00 25.1

105

b. Soil Temperature data for monoculture beans at site B. MB = monoculture bean, TB = Three Sisters bean.

Plot ID Treatment WAP TOD Temp

2 MB 0 7:00 192 MB 0 12:00 24.52 MB 0 17:00 30.72 MB 2 7:00 20.62 MB 2 12:00 26.12 MB 2 17:00 31.22 MB 4 7:00 27.72 MB 4 12:00 32.72 MB 4 17:00 34.82 MB 6 7:00 22.72 MB 6 12:00 31.62 MB 6 17:00 32.72 MB 8 7:00 182 MB 8 12:00 23.92 MB 8 17:00 . 2 MB 10 7:00 17.82 MB 10 12:00 20.42 MB 10 17:00 24.35 MB 0 7:00 19.35 MB 0 12:00 25.25 MB 0 17:00 33.45 MB 2 7:00 21.35 MB 2 12:00 27.55 MB 2 17:00 31.15 MB 4 7:00 27.25 MB 4 12:00 355 MB 4 17:00 34.85 MB 6 7:00 22.65 MB 6 12:00 29.55 MB 6 17:00 295 MB 8 7:00 18.35 MB 8 12:00 215 MB 8 17:00 . 5 MB 10 7:00 17.25 MB 10 12:00 215 MB 10 17:00 22.97 MB 0 7:00 19.17 MB 0 12:00 26.87 MB 0 17:00 33.57 MB 2 7:00 20.77 MB 2 12:00 27.97 MB 2 17:00 32.47 MB 4 7:00 27.3

106

7 MB 4 12:00 32.27 MB 4 17:00 34.77 MB 6 7:00 22.77 MB 6 12:00 30.17 MB 6 17:00 29.17 MB 8 7:00 17.97 MB 8 12:00 20.77 MB 8 17:00 . 7 MB 10 7:00 17.47 MB 10 12:00 20.97 MB 10 17:00 22.89 MB 0 7:00 19.59 MB 0 12:00 27.59 MB 0 17:00 30.79 MB 2 7:00 21.89 MB 2 12:00 28.79 MB 2 17:00 31.59 MB 4 7:00 27.39 MB 4 12:00 34.49 MB 4 17:00 33.19 MB 6 7:00 22.69 MB 6 12:00 32.99 MB 6 17:00 29.19 MB 8 7:00 189 MB 8 12:00 26.59 MB 8 17:00 . 9 MB 10 7:00 17.69 MB 10 12:00 20.59 MB 10 17:00 22.5

15 MB 0 7:00 19.615 MB 0 12:00 27.915 MB 0 17:00 31.115 MB 2 7:00 20.815 MB 2 12:00 29.515 MB 2 17:00 31.915 MB 4 7:00 27.515 MB 4 12:00 35.915 MB 4 17:00 33.615 MB 6 7:00 22.815 MB 6 12:00 30.715 MB 6 17:00 32.415 MB 8 7:00 17.915 MB 8 12:00 27.415 MB 8 17:00 . 15 MB 10 7:00 17.815 MB 10 12:00 22.415 MB 10 17:00 23.53 SB 0 7:00 17.9

107

3 SB 0 12:00 25.63 SB 0 17:00 34.53 SB 2 7:00 19.63 SB 2 12:00 29.53 SB 2 17:00 31.93 SB 4 7:00 27.63 SB 4 12:00 32.43 SB 4 17:00 31.23 SB 6 7:00 22.73 SB 6 12:00 253 SB 6 17:00 27.93 SB 8 7:00 17.13 SB 8 12:00 213 SB 8 17:00 . 3 SB 10 7:00 16.33 SB 10 12:00 21.63 SB 10 17:00 23.64 SB 0 7:00 18.64 SB 0 12:00 24.84 SB 0 17:00 33.74 SB 2 7:00 204 SB 2 12:00 27.84 SB 2 17:00 34.34 SB 4 7:00 27.84 SB 4 12:00 29.24 SB 4 17:00 32.44 SB 6 7:00 22.74 SB 6 12:00 28.64 SB 6 17:00 27.54 SB 8 7:00 17.24 SB 8 12:00 20.44 SB 8 17:00 . 4 SB 10 7:00 16.74 SB 10 12:00 21.44 SB 10 17:00 23.76 SB 0 7:00 18.36 SB 0 12:00 25.96 SB 0 17:00 27.96 SB 2 7:00 19.36 SB 2 12:00 30.16 SB 2 17:00 35.66 SB 4 7:00 27.96 SB 4 12:00 33.96 SB 4 17:00 34.36 SB 6 7:00 22.76 SB 6 12:00 33.16 SB 6 17:00 29.86 SB 8 7:00 17.1

108

6 SB 8 12:00 30.26 SB 8 17:00 . 6 SB 10 7:00 17.86 SB 10 12:00 21.56 SB 10 17:00 25.1

11 SB 0 7:00 18.311 SB 0 12:00 27.711 SB 0 17:00 31.511 SB 2 7:00 21.511 SB 2 12:00 30.211 SB 2 17:00 33.811 SB 4 7:00 27.611 SB 4 12:00 31.511 SB 4 17:00 32.311 SB 6 7:00 22.611 SB 6 12:00 27.111 SB 6 17:00 29.111 SB 8 7:00 17.411 SB 8 12:00 25.611 SB 8 17:00 . 11 SB 10 7:00 16.411 SB 10 12:00 21.111 SB 10 17:00 22.714 SB 0 7:00 18.314 SB 0 12:00 23.114 SB 0 17:00 34.314 SB 2 7:00 19.514 SB 2 12:00 31.114 SB 2 17:00 3114 SB 4 7:00 27.814 SB 4 12:00 34.114 SB 4 17:00 31.314 SB 6 7:00 22.714 SB 6 12:00 26.214 SB 6 17:00 . 14 SB 8 7:00 17.514 SB 8 12:00 20.414 SB 8 17:00 . 14 SB 10 7:00 17.614 SB 10 12:00 2314 SB 10 17:00 25.5

109

c. Soil temperature data for monoculture and Three Sisters squash at site B. MS = monoculture squash, TS = Three Sisters squash. Plot ID Treatment WAP TOD Temp

1 MS 0 7:00 19.21 MS 0 12:00 25.41 MS 0 17:00 32.21 MS 2 7:00 20.71 MS 2 12:00 28.11 MS 2 17:00 33.31 MS 4 7:00 27.81 MS 4 12:00 33.91 MS 4 17:00 37.51 MS 6 7:00 22.61 MS 6 12:00 32.11 MS 6 17:00 33.21 MS 8 7:00 17.71 MS 8 12:00 22.11 MS 8 17:00 . 1 MS 10 7:00 16.81 MS 10 12:00 20.51 MS 10 17:00 22.4

12 MS 0 7:00 19.412 MS 0 12:00 26.412 MS 0 17:00 29.912 MS 2 7:00 2112 MS 2 12:00 29.512 MS 2 17:00 32.312 MS 4 7:00 27.912 MS 4 12:00 34.912 MS 4 17:00 36.912 MS 6 7:00 22.912 MS 6 12:00 31.812 MS 6 17:00 32.912 MS 8 7:00 17.212 MS 8 12:00 28.312 MS 8 17:00 . 12 MS 10 7:00 17.612 MS 10 12:00 21.412 MS 10 17:00 22.816 MS 0 7:00 19.616 MS 0 12:00 25.616 MS 0 17:00 30.316 MS 2 7:00 20.516 MS 2 12:00 28.916 MS 2 17:00 31.316 MS 4 7:00 27.8

110

16 MS 4 12:00 34.816 MS 4 17:00 34.816 MS 6 7:00 22.816 MS 6 12:00 31.816 MS 6 17:00 31.516 MS 8 7:00 17.416 MS 8 12:00 28.516 MS 8 17:00 . 16 MS 10 7:00 1916 MS 10 12:00 22.116 MS 10 17:00 23.419 MS 0 7:00 19.519 MS 0 12:00 27.619 MS 0 17:00 31.319 MS 2 7:00 20.419 MS 2 12:00 30.219 MS 2 17:00 32.319 MS 4 7:00 27.519 MS 4 12:00 33.219 MS 4 17:00 32.319 MS 6 7:00 22.819 MS 6 12:00 32.219 MS 6 17:00 32.419 MS 8 7:00 19.119 MS 8 12:00 22.319 MS 8 17:00 . 19 MS 10 7:00 17.419 MS 10 12:00 21.719 MS 10 17:00 22.920 MS 0 7:00 19.720 MS 0 12:00 25.520 MS 0 17:00 31.720 MS 2 7:00 20.620 MS 2 12:00 2920 MS 2 17:00 32.820 MS 4 7:00 27.820 MS 4 12:00 34.320 MS 4 17:00 35.920 MS 6 7:00 22.820 MS 6 12:00 33.420 MS 6 17:00 33.120 MS 8 7:00 17.320 MS 8 12:00 27.420 MS 8 17:00 . 20 MS 10 7:00 18.620 MS 10 12:00 23.220 MS 10 17:00 25.43 SS 0 7:00 18

111

3 SS 0 12:00 26.53 SS 0 17:00 35.23 SS 2 7:00 19.63 SS 2 12:00 27.53 SS 2 17:00 33.73 SS 4 7:00 27.23 SS 4 12:00 31.63 SS 4 17:00 31.23 SS 6 7:00 22.73 SS 6 12:00 26.23 SS 6 17:00 28.63 SS 8 7:00 17.43 SS 8 12:00 213 SS 8 17:00 . 3 SS 10 7:00 16.23 SS 10 12:00 203 SS 10 17:00 22.34 SS 0 7:00 18.14 SS 0 12:00 26.64 SS 0 17:00 35.64 SS 2 7:00 19.84 SS 2 12:00 25.24 SS 2 17:00 34.54 SS 4 7:00 27.54 SS 4 12:00 29.64 SS 4 17:00 34.64 SS 6 7:00 22.74 SS 6 12:00 25.94 SS 6 17:00 27.94 SS 8 7:00 17.64 SS 8 12:00 20.64 SS 8 17:00 . 4 SS 10 7:00 16.24 SS 10 12:00 204 SS 10 17:00 22.36 SS 0 7:00 18.36 SS 0 12:00 27.16 SS 0 17:00 35.46 SS 2 7:00 196 SS 2 12:00 27.46 SS 2 17:00 33.56 SS 4 7:00 27.66 SS 4 12:00 28.66 SS 4 17:00 33.36 SS 6 7:00 22.76 SS 6 12:00 24.56 SS 6 17:00 28.76 SS 8 7:00 17.6

112

6 SS 8 12:00 216 SS 8 17:00 . 6 SS 10 7:00 16.76 SS 10 12:00 20.46 SS 10 17:00 23.3

11 SS 0 7:00 18.611 SS 0 12:00 29.111 SS 0 17:00 34.311 SS 2 7:00 2011 SS 2 12:00 29.111 SS 2 17:00 34.311 SS 4 7:00 27.211 SS 4 12:00 31.711 SS 4 17:00 31.211 SS 6 7:00 22.811 SS 6 12:00 26.311 SS 6 17:00 27.811 SS 8 7:00 18.111 SS 8 12:00 22.411 SS 8 17:00 . 11 SS 10 7:00 16.411 SS 10 12:00 21.111 SS 10 17:00 22.714 SS 0 7:00 18.514 SS 0 12:00 2714 SS 0 17:00 3014 SS 2 7:00 19.114 SS 2 12:00 29.214 SS 2 17:00 31.814 SS 4 7:00 26.914 SS 4 12:00 28.814 SS 4 17:00 30.614 SS 6 7:00 22.814 SS 6 12:00 26.214 SS 6 17:00 . 14 SS 8 7:00 17.614 SS 8 12:00 21.514 SS 8 17:00 . 14 SS 10 7:00 17.714 SS 10 12:00 22.614 SS 10 17:00 23.3

113

Appendix IX. Student Intern Azra Velagic (left) and Rhea Martinez (author) determining weed cover at site A, 2 weeks after planting.

114

Appendix X. Determining weed cover at site B, 2 weeks after planting.

115

Appendix XI. Weed cover data for sites A (a) and B (b). C = corn, B = bean, S = squash, TS = Three Sisters; Tcode = treatment code; Weeds = percent weed cover; WAP = weeks after planting. a. Weed Cover site A Treatment Tcode Weeds WAP C 1 9.3 2 TS 4 8.14 2 S 3 22.09 2 TS 4 17.44 2 C 1 12.79 2 S 3 16.28 2 TS 4 15.12 2 C 1 17.44 2 TS 4 12.79 2 TS 4 17.44 2 C 1 9.3 2 B 2 25.58 2 B 2 5.81 2 B 2 2.33 2 S 3 11.63 2 C 1 16.28 2 S 3 3.49 2 S 3 8.14 2 B 2 12.79 2 B 2 24.42 2 C 1 50 5 TS 4 43.02 5 S 3 30.23 5 TS 4 46.51 5 C 1 41.86 5 S 3 40.7 5 TS 4 34.88 5 C 1 55.81 5 TS 4 33.72 5 TS 4 40.7 5 C 1 20.93 5 B 2 60.47 5 B 2 44.19 5 B 2 34.88 5 S 3 38.37 5 C 1 47.67 5 S 3 15.12 5 S 3 32.56 5 B 2 30.23 5 B 2 52.33 5

116

C 1 46.67 9 TS 4 37.21 9 S 3 39.53 9 TS 4 55.81 9 C 1 47.67 9 S 3 40.7 9 TS 4 43.02 9 C 1 55.81 9 TS 4 16.28 9 TS 4 25.58 9 C 1 18.6 9 B 2 43.02 9 B 2 26.74 9 B 2 22.09 9 S 3 41.86 9 C 1 31.4 9 S 3 13.95 9 S 3 20.93 9 B 2 29.07 9 B 2 44.19 9 b. Weed cover site B Plot Treatment Tcode Weeds WAP

1 S 3 68.6 22 B 2 69.77 23 TS 4 46.51 24 TS 4 42.84 25 B 2 55.81 26 TS 4 41.86 27 B 2 56.98 28 C 1 62.79 29 B 2 58.14 2

10 C 1 55.81 211 TS 4 37.2 212 S 3 53.49 213 C 1 68.6 214 TS 4 36.05 215 B 2 63.95 216 S 3 40.7 217 C 1 63.95 218 C 1 40.7 219 S 3 45.35 220 S 3 29.07 21 S 3 2.33 52 B 2 46.51 5

117

3 TS 4 11.63 54 TS 4 16.28 55 B 2 17.44 56 TS 4 18.6 57 B 2 18.6 58 C 1 10.47 59 V 2 26.74 5

10 C 1 19.77 511 TS 4 2.33 512 S 3 2.33 513 C 1 12.79 514 TS 4 5.81 515 B 2 15.12 516 S 3 3.49 517 C 1 16.28 518 C 1 26.74 519 S 3 11.63 520 S 3 9.3 5

118

Appendix XII. Weed types and percent present (in descending order) at sites A (a) and B (b) by date. a. Weed type and percent at site A Site A 6/21/2007 Weed Type % Grass (fam. Poaceae) 65.4Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) 14.3Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 8.7Lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album) 6.1Curly dock (Rumex crispus) 5.2Wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) 0.4 Site A 7/10/2006 Weed % Wild lettuce (Lactuca virosa) 32.7Grass (fam. Poaceae) 25.2Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) 19Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) 14.9Lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album) 3.5Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) 3.5Curly dock (Rumex crispus) 0.6Plantain (Plantago lanceolata) 0.3Wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) 0.3 Site A 7/8/06 Weed % Grass (fam. Poaceae) 45.6Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) 36.3Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) 12.3Lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album) 2.8Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 1.7Curly dock (Rumex crispus) 1.3 b. Weed type and percent at site B Site B 7/3/06 Weed Type % Lamb's quarters (Chenopodium album) 79.1Sedge (fam. Cyperaceae) 7.3Horsetail (Equisetum sp.) 5.2Thistle (Cirsium sp.) 0.8Wild lettuce (Lactuca virosa) 0.8Grass (fam. Poaceae) 0.5Milkweed (Asclepias speciosa) 3

119

Curly dock (Rumex crispus) 3Clover (Trifolium sp.) 0.3 Site B 7/31/06 Weed Type % Lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album) 75.9Wild lettuce (Lactuca virosa) 7.5Grass (fam. Poaceae) 6.3Rush (fam. Juncaceae) 3.6Sedge (fam. Cyperaceae) 3.2Purslane (Portulaca oleraceae) 0.8Clover (Trifolium sp.) 0.8Thistle (Cirsium sp.) 0.8Smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides) 0.8Curly dock (Rumex crispus) 0.4

120

Appendix XIII. Three Sisters plots at site B, 2 weeks after planting.

121

Appendix XIV. Soil Moisture data for sites A and B. C = monoculture corn, B = monoculture bean, S = monoculture squash, H = Three Sisters hill, G = Three Sisters plot at ground level; WAP = weeks after planting; Moisture = gravimetric soil moisture content (percent). Period (.) = missing data. a. Soil Moisture site A Plot Treatment TCode WAP Moisture

1 C 1 6 16.672 H 4 6 10.72 G 5 6 14.213 S 3 6 15.874 H 4 6 9.544 G 5 6 14.875 C 1 6 16.186 S 3 6 17.437 H 4 6 12.037 G 5 6 15.658 C 1 6 17.779 H 4 6 11.449 G 5 6 16.37

10 H 4 6 11.510 G 5 6 15.3911 C 1 6 15.4312 B 2 6 15.1213 B 2 6 15.8514 B 2 6 13.5315 S 3 6 17.4516 C 1 6 17.1217 S 3 6 18.4318 S 3 6 18.3419 B 2 6 14.4820 B 2 6 13.161 C 1 8 24.942 H 4 8 24.612 G 5 8 25.23 S 3 8 27.874 H 4 8 24.334 G 5 8 24.865 C 1 8 26.556 S 3 8 27.287 H 4 8 26.737 G 5 8 27.378 C 1 8 26.479 H 4 8 28.919 G 5 8 25.99

10 H 4 8 27.51

122

10 G 5 8 27.8411 C 1 8 28.6712 B 2 8 28.0713 B 2 8 28.3814 B 2 8 25.815 S 3 8 25.2416 C 1 8 2717 S 3 8 27.9718 S 3 8 28.5319 B 2 8 24.9420 B 2 8 30.441 C 1 10 17.772 H 4 10 13.572 G 5 10 17.513 S 3 10 17.54 H 4 10 15.034 G 5 10 17.735 C 1 10 18.276 S 3 10 19.577 H 4 10 14.337 G 5 10 18.658 C 1 10 20.579 H 4 10 13.659 G 5 10 20

10 H 4 10 13.6410 G 5 10 18.8211 C 1 10 18.9112 B 2 10 20.313 B 2 10 16.6414 B 2 10 18.715 S 3 10 19.8416 C 1 10 20.0417 S 3 10 19.618 S 3 10 36.3319 B 2 10 17.2420 B 2 10 19.8

b. Soil Moisture site B Plot Treatment TCode WAP Moisture

1 S 3 6 18.422 B 2 6 11.533 H 4 6 5.463 G 5 6 134 H 4 6 3.174 G 5 6 10.81

123

5 B 2 6 126 H 4 6 5.266 G 5 6 11.797 B 2 6 9.828 C 1 6 11.759 B 2 6 13.21

10 C 1 6 13.1211 H 4 6 6.2211 G 5 6 12.0312 S 3 6 11.0813 C 1 6 11.0914 H 4 6 4.7814 G 5 6 12.2415 B 2 6 8.9416 S 3 6 11.9617 C 1 6 14.0418 C 1 6 15.0219 S 3 6 10.7920 S 3 6 13.291 S 3 8 20.872 B 2 8 22.243 H 4 8 22.213 G 5 8 23.624 H 4 8 19.494 G 5 8 21.195 B 2 8 23.26 H 4 8 21.786 G 5 8 23.67 B 2 8 23.368 C 1 8 22.49 B 2 8 23.37

10 C 1 8 24.1911 H 4 8 24.6911 G 5 8 23.9112 S 3 8 22.813 C 1 8 25.7814 H 4 8 22.8114 G 5 8 23.8815 B 2 8 23.3916 S 3 8 28.117 C 1 8 31.1218 C 1 8 25.1119 S 3 8 24.2720 S 3 8 22.941 S 3 10 12.882 B 2 10 12.933 H 4 10 11.773 G 5 10 14.35

124

4 H 4 10 10.134 G 5 10 15.625 B 2 10 13.786 H 4 10 9.346 G 5 10 14.327 B 2 10 13.788 C 1 10 16.079 B 2 10 11.79

10 C 1 10 17.5211 H 4 10 13.1911 G 5 10 13.2412 S 3 10 13.8313 C 1 10 17.2614 H 4 10 9.8314 G 5 10 14.9715 B 2 10 16.0516 S 3 10 17.0517 C 1 10 . 18 C 1 10 18.319 S 3 10 1520 S 3 10 15.5

125

Appendix XV. Corn plants in monoculture plots knocked over by strong winds and rain on July 16, 2006 at site B.

126

Appendix XVI. Adverse weather damage data to monoculture corn (a) and Three Sisters corn (b) at site B. a. Monoculture corn

Plot ID No. damaged plants Proportion

8 4 0.06666710 0 013 2 0.03333317 1 0.01666718 0 0

b. Three Sisters corn

Plot ID No. damaged plants Proportion

3 0 04 0 06 0 0

11 0 014 1 0.027777778

127

Appendix XVII. Cucumber beetle data for sites A (a) and B (b). Treatment 1 = monoculture squash, Treatment 2 = Three Sisters squash. a. Cucumber beetles site A Plot Treatment Spotted Striped Total Beetles

3 1 4 1 56 1 5 0 5

15 1 1 1 217 1 1 5 618 1 6 1 72 2 1 0 14 2 1 0 17 2 3 2 59 2 4 5 9

10 2 2 0 2 b. Cucumber beetles site B Plot Treatment Spotted Striped Total Beetles

1 1 6 1 712 1 0 2 216 1 0 0 019 1 4 5 920 1 1 2 33 2 1 3 44 2 2 1 36 2 0 0 0

11 2 4 3 714 2 0 2 2

128

Appendix XVIII. Corn smut data for sites A (a) and B (b). C = monoculture corn, TS = Three Sisters. a. Corn smut site A Plot Treatment No. plants Corn Smut Proportion

1 C 12 0 05 C 16 0 08 C 15 2 0.133

11 C 16 7 0.43816 C 17 4 0.2352 TS 4 0 04 TS 2 0 07 TS 4 0 09 TS 4 0 0

10 TS 3 0 0 b. Corn smut site B Plot Treatment No. plants Corn Smut Proportion

8 C 20 8 0.410 C 17 8 0.47113 C 14 6 0.42917 C 13 2 0.15418 C 12 2 0.1673 TS 4 0 04 TS 4 2 0.56 TS 3 2 0.667

11 TS 4 1 0.2514 TS 2 1 0.5

129

Appendix XIX. Corn earworm data for sites A (a) and B (b). CE damage = proportion of ears with corn earworm damage. a. Corn earworm site A

Plot Treatment CE Damage

1 1 0 5 1 0 8 1 0.13

11 1 0.44 16 1 0.24 2 2 0 4 2 0 7 2 0 9 2 0

10 2 0 b. Corn earworm site B

Plot Treatment CE Damage

8 1 0.4 10 1 0.47 13 1 0.43 17 1 0.15 18 1 0.17 3 2 0 4 2 0.5 6 2 0.67

11 2 0.25 14 2 0.5

130

Appendix XX. Raccoon damage data for site A.

Plot Treatment

Proportion damaged ears

Proportion damaged plants

1 1 0.2 0.585 1 0.22 0.258 1 0.45 0.47

11 1 0.48 0.3816 1 0.24 0.292 2 0 04 2 0.5 07 2 0 09 2 0 0.25

10 2 0 0

131

Appendix XXI. Corn yield data for sites A (a) and B (b). MC = monoculture corn, SC = Three Sisters corn. a. Corn yield/plant (g) data for Site A Plot Treatment Yield/plant (g) 1 MC 109.27 5 MC 65.2 8 MC 58.08 11 MC 59.9 16 MC 133.71 2 SC 52.05 4 SC 77.3 7 SC 44.57 9 SC 59.37 10 SC 83.02 b. Corn yield/plant (g) data for Site B Plot Treatment Yield/plant (g)

8 MC 85.92 10 MC 133.59 13 MC 205.61 17 MC 148.25 18 MC 100.1 3 SC 84.5 4 SC 106.6 6 SC 99.3

11 SC 119.18 14 SC 0

132

Appendix XXII. Bean yield data for site A (a) and B (b). MB = monoculture beans, SB = Three Sisters beans. a. Bean yield/plant (g) data for Site A Plot Treatment Yield/plant (g)

12 MB 33.66 13 MB 26.46 14 MB 20.08 19 MB 21.34 20 MB 15.62 2 SB 51.54 4 SB 28.83 7 SB 34.5 9 SB 17.64

10 SB 53.99 b. Bean yield/plant (g) data for Site B Plot Treatment Yield/plant (g)

2 MB 79.7 5 MB 67.57 7 MB 47.3 9 MB 42.61

15 MB 23.62 3 SB 5.48 4 SB 3.16 6 SB 0

11 SB 2.36 14 SB 2.33

133

Appendix XXIII. Squash yield data for site A (a) and site B (b). MS = monoculture squash, SS = Three Sisters squash. a. Squash yield/plant (kg) data for site A Plot Treatment Yield/plant (kg)

3 MS 4 6 MS 8.31

15 MS 6.12 17 MS 6.13 18 MS 9.54 2 SS 1.89 4 SS 2.55 7 SS 3.56 8 SS 3.28 9 SS 4.09

b. Squash yield/plant data for site A Plot Treatment Yield/plant (kg)

1 MS 27.5 12 MS 25.5 16 MS 10.5 19 MS 9.5 20 MS 7.86 3 SS 27.5 4 SS 5.75 6 SS 10.25

11 SS 6.75 14 SS 29

134

Appendix XXIV. Calories/acre data for sites A (a) and B (b). MC = monoculture corn, MB = monoculture beans, MS = monoculture squash, TS = Three Sisters. a. Calories/acre data for site A Pot Treatment Cal/acre

1 MC 2745117 5 MC 2184102 8 MC 1823791

11 MC 2006406 16 MC 1959386 12 MB 3734647 13 MB 3774737 14 MB 2785079 19 MB 3299081 20 MB 990322 3 MS 1256434 6 MS 2615113

15 MS 1924959 17 MS 1928891 18 MS 3000498 2 TS 4237571 4 TS 3162581 7 TS 3550191 9 TS 3420632

10 TS 5392025 b. Calories/acre data for site B Pot Treatment Cal/acre

8 MC 5776936 10 MC 7634641 13 MC 9676836 17 MC 6478689 18 MC 4037999 2 MB 5692316 5 MB 7238679 7 MB 5442699 9 MB 4902897

15 MB 2249398 1 MS 8651500

12 MS 8022300 16 MS 3303300 19 MS 2988700 20 MS 2472756 3 TS 13451539 4 TS 7497519 6 TS 6981042

11 TS 8299645 14 TS 9285085

135

Appendix XXX. Total nitrogen data for monoculture and Three Sisters treatments at sites A (a) and B (b). C = monoculture corn, B = monoculture beans, S = monoculture squash, TS = Three Sisters. a. Total nitrogen data for site A Plot ID Treatment Total N (ppm) 2006 Total N (ppm) 2007 DifferenceA-1 C 1165.9 2230.4 -1064.5A-2 TS 703.2 2427 -1723.8A-3 S 3144.8 2442.8 702.0A-4 TS 2161.5 2266 -104.5A-5 C 1115.3 2115.2 -999.9A-6 S 2380.3 2154.4 225.9A-7 TS 2605.8 2315.7 290.1A-8 C 2345.6 2256 89.6A-9 TS 2067.6 2226.1 -158.5A-10 TS 2050.4 2449.3 -398.9A-11 C 2335.2 2271.8 63.4A-12 B 2443.1 2170.7 272.4A-13 B 2358.6 2190.6 168.0A-14 B 2099.4 2213 -113.6A-15 S 2275.2 2141.3 133.9A-16 C 2772.5 2067.1 705.4A-17 S 2537.1 2069.9 467.2A-18 S 2597.1 1880.6 716.5A-19 B 2289.9 2027.1 262.8A-20 B 2737.3 2090.6 646.7 b. Total nitrogen data for site B Plot ID Treatment Total N (ppm) 2006 Total N (ppm) 2007 DifferenceB-1 S 1366.7 1030.0 336.7B-2 B 1014.8 940.3 74.5B-3 TS 1477.7 1085.1 392.6B-4 TS 1187.5 1286.5 -99.0B-5 B 1419.6 1149.8 269.8B-6 C 1450.2 1091.6 358.6B-7 B 774.7 940.7 -166.0B-8 C 1447.3 1081.3 366.0B-9 B 1474.1 1227.0 247.1B-10 C 1397.7 1034.5 363.2B-11 TS 1465.7 1171.5 294.2B-12 S 1783.3 1026.1 757.2B-13 C 1512.4 1150.9 361.5B-14 TS 1688.9 407.8 1281.1B-15 B 1478.5 1085.4 393.1

136

B-16 S 1518.4 1076.7 441.7B-17 C 1688.9 1049.7 639.2B-18 C 1671.9 1465.5 206.4B-19 S 1784.9 1315.5 469.4B-20 S 1328.3 1133.9 194.4

an evaluation of the productivity of the native … · an evaluation of the productivity of the...

Documents