Water and soil properties in organic and conventional paddies throughout the rice cultivation cycle in South Korea

  • Lee, Tae-Gu ;
  • Lee, Chang-Gu ;
  • Hong, Seung-Gil ;
  • Kim, Jin-Ho ;
  • Park, Seong-Jik
  • Received : 2017.12.27
  • Accepted : 2018.05.22
  • Published : 2019.03.31


Water and soil properties in paddy fields subjected to organic and conventional farming were characterized over the rice cycle in South Korea. To achieve the goals of this study, we sampled and analyzed soil and water from 24 organic paddy plots and 11 conventional paddy plots in March, May, August, and October 2016. The results were analyzed using statistical analyses, including analysis of variance (ANOVA), cluster analysis, and principal component analysis. The ANOVA results showed that water content (WC), electrical conductivity (EC), organic matter (OM), and available phosphorus ($P_2O_5$) in soil varied significantly (p < 0.01) depending on the farming method. Higher OM, EC, and $P_2O_5$ of soil were observed in the conventional paddies than in the organic paddies. All soil properties, except pH and ammonium, depended on seasonal variation. Cluster analysis revealed that soil properties in May were distinctly separated from those in other seasons mainly due to basal fertilization. The principal component analysis distinguished the soil properties in different seasons, but such a distinction was not observed between the soil properties in organic and conventional paddies. Low contents of WC, OM, and total N were observed in March. High concentrations of nitrate and total P were observed in May, but these were low in August and October. The soils from October were also characterized by high concentrations of EC and $P_2O_5$. These results indicate that the sampling time for soil and water can significantly influence the evaluation of soil properties with different farming methods.


Conventional paddy;Farming method;Organic paddy;Seasonal variation;Soil;Water


  1. Lairon D. Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010;30:33-41.
  2. Keyes S, Tyedmers P, Beazley K. Evaluating the environmental impacts of conventional and organic apple production in Nova Scotia, Canada, through life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015;104:40-51.
  3. Suja G, Byju G, Jyothi AN, Veena SS, Sreekumar J. Yield, quality and soil health under organic vs conventional farming in taro. Sci. Hortic. 2017;218:334-343.
  4. Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012;485:229-232.
  5. Anglade J, Billen G, Garnier J, Makridis T, Puech T, Tittel C. Nitrogen soil surface balance of organic vs conventional cash crop farming in the Seine watershed. Agr. Syst. 2015;139:82-92.
  6. Marchand S, Huanxiu GUO. The environmental efficiency of non-certified organic farming in China: A case study of paddy rice production. China Econ. Rev. 2014;31:201-216.
  7. Marinari S, Mancinelli R, Campiglia E, Grego S. Chemical and biological indicators of soil quality in organic and conventional farming systems in Central Italy. Ecol. Indic. 2006;6:701-711.
  8. Clark MS, Horwath WR, Shennan C, Scow KM. Changes in soil chemical properties resulting from organic and low-input farming practices. Agron. J. 1998;90:662-671.
  9. Stockdale EA, Lampkin NH, Hovi M, et al. Agronomic and environmental implications of organic farming systems. Adv. Agron. 2001;70:261-327.
  10. Schjonning P, Elmhot S, Munkholm LJ, Debosz K. Soil quality aspects of humid sandy loams as influenced by organic and conventional long-term management. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002;88:195-214.
  11. Gosling P, Shepherd M. Long-term changes in soil fertility in organic arable farming systems in England, with particular reference to phosphorus and potassium. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005;105:425-432.
  12. da Silva AM, Manfre LA, Urban RC, Silva VHO, Manzatto MP, Norton LD. Organic farm does not improve neither soil, or water quality in rural watersheds from southeastern Brazil. Ecol. Indic. 2015;48:132-146.
  13. Mazzoncini M, Canali S, Giovanetti M, et al. Comparison of organic and conventional stockless arable systems: A multidisciplinary approach to soil quality evaluation. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010;44:124-132.
  14. Arnhold S, Lindner S, Lee B, et al. Conventional and organic farming: Soil erosion and conservation potential for row crop cultivation. Geoderma 2014;219:89-105.
  15. Eltun R, Korsaeth A, Nordheim O. A comparison of environmental, soil fertility, yield, and economical effects in six cropping systems based on an 8-year experiment in Norway. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002;90:155-168.
  16. Sharaf MA, Illman DL, Kowalski BR. Chemometrics. New York:Wiley; 1986. p. 219-227.
  17. Ward Jr JH. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1963;58:236-244.
  18. Martens H, Naes T. Multivariate calibration. New York: Wiley;1989. p. 97-108.
  19. Lopes AR, Faria C, Prieto-Fernandez A, Trasar-Cepeda C, Manaia CM, Nunes OC. Comparative study of the microbial diversity of bulk paddy soil of two rice fields subjected to organic and conventional farming. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011;43:115-125.
  20. Minasny B, Hong SY, Hartemink AE, Kim YH, Kang SS. Soil pH increase under paddy in South Korea between 2000 and 2012. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016;221:205-213.
  21. Brady NC, Weil RR. Elements of the nature and properties of soils. 3rd ed. London: Pearson; 2014.
  22. RDA. Fertilization standard of crop plant. Suwon: Rural Development Agency of Korea. 1999.
  23. Jo IS, Koh MH. Chemical changes in agricultural soils of Korea: Data review and suggested countermeasures. Environ. Geochem. Health 2004;26:105-117.
  24. Sheng ZL, Min L, Yong HC, Abid S. Effects of nutrient and pest management on soil microorganism in hybrid rice doubleannual cropping system. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant. Anal. 2005;36:1525-1536.


Supported by : Rural Development Administration