3 Sisters

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: OBJ ECTIVES 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
planting at site A

22
planting at site A

23
and Three Sisters corn plots at 0700 hours according to weeks after
planting at site B

25
planting at site B

26
planting at site B

27
and Three Sisters squash plots at 0700 hours according to weeks after
planting at site B

29
planting at site B

30
planting at site B

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 J une, J uly and August 2006 46
15 Rainfall (in.) for the month of J uly 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
monoculture and Three Sisters bean treatments at site A

21
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
monoculture and Three Sisters corn treatments at site B

25
monoculture and Three Sisters bean treatments at site B

28
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
smut at site B

53
earworm at site A

53
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 J uly 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. UWSPs
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; J urik, 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 Clotteys (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 Wilsons (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. Clouds 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 UWSPs 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 grandmothers 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, Gokees 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 Gokees 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 rattlesnakes 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 J une 2, 2006 and 40 lbs. organic fertilizer was
broadcasted onto site B on J une 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 (P
2
O
5
equivalents), 3.0% soluble potash (K
2
O),
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 J une 6, 2006. On J une 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 J uly 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 J une 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 J une 2006, site B was tilled to a depth of 20 cm. On 16 J une 2006, corn
and squash seedlings were sown into the Three Sisters Plots. Corn, squash and bean
seeds were sown into monoculture plots on 17 J une 2006. Bean seeds were sown into
Three Sisters plots on 26 J une 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 J une, 20 J une, 30 J une, 7 J uly and 20
J uly 2006. Site B was watered on 16 J une, 17 J une, 23 J une and 19 J uly 2006.
Site A was manually weeded three times, on 21-22 J une 2006, 11-13 J uly 2006
and 8-10 August 2006. Site B was manually weeded twice, on 3-6 J uly 2006 and 31
J uly-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; J urik, 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 J une,
12 J une, 10 J uly, 24 J uly, 7 August and 21 August 2006 (Appendix VII). At site B,
temperatures were recorded on 19 J une, 3 J uly, 17 J uly, 31 J uly, 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
TOD
a
2 4422.104 2211.052 1447.78 <0.0001
WAP
b
5 541.777 108.355 70.95 <0.0001
TOD*WAP 10 412.900 41.290 27.04 <0.0001
Trt
c
*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
a
Time of day,
b
weeks after planting,
c
treatment

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
bean treatments at site A

Treatment 1 26.758 26.758 7.50 0.0070
TOD
a
2 4285.886 2142.943 601.03 <0.0001
WAP
b
5 952.531 190.506 601.03 <0.0001
TOD*WAP 10 624.811 62.481 17.52 <0.0001
Trt
c
*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
a
Time of Day.
b
Weeks after planting.
c
Treatment.

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.
10 8 6 4 2 0
Weeks After Planting
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
S
o
i
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

C
Monoculture
Three Sisters

22

10 8 6 4 2 0
32
30
28
25
22
S
o
i
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

C
Monoculture
Three Sisters

23

10 8 6 4 2 0
36
33
30
27
24
S
o
i
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

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
squash treatments at site A

Treatment 1 2.113 2.113 0.92 0.3403
TOD
a
2 3799.437 1899.719 823.63 <0.0001
WAP
b
5 560.890 112.178 823.63 <0.0001
TOD*WAP 10 434.418 43.442 18.83 <0.0001
Trt
c
*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
a
Time of Day.
b
Weeks after planting.
c
Treatment.

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 (C) 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
7
a
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

a
Hour 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).

corn treatments at site B.

Treatment 1 13.584 13.584 11.25 0.0010
TOD
a
2 2254.823 1127.412 933.35 <0.0001
WAP
b
5 1853.220 370.644 306.85 <0.0001
TOD*WAP 9 265.174 29.464 24.39 <0.0001
Trt
c
*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
a
Time of day,
b
c
treatment.

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

10 8 6 4 2 0
27.5
25.0
22.5
20.0
17.5
15.0
S
o
i
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

C
Monoculture
Three Sisters

26

10 8 6 4 2 0
35
30
25
20
S
o
i
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

C
Monoculture
Three Sisters

27

10 6 4 2 0
35
32
30
28
25
22
S
o
i
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

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
bean treatments at site B.

Treatment 1 7.470 7.470 3.36 0.0690
TOD
a
2 2247.528 1123.764 506.15 <0.0001
WAP
b
5 1988.965 397.793 179.17 <0.0001
TOD*WAP 9 288.805 32.089 14.45 <0.0001
Trt
c
*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
a
Time of day,
b
c
treatment.

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).

squash treatments at site B.

Treatment 1 86.174 86.174 70.03 <0.0001
TOD
a
2 2380.177 1190.088 967.11 <0.0001
WAP
b
5 1998.406 399.681 324.80 <0.0001
TOD*WAP 9 290.007 32.223 26.19 <0.0001
Trt
c
*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
a
Time of day,
b
c
treatment.

29
Figure 8. Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters squash

10 8 6 4 2 0
27.5
25.0
22.5
20.0
17.5
15.0
S
o
i
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

C
Monoculture
Three Sisters

30
Figure 9. Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters squash

10 8 6 4 2 0
35
30
25
20
S
o
i
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

C
Monoculture
Three Sisters

31
Figure 10. Mean differences in soil temperature to a depth of 5 cm in monoculture and Three Sisters
squash plots at 1700 hours according to weeks after planting at site B. Error bars show the 95% confidence

10 6 4 2 0
39
36
33
30
27
24
21
S
o
i
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

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 (C) 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
7
b
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

a
Hour 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 J une, 10 J uly and 7 August
2006 and at Site B on 3 J uly and 31 J uly2006. 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
WAP
1
2 7854.964 3927.482 84.14 <0.0001
Treatment*WAP
1
6 327.402 54.567 1.17 0.3471
1
Weeks 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

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

Treatment 3 2115.346 705.115 9.33 0.0008
WAP
1
1 13838 13838 154.30 <0.0001
Treatment*WAP
1
3 222.467 74.156 0.83 0.4982
1

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.

6 2
80
60
40
20
0
M
e
a
n

W
e
e
d

C
o
v
e
r

(
%
)
TS
S
C
B
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

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 lambs
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 lambs 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 lambs 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 lambs 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). Lambs 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 J uly, 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
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
WAP
1
2 1856.666 928.333 195.10 <0.0001
Treatment*WAP
1
8 93.331 11.666 2.45 0.0291
1

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.

10 8 6
40
30
20
10
0
M
e
a
n

S
o
i
l

M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

(
%
)
S
H
G
C
B
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-mono
1
15 22.483 A
Corn-mono 15 20.824 A, B
Beans-mono 15 20.163 B
Ground-TS
2
15 20.031 B
Hills-TS 15 17.168 C

1
Monoculture,
2
Three 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

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

Treatment 4 305.865 76.466 19.05 <0.0001
WAP
1
2 2168.766 1084.383 362.61 <0.0001
Treatment*WAP
1
8 77.320 9.665 3.23 0.0065
1

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.
8 6 4
40
30
20
10
0
M
e
a
n

S
o
i
l

M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

(
%
)
S
H
G
C
B
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

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. J une and August rainfall were both several inches below average
(Figure 14), and although J uly 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 J une, July and August 2006. Precipitation data
obtained from The Weather Channel, http://www.weather.com.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
J un J uly Aug
Month
P
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
.
)

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
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
13579
1
1
1
3
1
5
1
7
1
9
2
1
2
3
2
5
2
7
2
9
3
1
Day

P
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
.
)

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 J uly 2006, rain and strong winds caused several corn plants at site B to be
knocked down (Appendix XV). On 17 J uly 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.
Monoculture
Three Sisters
Total
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.
Monoculture
Three Sisters
Total
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
Monoculture
Three Sisters
Total
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
Monoculture
Three Sisters
Total
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
Monoculture
Three Sisters
Total
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
Monoculture
Three Sisters
Total
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.
Monoculture
Three Sisters
Total
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 Sisters Monoculture
Treatment
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n

D
a
m
a
g
e
d

P
l
a
n
t
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 m
2
) 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 m
2
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
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
35.081
21.525
56.606
1
8
9
35.081
2.691
13.039 0.007
Beans-mono
*Beans-TS
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
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

Treatment
10
8
6
4
2
S
q
u
a
s
h

Y
i
e
l
d
/
P
l
a
n
t

(
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
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
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
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
448.230
10858.92
11307.15
1
8
9
448.230
1357.365

0.330 0.581
Squash-mono
*Squash-TS
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
0.259
885.937
886.196
1
8
9
0.259
110.742
0.002 0.962
Beans-mono
*Beans-TS
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
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


80
60
40
20
0
B
e
a
n

Y
i
e
l
d

/

P
l
a
n
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
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
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 Difference
Protein 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 individuals 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 J une, 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
J une 2006 and at site B on 16 J une 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 J une 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
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
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
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
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
Scullins (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. H
0
: 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. H
0
: 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. H
0
: 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. H
0
: 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. H
0
: 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) H
0
: 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) H
0
: 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
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
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
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 J ersey: 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 J ournal of
Clinical Nutrition 1998(68):1053-1057.

Gomez, K and Gomez, A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research.
Canada: J ohn 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 11
th
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. J apanese 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.

J utsum, A. 1998. Pesticide resistance; assessment of risk and the development and
implementation of effective management strategies. Pesticide Science 54(4):435-446.

J urik, 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. Dioheko, 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: J ohn 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., Martnez, S., Cantn, 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.
J ames, 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
J ournal 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 J ournal 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. J ournal 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. J ournal 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 J ournal 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 J une 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 J ournal 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. J ournal of Agricultural Science
79:517-529.

82
Wertz, S. K. 2005. Maize: the Native North Americans legacy of cultural diversity and
biodiversity. J ournal 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 t ht U.S. OepaJll'l)tiU
of Agrlculrure., N'.arunl Rt:IOUrets Conservation
Service usin& the BayftPid Coumy. WI SSVR.GO
Thton.bopboc:o
l:t.\a&tWN cre.1edfrom2005 NAJPphol opapby.
:'Oonhhmman Datum of 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
.... WuWts.-
\-alt tht w Ilia M.wt .... ,.,......., ... p c.odllwabld
sst--aGO eWM IOIIuWir Mid .,.u.t.l......_
Section 2

0

0 NRCS Not .. ol
,.., ......... 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. DEP ARTMEN T O F AGRICU LTUR E
SOI L C0N$S: A'VATION SERVICE
C00""t.l't "" 'HN0 W!TH
ST A T E AGRIC ULTU R A L EXPERIMENT SYAT I ON
APPROX. SCA\..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 Yel lowstone 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

WIKGN1n -whll"!ll'lt
un,..r..ey Of WIKOI'Itln-Medltor
Otoltlr'llnt ol Sol Saero
OU>Iy
Ashland 557666
at. IM!e
UWSP College of Natural Resources Rhea
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 .. f't11'111%*'Ctedll ' NIJI..,..,,oA&lir
,.. 11"205 _ l..,....,
-- ..... -- - .... _ ...... .......
.. -
unknown (SSG 0)
Com, grain
Snapbean
Squash
(noaop)
7190 bu .:::. 30 25 0 0 0 0 .::.. 30 25
--
5001 7000 bs 40 lS 60 0 0 0 0 40 lS 60
vc
12161oos 60 120 175 20 0 0 0 40 120 175
nla
-c. ..
....
AT DIFFERENT N:CORN PRICE RATIOS

Previous Crop I NCOfn Prlco Ratio (SIIb N:Sibu)

MedlumJlow Yikl Sod$
0.20
Rate' Rang Rate Range Rate
1
Range Rate Range
l b N/o (Total to Appty)
2
Corn, Forage legumes, Leguminous 120 100 140 105 90120 95 85-110 l_;__ o 80.100
vegetab-les. Green manures)
Soybean, Smalgrains' 90 75- t10 60 4570 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 retvm 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, wg.Cables, green manures a,d anrnal ,.,.nurtt T'- iriCt.KiH 1M. 2nd ard 3rd yeat v.ntre Do no!. aubllriC1 N
creditS for legurnirous Cl' tatd end lOamy urd &Oils
1
Subtract N credit$ for I'I'\3!'HJI'MIt'd 2ncf Y'Uf lotiOt leQI.me:$.
(Of ChOQ$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 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)
For mOte inlonnation on lhe new N sppNc81/or> roro guidfJ/inos for com"'" http://uwlab.so/ls WISC odu/pubs/MRTN.pdf.
__________________ _
4.R.=Not required for calculation ofllme requirement when soil pH is 6.6or higher.
fields used for those high value crops evety 2 year&.
rear 1: II corn harvested for silage matead or grai n add extra 30 lbs P20i per acre and 90 tbs K20 per acre ro nex1 crop.
)trter fertilizer (e.g. 10+20+20 l ba i s advi sable for row crops on sods slow to wrm i n t he spri ng.
..
Corn. grain
Squash
(no crop)
Rotation pH
TEST INTERPRETATION
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.:;-
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
{715.!3872523
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:. CA 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"

unknown (SSG D)

BR
.. vious Cfop
no crop
Cropping Sequence Ytel<l Go<111
" '" 101'..
Com, grain 7190 bu
Snapbean 5001-7000 lbS
Squash 1216 tons
(no etop) nia
There IS no ltme recommendatiOn.
NUTRIENT RECOMMENDATIONS
N '"'%o
"' ; er CiiC!t
L.9QtUmt N 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 100140 95 85-110
Soybean, Small grains 90 75-110 50 40-60
"
NW&1114l0APf*t
P205 K20
-
. ..
0 65
"'"""
40 0 70
40 40 215
0.20
Rate
1
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 that ptovide an eoonomlc r etum toN wihin $t/a of the MRTN.
ates efe ror total N applied including N in starter fcrtilitcr N vs.cd in hetbieide wbttons.
$ub1rae! N ctedila for forage logumos. leguminous. vegetables, green manures and manures. Thi& M ludes. 1 S-l 21\Cf .-nd 3rd year a edits whete applicable. Oo nots.ubtrad N
credts for leguminous vegotables on 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 wi l 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 crops on soils slow to in t he spt i ng.
Verylow Low Optimum High Very High Excessive
grain

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 12.1
1 MC 0 12:00 23.9
1 MC 0 17:00 27.2
1 MC 2 7:00 16.6
1 MC 2 12:00 27.5
1 MC 2 17:00 31.9
1 MC 4 7:00 18.5
1 MC 4 12:00 25.9
1 MC 4 17:00 28.3
1 MC 6 7:00 20.7
1 MC 6 12:00 29
1 MC 6 17:00 30.9
1 MC 8 7:00 17.9
1 MC 8 12:00 26.6
1 MC 8 17:00 28.7
1 MC 10 7:00 19.5
1 MC 10 12:00 25.8
1 MC 10 17:00 27.6
5 MC 0 7:00 12.3
5 MC 0 12:00 24.3
5 MC 0 17:00 27.4
5 MC 2 7:00 17
5 MC 2 12:00 28.7
5 MC 2 17:00 31.1
5 MC 4 7:00 18.7
5 MC 4 12:00 22.6
5 MC 4 17:00 27.2
5 MC 6 7:00 20.7
5 MC 6 12:00 29.6
5 MC 6 17:00 29.8
5 MC 8 7:00 17.7
5 MC 8 12:00 24.1
5 MC 8 17:00 26.7
5 MC 10 7:00 19.3
5 MC 10 12:00 27.2
5 MC 10 17:00 29.8
8 MC 0 7:00 13.3
8 MC 0 12:00 25.6
8 MC 0 17:00 27.5
8 MC 2 7:00 18.3
90
8 MC 2 12:00 30
8 MC 2 17:00 33
8 MC 4 7:00 19.5
8 MC 4 12:00 26.3
8 MC 4 17:00 27.7
8 MC 6 7:00 21.2
8 MC 6 12:00 31
8 MC 6 17:00 32.4
8 MC 8 7:00 18.7
8 MC 8 12:00 27.5
8 MC 8 17:00 30.5
8 MC 10 7:00 19.8
8 MC 10 12:00 27.4
8 MC 10 17:00 29.2
11 MC 0 7:00 13.7
11 MC 0 12:00 27.6
11 MC 0 17:00 27.6
11 MC 2 7:00 19.9
11 MC 2 12:00 29.7
11 MC 2 17:00 31.4
11 MC 4 7:00 19.9
11 MC 4 12:00 28.7
11 MC 4 17:00 27.8
11 MC 6 7:00 21.7
11 MC 6 12:00 29.3
11 MC 6 17:00 31.2
11 MC 8 7:00 18.2
11 MC 8 12:00 24.2
11 MC 8 17:00 23
11 MC 10 7:00 19.7
11 MC 10 12:00 30.8
11 MC 10 17:00 30.3
16 MC 0 7:00 14.5
16 MC 0 12:00 28.4
16 MC 0 17:00 28.5
16 MC 2 7:00 19.7
16 MC 2 12:00 30.3
16 MC 2 17:00 33.2
16 MC 4 7:00 19.6
16 MC 4 12:00 28.4
16 MC 4 17:00 28.6
16 MC 6 7:00 21.6
16 MC 6 12:00 31.1
16 MC 6 17:00 34
16 MC 8 7:00 18.8
16 MC 8 12:00 26.8
16 MC 8 17:00 30
16 MC 10 7:00 20.4
91
16 MC 10 12:00 25.4
16 MC 10 17:00 31.8
2 SC 0 7:00 11.5
2 SC 0 12:00 26.1
2 SC 0 17:00 28.2
2 SC 2 7:00 18.1
2 SC 2 12:00 30.7
2 SC 2 17:00 34.6
2 SC 4 7:00 18.3
2 SC 4 12:00 25.8
2 SC 4 17:00 27.6
2 SC 6 7:00 20.2
2 SC 6 12:00 26.6
2 SC 6 17:00 26.4
2 SC 8 7:00 17.9
2 SC 8 12:00 24
2 SC 8 17:00 25.9
2 SC 10 7:00 19.4
2 SC 10 12:00 23
2 SC 10 17:00 29.3
4 SC 0 7:00 12.1
4 SC 0 12:00 27.7
4 SC 0 17:00 29.6
4 SC 2 7:00 16.7
4 SC 2 12:00 30.3
4 SC 2 17:00 36.1
4 SC 4 7:00 18.6
4 SC 4 12:00 22.9
4 SC 4 17:00 28.1
4 SC 6 7:00 20.8
4 SC 6 12:00 26.4
4 SC 6 17:00 30.7
4 SC 8 7:00 18.5
4 SC 8 12:00 22.9
4 SC 8 17:00 25.6
4 SC 10 7:00 19.4
4 SC 10 12:00 27.8
4 SC 10 17:00 26.2
7 SC 0 7:00 11.4
7 SC 0 12:00 27.2
7 SC 0 17:00 29.5
7 SC 2 7:00 16.7
7 SC 2 12:00 33.6
7 SC 2 17:00 36.2
7 SC 4 7:00 18.4
7 SC 4 12:00 28
7 SC 4 17:00 27.7
7 SC 6 7:00 20.8
92
7 SC 6 12:00 29.3
7 SC 6 17:00 30
7 SC 8 7:00 18.4
7 SC 8 12:00 25.1
7 SC 8 17:00 26
7 SC 10 7:00 19.8
7 SC 10 12:00 25.6
7 SC 10 17:00 28.7
9 SC 0 7:00 10.2
9 SC 0 12:00 25.8
9 SC 0 17:00 29.1
9 SC 2 7:00 16.6
9 SC 2 12:00 31.2
9 SC 2 17:00 35
9 SC 4 7:00 17.9
9 SC 4 12:00 25
9 SC 4 17:00 25
9 SC 6 7:00 20.6
9 SC 6 12:00 26.3
9 SC 6 17:00 30.8
9 SC 8 7:00 17.5
9 SC 8 12:00 23.2
9 SC 8 17:00 27.9
9 SC 10 7:00 19.2
9 SC 10 12:00 25.6
9 SC 10 17:00 31.2
10 SC 0 7:00 11.4
10 SC 0 12:00 29.5
10 SC 0 17:00 29.8
10 SC 2 7:00 17.5
10 SC 2 12:00 32.1
10 SC 2 17:00 33.4
10 SC 4 7:00 19
10 SC 4 12:00 26.3
10 SC 4 17:00 25.3
10 SC 6 7:00 21
10 SC 6 12:00 26.9
10 SC 6 17:00 31.8
10 SC 8 7:00 18.3
10 SC 8 12:00 23.6
10 SC 8 17:00 26.5
10 SC 10 7:00 19.3
10 SC 10 12:00 25.7
10 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.

12 MB 0 7:00 14
12 MB 0 12:00 28.7
12 MB 0 17:00 28.7
12 MB 2 7:00 18.5
12 MB 2 12:00 31.8
12 MB 2 17:00 31.1
12 MB 4 7:00 19
12 MB 4 12:00 28.3
12 MB 4 17:00 26.8
12 MB 6 7:00 21.6
12 MB 6 12:00 31.4
12 MB 6 17:00 29.4
12 MB 8 7:00 18.4
12 MB 8 12:00 26.1
12 MB 8 17:00 16.6
12 MB 10 7:00 22.5
12 MB 10 12:00 25.4
12 MB 10 17:00 24.6
13 MB 0 7:00 14
13 MB 0 12:00 26.3
13 MB 0 17:00 26.4
13 MB 2 7:00 19.7
13 MB 2 12:00 30.9
13 MB 2 17:00 32.1
13 MB 4 7:00 19.2
13 MB 4 12:00 25.5
13 MB 4 17:00 23.5
13 MB 6 7:00 20.9
13 MB 6 12:00 25.5
13 MB 6 17:00 29.2
13 MB 8 7:00 19
13 MB 8 12:00 21.4
13 MB 8 17:00 23
13 MB 10 7:00 16.1
13 MB 10 12:00 20.4
13 MB 10 17:00 22.8
14 MB 0 7:00 13.8
14 MB 0 12:00 27.3
14 MB 0 17:00 28.1
14 MB 2 7:00 20.6
14 MB 2 12:00 31
14 MB 2 17:00 32.3
14 MB 4 7:00 18.4
94
14 MB 4 12:00 28.5
14 MB 4 17:00 26.8
14 MB 6 7:00 21.2
14 MB 6 12:00 30.5
14 MB 6 17:00 30.4
14 MB 8 7:00 18.4
14 MB 8 12:00 23.9
14 MB 8 17:00 24.6
14 MB 10 7:00 16.5
14 MB 10 12:00 22.1
14 MB 10 17:00 23.7
19 MB 0 7:00 14.5
19 MB 0 12:00 28
19 MB 0 17:00 26.7
19 MB 2 7:00 19.4
19 MB 2 12:00 30.2
19 MB 2 17:00 33.8
19 MB 4 7:00 18.9
19 MB 4 12:00 26.5
19 MB 4 17:00 25.9
19 MB 6 7:00 21.3
19 MB 6 12:00 27.2
19 MB 6 17:00 31.9
19 MB 8 7:00 18.7
19 MB 8 12:00 22.1
19 MB 8 17:00 23.8
19 MB 10 7:00 16.9
19 MB 10 12:00 21.3
19 MB 10 17:00 22.6
20 MB 0 7:00 13.9
20 MB 0 12:00 26.6
20 MB 0 17:00 28.2
20 MB 2 7:00 19.6
20 MB 2 12:00 29
20 MB 2 17:00 32.8
20 MB 4 7:00 18.8
20 MB 4 12:00 27.3
20 MB 4 17:00 26.4
20 MB 6 7:00 21.7
20 MB 6 12:00 30.9
20 MB 6 17:00 33.4
20 MB 8 7:00 19
20 MB 8 12:00 29
20 MB 8 17:00 27.9
20 MB 10 7:00 16.3
20 MB 10 12:00 22
20 MB 10 17:00 24.2
2 SB 0 7:00 10.7
95
2 SB 0 12:00 27.9
2 SB 0 17:00 29.6
2 SB 2 7:00 15
2 SB 2 12:00 31.5
2 SB 2 17:00 34.1
2 SB 4 7:00 19.5
2 SB 4 12:00 26.7
2 SB 4 17:00 29.3
2 SB 6 7:00 20.8
2 SB 6 12:00 35.6
2 SB 6 17:00 26.2
2 SB 8 7:00 17.9
2 SB 8 12:00 30.6
2 SB 8 17:00 23.5
2 SB 10 7:00 15.6
2 SB 10 12:00 23.8
2 SB 10 17:00 26.7
4 SB 0 7:00 12.3
4 SB 0 12:00 29.8
4 SB 0 17:00 32
4 SB 2 7:00 15.6
4 SB 2 12:00 32.6
4 SB 2 17:00 32.8
4 SB 4 7:00 18.3
4 SB 4 12:00 24.4
4 SB 4 17:00 30.5
4 SB 6 7:00 21.1
4 SB 6 12:00 25.6
4 SB 6 17:00 35.2
4 SB 8 7:00 18.4
4 SB 8 12:00 22.7
4 SB 8 17:00 25.3
4 SB 10 7:00 17.3
4 SB 10 12:00 21.3
4 SB 10 17:00 25.5
7 SB 0 7:00 11.3
7 SB 0 12:00 27.2
7 SB 0 17:00 28.1
7 SB 2 7:00 16
7 SB 2 12:00 33.9
7 SB 2 17:00 33.7
7 SB 4 7:00 19.8
7 SB 4 12:00 29.3
7 SB 4 17:00 27.8
7 SB 6 7:00 21.1
7 SB 6 12:00 34.8
7 SB 6 17:00 32.2
7 SB 8 7:00 18.1
96
7 SB 8 12:00 32.9
7 SB 8 17:00 24.8
7 SB 10 7:00 16.2
7 SB 10 12:00 23.9
7 SB 10 17:00 26
9 SB 0 7:00 10
9 SB 0 12:00 31.4
9 SB 0 17:00 29.8
9 SB 2 7:00 16.5
9 SB 2 12:00 33.3
9 SB 2 17:00 32.1
9 SB 4 7:00 18.8
9 SB 4 12:00 27.4
9 SB 4 17:00 25.6
9 SB 6 7:00 21.1
9 SB 6 12:00 30
9 SB 6 17:00 34.6
9 SB 8 7:00 17.2
9 SB 8 12:00 32.3
9 SB 8 17:00 27.1
9 SB 10 7:00 15.1
9 SB 10 12:00 21.6
9 SB 10 17:00 26.2
10 SB 0 7:00 10.3
10 SB 0 12:00 31.6
10 SB 0 17:00 29.5
10 SB 2 7:00 17
10 SB 2 12:00 33.7
10 SB 2 17:00 34
10 SB 4 7:00 20.7
10 SB 4 12:00 24.7
10 SB 4 17:00 28.7
10 SB 6 7:00 21.4
10 SB 6 12:00 26.9
10 SB 6 17:00 35.1
10 SB 8 7:00 18
10 SB 8 12:00 30
10 SB 8 17:00 23.5
10 SB 10 7:00 16.5
10 SB 10 12:00 24.2
10 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.

3 MS 0 7:00 13.5
3 MS 0 12:00 24.1
3 MS 0 17:00 26.5
3 MS 2 7:00 17.3
3 MS 2 12:00 28.2
3 MS 2 17:00 32.6
3 MS 4 7:00 19.9
3 MS 4 12:00 26.3
3 MS 4 17:00 26.6
3 MS 6 7:00 21
3 MS 6 12:00 29.4
3 MS 6 17:00 30.3
3 MS 8 7:00 19.1
3 MS 8 12:00 24.9
3 MS 8 17:00 25.7
3 MS 10 7:00 19.7
3 MS 10 12:00 28.7
3 MS 10 17:00 32.6
6 MS 0 7:00 12.7
6 MS 0 12:00 25.6
6 MS 0 17:00 27.7
6 MS 2 7:00 17.2
6 MS 2 12:00 28.7
6 MS 2 17:00 31.4
6 MS 4 7:00 18.5
6 MS 4 12:00 27
6 MS 4 17:00 30.9
6 MS 6 7:00 21
6 MS 6 12:00 30.7
6 MS 6 17:00 31
6 MS 8 7:00 17.8
6 MS 8 12:00 27
6 MS 8 17:00 30.9
6 MS 10 7:00 19.4
6 MS 10 12:00 27.8
6 MS 10 17:00 26.2
15 MS 0 7:00 14.1
15 MS 0 12:00 23.8
15 MS 0 17:00 26.9
15 MS 2 7:00 19.3
15 MS 2 12:00 31.1
15 MS 2 17:00 31.1
15 MS 4 7:00 19.7
98
15 MS 4 12:00 27.3
15 MS 4 17:00 25.5
15 MS 6 7:00 22
15 MS 6 12:00 30.6
15 MS 6 17:00 32.5
15 MS 8 7:00 18.5
15 MS 8 12:00 28.1
15 MS 8 17:00 29.9
15 MS 10 7:00 19.3
15 MS 10 12:00 22.7
15 MS 10 17:00 26.5
17 MS 0 7:00 13.6
17 MS 0 12:00 26.5
17 MS 0 17:00 25.3
17 MS 2 7:00 18.7
17 MS 2 12:00 28.6
17 MS 2 17:00 31
17 MS 4 7:00 19.5
17 MS 4 12:00 26.7
17 MS 4 17:00 24.1
17 MS 6 7:00 21.6
17 MS 6 12:00 29.6
17 MS 6 17:00 31.2
17 MS 8 7:00 18
17 MS 8 12:00 22.4
17 MS 8 17:00 22.1
17 MS 10 7:00 19.2
17 MS 10 12:00 23.1
17 MS 10 17:00 25.2
18 MS 0 7:00 13
18 MS 0 12:00 25.8
18 MS 0 17:00 22.8
18 MS 2 7:00 19.7
18 MS 2 12:00 30.1
18 MS 2 17:00 33.4
18 MS 4 7:00 18.6
18 MS 4 12:00 27.6
18 MS 4 17:00 23.9
18 MS 6 7:00 21.5
18 MS 6 12:00 30.4
18 MS 6 17:00 31.2
18 MS 8 7:00 17.7
18 MS 8 12:00 27.9
18 MS 8 17:00 29.4
18 MS 10 7:00 19.4
18 MS 10 12:00 23.4
18 MS 10 17:00 24.9
2 SS 0 7:00 12
99
2 SS 0 12:00 28.6
2 SS 0 17:00 29.5
2 SS 2 7:00 14.8
2 SS 2 12:00 31.1
2 SS 2 17:00 34
2 SS 4 7:00 18.5
2 SS 4 12:00 26
2 SS 4 17:00 30
2 SS 6 7:00 20.4
2 SS 6 12:00 26.5
2 SS 6 17:00 30.1
2 SS 8 7:00 17.4
2 SS 8 12:00 22.1
2 SS 8 17:00 25.2
2 SS 10 7:00 19.2
2 SS 10 12:00 22
2 SS 10 17:00 25.9
4 SS 0 7:00 13
4 SS 0 12:00 28.4
4 SS 0 17:00 30.9
4 SS 2 7:00 16.3
4 SS 2 12:00 33.3
4 SS 2 17:00 36.2
4 SS 4 7:00 18.8
4 SS 4 12:00 25
4 SS 4 17:00 28.1
4 SS 6 7:00 20.9
4 SS 6 12:00 26.6
4 SS 6 17:00 31
4 SS 8 7:00 18.3
4 SS 8 12:00 23
4 SS 8 17:00 23.2
4 SS 10 7:00 19.7
4 SS 10 12:00 23.8
4 SS 10 17:00 25.7
7 SS 0 7:00 13.3
7 SS 0 12:00 29.2
7 SS 0 17:00 28.9
7 SS 2 7:00 18
7 SS 2 12:00 30.1
7 SS 2 17:00 32.9
7 SS 4 7:00 18.7
7 SS 4 12:00 26.1
7 SS 4 17:00 28.9
7 SS 6 7:00 21
7 SS 6 12:00 26.5
7 SS 6 17:00 28.1
7 SS 8 7:00 18.3
100
7 SS 8 12:00 22.8
7 SS 8 17:00 27.4
7 SS 10 7:00 19.7
7 SS 10 12:00 25.5
7 SS 10 17:00 23.4
9 SS 0 7:00 14.2
9 SS 0 12:00 23.6
9 SS 0 17:00 28.1
9 SS 2 7:00 16.4
9 SS 2 12:00 34.9
9 SS 2 17:00 34
9 SS 4 7:00 18.8
9 SS 4 12:00 24.7
9 SS 4 17:00 29.5
9 SS 6 7:00 21.6
9 SS 6 12:00 26.7
9 SS 6 17:00 28
9 SS 8 7:00 17.9
9 SS 8 12:00 22.6
9 SS 8 17:00 25.5
9 SS 10 7:00 19.2
9 SS 10 12:00 21.7
9 SS 10 17:00 27.6
10 SS 0 7:00 13.5
10 SS 0 12:00 27.5
10 SS 0 17:00 29.3
10 SS 2 7:00 16.2
10 SS 2 12:00 32.9
10 SS 2 17:00 34.8
10 SS 4 7:00 19.4
10 SS 4 12:00 27.8
10 SS 4 17:00 28.3
10 SS 6 7:00 21
10 SS 6 12:00 26.5
10 SS 6 17:00 26.8
10 SS 8 7:00 18.3
10 SS 8 12:00 22.8
10 SS 8 17:00 26.8
10 SS 10 7:00 19.3
10 SS 10 12:00 25.5
10 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.

8 MC 0 7:00 19.3
8 MC 0 12:00 25.5
8 MC 0 17:00 31.3
8 MC 2 7:00 21.5
8 MC 2 12:00 26.4
8 MC 2 17:00 27.7
8 MC 4 7:00 27.5
8 MC 4 12:00 30.2
8 MC 4 17:00 35
8 MC 6 7:00 22.7
8 MC 6 12:00 29.9
8 MC 6 17:00 31.1
8 MC 8 7:00 18.3
8 MC 8 12:00 24.2
8 MC 8 17:00 .
8 MC 10 7:00 17.7
8 MC 10 12:00 21.1
8 MC 10 17:00 22.7
10 MC 0 7:00 19.5
10 MC 0 12:00 24.8
10 MC 0 17:00 31.2
10 MC 2 7:00 21.7
10 MC 2 12:00 30.6
10 MC 2 17:00 30.1
10 MC 4 7:00 27.6
10 MC 4 12:00 30
10 MC 4 17:00 35.8
10 MC 6 7:00 22.7
10 MC 6 12:00 30.3
10 MC 6 17:00 29.2
10 MC 8 7:00 18.4
10 MC 8 12:00 27.3
10 MC 8 17:00 .
10 MC 10 7:00 17.8
10 MC 10 12:00 21.2
10 MC 10 17:00 23.2
13 MC 0 7:00 18.1
13 MC 0 12:00 26
13 MC 0 17:00 31
102
13 MC 2 7:00 20.6
13 MC 2 12:00 28.7
13 MC 2 17:00 31.1
13 MC 4 7:00 27.2
13 MC 4 12:00 24.4
13 MC 4 17:00 34.2
13 MC 6 7:00 22.7
13 MC 6 12:00 32.1
13 MC 6 17:00 29.8
13 MC 8 7:00 18
13 MC 8 12:00 27.3
13 MC 8 17:00 .
13 MC 10 7:00 17.6
13 MC 10 12:00 21.5
13 MC 10 17:00 23.2
17 MC 0 7:00 19.5
17 MC 0 12:00 26.5
17 MC 0 17:00 31.4
17 MC 2 7:00 20.6
17 MC 2 12:00 27.1
17 MC 2 17:00 30.4
17 MC 4 7:00 27.2
17 MC 4 12:00 33.6
17 MC 4 17:00 34.8
17 MC 6 7:00 22.9
17 MC 6 12:00 31.3
17 MC 6 17:00 30.5
17 MC 8 7:00 18.2
17 MC 8 12:00 25.8
17 MC 8 17:00 .
17 MC 10 7:00 18.2
17 MC 10 12:00 22.3
17 MC 10 17:00 23.2
18 MC 0 7:00 19.7
18 MC 0 12:00 27.5
18 MC 0 17:00 30.3
18 MC 2 7:00 20.6
18 MC 2 12:00 28.8
18 MC 2 17:00 30.8
18 MC 4 7:00 27.8
18 MC 4 12:00 34.7
18 MC 4 17:00 34.8
18 MC 6 7:00 22.8
18 MC 6 12:00 33.4
18 MC 6 17:00 30.1
18 MC 8 7:00 18
18 MC 8 12:00 27.9
18 MC 8 17:00 .
103
18 MC 10 7:00 18.2
18 MC 10 12:00 22.2
18 MC 10 17:00 23.9
3 SC 0 7:00 17.9
3 SC 0 12:00 25.6
3 SC 0 17:00 34.5
3 SC 2 7:00 19.6
3 SC 2 12:00 29.5
3 SC 2 17:00 31.9
3 SC 4 7:00 27.6
3 SC 4 12:00 32.4
3 SC 4 17:00 31.2
3 SC 6 7:00 22.7
3 SC 6 12:00 25
3 SC 6 17:00 27.9
3 SC 8 7:00 17.3
3 SC 8 12:00 20.5
3 SC 8 17:00 .
3 SC 10 7:00 16
3 SC 10 12:00 20.8
3 SC 10 17:00 23.4
4 SC 0 7:00 17.8
4 SC 0 12:00 26.8
4 SC 0 17:00 35.6
4 SC 2 7:00 19.5
4 SC 2 12:00 26.9
4 SC 2 17:00 33.8
4 SC 4 7:00 27.6
4 SC 4 12:00 30.6
4 SC 4 17:00 33.3
4 SC 6 7:00 22.8
4 SC 6 12:00 26.3
4 SC 6 17:00 28.2
4 SC 8 7:00 17.3
4 SC 8 12:00 20.5
4 SC 8 17:00 .
4 SC 10 7:00 16.4
4 SC 10 12:00 20.7
4 SC 10 17:00 23.2
6 SC 0 7:00 18.1
6 SC 0 12:00 27
6 SC 0 17:00 34.6
6 SC 2 7:00 18.9
6 SC 2 12:00 28.1
6 SC 2 17:00 34.6
6 SC 4 7:00 27.7
6 SC 4 12:00 35.6
6 SC 4 17:00 33.8
104
6 SC 6 7:00 22.7
6 SC 6 12:00 28.7
6 SC 6 17:00 30.3
6 SC 8 7:00 17.1
6 SC 8 12:00 22.4
6 SC 8 17:00 .
6 SC 10 7:00 17.1
6 SC 10 12:00 20.9
6 SC 10 17:00 24.2
11 SC 0 7:00 19
11 SC 0 12:00 27.1
11 SC 0 17:00 33.7
11 SC 2 7:00 21.5
11 SC 2 12:00 28
11 SC 2 17:00 31.1
11 SC 4 7:00 27.3
11 SC 4 12:00 32
11 SC 4 17:00 34.5
11 SC 6 7:00 22.6
11 SC 6 12:00 27.4
11 SC 6 17:00 28.9
11 SC 8 7:00 17.9
11 SC 8 12:00 20.8
11 SC 8 17:00 .
11 SC 10 7:00 16
11 SC 10 12:00 21.1
11 SC 10 17:00 22.9
14 SC 0 7:00 18.1
14 SC 0 12:00 25.8
14 SC 0 17:00 32.9
14 SC 2 7:00 19.4
14 SC 2 12:00 29.8
14 SC 2 17:00 33.1
14 SC 4 7:00 27.7
14 SC 4 12:00 31.6
14 SC 4 17:00 32.6
14 SC 6 7:00 22.7
14 SC 6 12:00 26.6
14 SC 6 17:00 29.9
14 SC 8 7:00 17
14 SC 8 12:00 20.5
14 SC 8 17:00 .
14 SC 10 7:00 16.9
14 SC 10 12:00 22.3
14 SC 10 17:00 25.1

105
b. Soil Temperature data for monoculture beans at site B. MB =monoculture bean, TB
=Three Sisters bean.

2 MB 0 7:00 19
2 MB 0 12:00 24.5
2 MB 0 17:00 30.7
2 MB 2 7:00 20.6
2 MB 2 12:00 26.1
2 MB 2 17:00 31.2
2 MB 4 7:00 27.7
2 MB 4 12:00 32.7
2 MB 4 17:00 34.8
2 MB 6 7:00 22.7
2 MB 6 12:00 31.6
2 MB 6 17:00 32.7
2 MB 8 7:00 18
2 MB 8 12:00 23.9
2 MB 8 17:00 .
2 MB 10 7:00 17.8
2 MB 10 12:00 20.4
2 MB 10 17:00 24.3
5 MB 0 7:00 19.3
5 MB 0 12:00 25.2
5 MB 0 17:00 33.4
5 MB 2 7:00 21.3
5 MB 2 12:00 27.5
5 MB 2 17:00 31.1
5 MB 4 7:00 27.2
5 MB 4 12:00 35
5 MB 4 17:00 34.8
5 MB 6 7:00 22.6
5 MB 6 12:00 29.5
5 MB 6 17:00 29
5 MB 8 7:00 18.3
5 MB 8 12:00 21
5 MB 8 17:00 .
5 MB 10 7:00 17.2
5 MB 10 12:00 21
5 MB 10 17:00 22.9
7 MB 0 7:00 19.1
7 MB 0 12:00 26.8
7 MB 0 17:00 33.5
7 MB 2 7:00 20.7
7 MB 2 12:00 27.9
7 MB 2 17:00 32.4
7 MB 4 7:00 27.3
106
7 MB 4 12:00 32.2
7 MB 4 17:00 34.7
7 MB 6 7:00 22.7
7 MB 6 12:00 30.1
7 MB 6 17:00 29.1
7 MB 8 7:00 17.9
7 MB 8 12:00 20.7
7 MB 8 17:00 .
7 MB 10 7:00 17.4
7 MB 10 12:00 20.9
7 MB 10 17:00 22.8
9 MB 0 7:00 19.5
9 MB 0 12:00 27.5
9 MB 0 17:00 30.7
9 MB 2 7:00 21.8
9 MB 2 12:00 28.7
9 MB 2 17:00 31.5
9 MB 4 7:00 27.3
9 MB 4 12:00 34.4
9 MB 4 17:00 33.1
9 MB 6 7:00 22.6
9 MB 6 12:00 32.9
9 MB 6 17:00 29.1
9 MB 8 7:00 18
9 MB 8 12:00 26.5
9 MB 8 17:00 .
9 MB 10 7:00 17.6
9 MB 10 12:00 20.5
9 MB 10 17:00 22.5
15 MB 0 7:00 19.6
15 MB 0 12:00 27.9
15 MB 0 17:00 31.1
15 MB 2 7:00 20.8
15 MB 2 12:00 29.5
15 MB 2 17:00 31.9
15 MB 4 7:00 27.5
15 MB 4 12:00 35.9
15 MB 4 17:00 33.6
15 MB 6 7:00 22.8
15 MB 6 12:00 30.7
15 MB 6 17:00 32.4
15 MB 8 7:00 17.9
15 MB 8 12:00 27.4
15 MB 8 17:00 .
15 MB 10 7:00 17.8
15 MB 10 12:00 22.4
15 MB 10 17:00 23.5
3 SB 0 7:00 17.9
107
3 SB 0 12:00 25.6
3 SB 0 17:00 34.5
3 SB 2 7:00 19.6
3 SB 2 12:00 29.5
3 SB 2 17:00 31.9
3 SB 4 7:00 27.6
3 SB 4 12:00 32.4
3 SB 4 17:00 31.2
3 SB 6 7:00 22.7
3 SB 6 12:00 25
3 SB 6 17:00 27.9
3 SB 8 7:00 17.1
3 SB 8 12:00 21
3 SB 8 17:00 .
3 SB 10 7:00 16.3
3 SB 10 12:00 21.6
3 SB 10 17:00 23.6
4 SB 0 7:00 18.6
4 SB 0 12:00 24.8
4 SB 0 17:00 33.7
4 SB 2 7:00 20
4 SB 2 12:00 27.8
4 SB 2 17:00 34.3
4 SB 4 7:00 27.8
4 SB 4 12:00 29.2
4 SB 4 17:00 32.4
4 SB 6 7:00 22.7
4 SB 6 12:00 28.6
4 SB 6 17:00 27.5
4 SB 8 7:00 17.2
4 SB 8 12:00 20.4
4 SB 8 17:00 .
4 SB 10 7:00 16.7
4 SB 10 12:00 21.4
4 SB 10 17:00 23.7
6 SB 0 7:00 18.3
6 SB 0 12:00 25.9
6 SB 0 17:00 27.9
6 SB 2 7:00 19.3
6 SB 2 12:00 30.1
6 SB 2 17:00 35.6
6 SB 4 7:00 27.9
6 SB 4 12:00 33.9
6 SB 4 17:00 34.3
6 SB 6 7:00 22.7
6 SB 6 12:00 33.1
6 SB 6 17:00 29.8
6 SB 8 7:00 17.1
108
6 SB 8 12:00 30.2
6 SB 8 17:00 .
6 SB 10 7:00 17.8
6 SB 10 12:00 21.5
6 SB 10 17:00 25.1
11 SB 0 7:00 18.3
11 SB 0 12:00 27.7
11 SB 0 17:00 31.5
11 SB 2 7:00 21.5
11 SB 2 12:00 30.2
11 SB 2 17:00 33.8
11 SB 4 7:00 27.6
11 SB 4 12:00 31.5
11 SB 4 17:00 32.3
11 SB 6 7:00 22.6
11 SB 6 12:00 27.1
11 SB 6 17:00 29.1
11 SB 8 7:00 17.4
11 SB 8 12:00 25.6
11 SB 8 17:00 .
11 SB 10 7:00 16.4
11 SB 10 12:00 21.1
11 SB 10 17:00 22.7
14 SB 0 7:00 18.3
14 SB 0 12:00 23.1
14 SB 0 17:00 34.3
14 SB 2 7:00 19.5
14 SB 2 12:00 31.1
14 SB 2 17:00 31
14 SB 4 7:00 27.8
14 SB 4 12:00 34.1
14 SB 4 17:00 31.3
14 SB 6 7:00 22.7
14 SB 6 12:00 26.2
14 SB 6 17:00 .
14 SB 8 7:00 17.5
14 SB 8 12:00 20.4
14 SB 8 17:00 .
14 SB 10 7:00 17.6
14 SB 10 12:00 23
14 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.

1 MS 0 7:00 19.2
1 MS 0 12:00 25.4
1 MS 0 17:00 32.2
1 MS 2 7:00 20.7
1 MS 2 12:00 28.1
1 MS 2 17:00 33.3
1 MS 4 7:00 27.8
1 MS 4 12:00 33.9
1 MS 4 17:00 37.5
1 MS 6 7:00 22.6
1 MS 6 12:00 32.1
1 MS 6 17:00 33.2
1 MS 8 7:00 17.7
1 MS 8 12:00 22.1
1 MS 8 17:00 .
1 MS 10 7:00 16.8
1 MS 10 12:00 20.5
1 MS 10 17:00 22.4
12 MS 0 7:00 19.4
12 MS 0 12:00 26.4
12 MS 0 17:00 29.9
12 MS 2 7:00 21
12 MS 2 12:00 29.5
12 MS 2 17:00 32.3
12 MS 4 7:00 27.9
12 MS 4 12:00 34.9
12 MS 4 17:00 36.9
12 MS 6 7:00 22.9
12 MS 6 12:00 31.8
12 MS 6 17:00 32.9
12 MS 8 7:00 17.2
12 MS 8 12:00 28.3
12 MS 8 17:00 .
12 MS 10 7:00 17.6
12 MS 10 12:00 21.4
12 MS 10 17:00 22.8
16 MS 0 7:00 19.6
16 MS 0 12:00 25.6
16 MS 0 17:00 30.3
16 MS 2 7:00 20.5
16 MS 2 12:00 28.9
16 MS 2 17:00 31.3
16 MS 4 7:00 27.8
110
16 MS 4 12:00 34.8
16 MS 4 17:00 34.8
16 MS 6 7:00 22.8
16 MS 6 12:00 31.8
16 MS 6 17:00 31.5
16 MS 8 7:00 17.4
16 MS 8 12:00 28.5
16 MS 8 17:00 .
16 MS 10 7:00 19
16 MS 10 12:00 22.1
16 MS 10 17:00 23.4
19 MS 0 7:00 19.5
19 MS 0 12:00 27.6
19 MS 0 17:00 31.3
19 MS 2 7:00 20.4
19 MS 2 12:00 30.2
19 MS 2 17:00 32.3
19 MS 4 7:00 27.5
19 MS 4 12:00 33.2
19 MS 4 17:00 32.3
19 MS 6 7:00 22.8
19 MS 6 12:00 32.2
19 MS 6 17:00 32.4
19 MS 8 7:00 19.1
19 MS 8 12:00 22.3
19 MS 8 17:00 .
19 MS 10 7:00 17.4
19 MS 10 12:00 21.7
19 MS 10 17:00 22.9
20 MS 0 7:00 19.7
20 MS 0 12:00 25.5
20 MS 0 17:00 31.7
20 MS 2 7:00 20.6
20 MS 2 12:00 29
20 MS 2 17:00 32.8
20 MS 4 7:00 27.8
20 MS 4 12:00 34.3
20 MS 4 17:00 35.9
20 MS 6 7:00 22.8
20 MS 6 12:00 33.4
20 MS 6 17:00 33.1
20 MS 8 7:00 17.3
20 MS 8 12:00 27.4
20 MS 8 17:00 .
20 MS 10 7:00 18.6
20 MS 10 12:00 23.2
20 MS 10 17:00 25.4
3 SS 0 7:00 18
111
3 SS 0 12:00 26.5
3 SS 0 17:00 35.2
3 SS 2 7:00 19.6
3 SS 2 12:00 27.5
3 SS 2 17:00 33.7
3 SS 4 7:00 27.2
3 SS 4 12:00 31.6
3 SS 4 17:00 31.2
3 SS 6 7:00 22.7
3 SS 6 12:00 26.2
3 SS 6 17:00 28.6
3 SS 8 7:00 17.4
3 SS 8 12:00 21
3 SS 8 17:00 .
3 SS 10 7:00 16.2
3 SS 10 12:00 20
3 SS 10 17:00 22.3
4 SS 0 7:00 18.1
4 SS 0 12:00 26.6
4 SS 0 17:00 35.6
4 SS 2 7:00 19.8
4 SS 2 12:00 25.2
4 SS 2 17:00 34.5
4 SS 4 7:00 27.5
4 SS 4 12:00 29.6
4 SS 4 17:00 34.6
4 SS 6 7:00 22.7
4 SS 6 12:00 25.9
4 SS 6 17:00 27.9
4 SS 8 7:00 17.6
4 SS 8 12:00 20.6
4 SS 8 17:00 .
4 SS 10 7:00 16.2
4 SS 10 12:00 20
4 SS 10 17:00 22.3
6 SS 0 7:00 18.3
6 SS 0 12:00 27.1
6 SS 0 17:00 35.4
6 SS 2 7:00 19
6 SS 2 12:00 27.4
6 SS 2 17:00 33.5
6 SS 4 7:00 27.6
6 SS 4 12:00 28.6
6 SS 4 17:00 33.3
6 SS 6 7:00 22.7
6 SS 6 12:00 24.5
6 SS 6 17:00 28.7
6 SS 8 7:00 17.6
112
6 SS 8 12:00 21
6 SS 8 17:00 .
6 SS 10 7:00 16.7
6 SS 10 12:00 20.4
6 SS 10 17:00 23.3
11 SS 0 7:00 18.6
11 SS 0 12:00 29.1
11 SS 0 17:00 34.3
11 SS 2 7:00 20
11 SS 2 12:00 29.1
11 SS 2 17:00 34.3
11 SS 4 7:00 27.2
11 SS 4 12:00 31.7
11 SS 4 17:00 31.2
11 SS 6 7:00 22.8
11 SS 6 12:00 26.3
11 SS 6 17:00 27.8
11 SS 8 7:00 18.1
11 SS 8 12:00 22.4
11 SS 8 17:00 .
11 SS 10 7:00 16.4
11 SS 10 12:00 21.1
11 SS 10 17:00 22.7
14 SS 0 7:00 18.5
14 SS 0 12:00 27
14 SS 0 17:00 30
14 SS 2 7:00 19.1
14 SS 2 12:00 29.2
14 SS 2 17:00 31.8
14 SS 4 7:00 26.9
14 SS 4 12:00 28.8
14 SS 4 17:00 30.6
14 SS 6 7:00 22.8
14 SS 6 12:00 26.2
14 SS 6 17:00 .
14 SS 8 7:00 17.6
14 SS 8 12:00 21.5
14 SS 8 17:00 .
14 SS 10 7:00 17.7
14 SS 10 12:00 22.6
14 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 2
2 B 2 69.77 2
3 TS 4 46.51 2
4 TS 4 42.84 2
5 B 2 55.81 2
6 TS 4 41.86 2
7 B 2 56.98 2
8 C 1 62.79 2
9 B 2 58.14 2
10 C 1 55.81 2
11 TS 4 37.2 2
12 S 3 53.49 2
13 C 1 68.6 2
14 TS 4 36.05 2
15 B 2 63.95 2
16 S 3 40.7 2
17 C 1 63.95 2
18 C 1 40.7 2
19 S 3 45.35 2
20 S 3 29.07 2
1 S 3 2.33 5
2 B 2 46.51 5
117
3 TS 4 11.63 5
4 TS 4 16.28 5
5 B 2 17.44 5
6 TS 4 18.6 5
7 B 2 18.6 5
8 C 1 10.47 5
9 V 2 26.74 5
10 C 1 19.77 5
11 TS 4 2.33 5
12 S 3 2.33 5
13 C 1 12.79 5
14 TS 4 5.81 5
15 B 2 15.12 5
16 S 3 3.49 5
17 C 1 16.28 5
18 C 1 26.74 5
19 S 3 11.63 5
20 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) 65.4
Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) 14.3
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 8.7
Lambs quarters (Chenopodium album) 6.1
Curly dock (Rumex crispus) 5.2
Wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) 0.4

Site A 7/10/2006
Weed %
Wild lettuce (Lactuca virosa) 32.7
Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) 19
Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus)14.9
Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) 3.5
Plantain (Plantago lanceolata) 0.3
Wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) 0.3

Site A 7/8/06
Weed %
Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) 36.3
Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) 12.3
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 1.7

b. Weed type and percent at site B

Site B 7/3/06
Weed Type %
Lamb's quarters (Chenopodium album) 79.1
Sedge (fam. Cyperaceae) 7.3
Horsetail (Equisetum sp.) 5.2
Thistle (Cirsium sp.) 0.8
Milkweed (Asclepias speciosa) 3
119
Curly dock (Rumex crispus) 3
Clover (Trifolium sp.) 0.3

Site B 7/31/06
Weed Type %
Rush (fam. J uncaceae) 3.6
Sedge (fam. Cyperaceae) 3.2
Purslane (Portulaca oleraceae) 0.8
Clover (Trifolium sp.) 0.8
Thistle (Cirsium sp.) 0.8
Smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides) 0.8

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 16.67
2 H 4 6 10.7
2 G 5 6 14.21
3 S 3 6 15.87
4 H 4 6 9.54
4 G 5 6 14.87
5 C 1 6 16.18
6 S 3 6 17.43
7 H 4 6 12.03
7 G 5 6 15.65
8 C 1 6 17.77
9 H 4 6 11.44
9 G 5 6 16.37
10 H 4 6 11.5
10 G 5 6 15.39
11 C 1 6 15.43
12 B 2 6 15.12
13 B 2 6 15.85
14 B 2 6 13.53
15 S 3 6 17.45
16 C 1 6 17.12
17 S 3 6 18.43
18 S 3 6 18.34
19 B 2 6 14.48
20 B 2 6 13.16
1 C 1 8 24.94
2 H 4 8 24.61
2 G 5 8 25.2
3 S 3 8 27.87
4 H 4 8 24.33
4 G 5 8 24.86
5 C 1 8 26.55
6 S 3 8 27.28
7 H 4 8 26.73
7 G 5 8 27.37
8 C 1 8 26.47
9 H 4 8 28.91
9 G 5 8 25.99
10 H 4 8 27.51
122
10 G 5 8 27.84
11 C 1 8 28.67
12 B 2 8 28.07
13 B 2 8 28.38
14 B 2 8 25.8
15 S 3 8 25.24
16 C 1 8 27
17 S 3 8 27.97
18 S 3 8 28.53
19 B 2 8 24.94
20 B 2 8 30.44
1 C 1 10 17.77
2 H 4 10 13.57
2 G 5 10 17.51
3 S 3 10 17.5
4 H 4 10 15.03
4 G 5 10 17.73
5 C 1 10 18.27
6 S 3 10 19.57
7 H 4 10 14.33
7 G 5 10 18.65
8 C 1 10 20.57
9 H 4 10 13.65
9 G 5 10 20
10 H 4 10 13.64
10 G 5 10 18.82
11 C 1 10 18.91
12 B 2 10 20.3
13 B 2 10 16.64
14 B 2 10 18.7
15 S 3 10 19.84
16 C 1 10 20.04
17 S 3 10 19.6
18 S 3 10 36.33
19 B 2 10 17.24
20 B 2 10 19.8

b. Soil Moisture site B

Plot Treatment TCode WAP Moisture
1 S 3 6 18.42
2 B 2 6 11.53
3 H 4 6 5.46
3 G 5 6 13
4 H 4 6 3.17
4 G 5 6 10.81
123
5 B 2 6 12
6 H 4 6 5.26
6 G 5 6 11.79
7 B 2 6 9.82
8 C 1 6 11.75
9 B 2 6 13.21
10 C 1 6 13.12
11 H 4 6 6.22
11 G 5 6 12.03
12 S 3 6 11.08
13 C 1 6 11.09
14 H 4 6 4.78
14 G 5 6 12.24
15 B 2 6 8.94
16 S 3 6 11.96
17 C 1 6 14.04
18 C 1 6 15.02
19 S 3 6 10.79
20 S 3 6 13.29
1 S 3 8 20.87
2 B 2 8 22.24
3 H 4 8 22.21
3 G 5 8 23.62
4 H 4 8 19.49
4 G 5 8 21.19
5 B 2 8 23.2
6 H 4 8 21.78
6 G 5 8 23.6
7 B 2 8 23.36
8 C 1 8 22.4
9 B 2 8 23.37
10 C 1 8 24.19
11 H 4 8 24.69
11 G 5 8 23.91
12 S 3 8 22.8
13 C 1 8 25.78
14 H 4 8 22.81
14 G 5 8 23.88
15 B 2 8 23.39
16 S 3 8 28.1
17 C 1 8 31.12
18 C 1 8 25.11
19 S 3 8 24.27
20 S 3 8 22.94
1 S 3 10 12.88
2 B 2 10 12.93
3 H 4 10 11.77
3 G 5 10 14.35
124
4 H 4 10 10.13
4 G 5 10 15.62
5 B 2 10 13.78
6 H 4 10 9.34
6 G 5 10 14.32
7 B 2 10 13.78
8 C 1 10 16.07
9 B 2 10 11.79
10 C 1 10 17.52
11 H 4 10 13.19
11 G 5 10 13.24
12 S 3 10 13.83
13 C 1 10 17.26
14 H 4 10 9.83
14 G 5 10 14.97
15 B 2 10 16.05
16 S 3 10 17.05
17 C 1 10 .
18 C 1 10 18.3
19 S 3 10 15
20 S 3 10 15.5

125
Appendix XV. Corn plants in monoculture plots knocked over by strong winds and rain
on J uly 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 0.066667
10 0 0
13 2 0.033333
17 1 0.016667
18 0 0

b. Three Sisters corn

Plot ID
No. damaged
plants Proportion
3 0 0
4 0 0
6 0 0
11 0 0
14 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 5
6 1 5 0 5
15 1 1 1 2
17 1 1 5 6
18 1 6 1 7
2 2 1 0 1
4 2 1 0 1
7 2 3 2 5
9 2 4 5 9
10 2 2 0 2

b. Cucumber beetles site B

Plot Treatment Spotted Striped Total Beetles
1 1 6 1 7
12 1 0 2 2
16 1 0 0 0
19 1 4 5 9
20 1 1 2 3
3 2 1 3 4
4 2 2 1 3
6 2 0 0 0
11 2 4 3 7
14 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 0
5 C 16 0 0
8 C 15 2 0.133
11 C 16 7 0.438
16 C 17 4 0.235
2 TS 4 0 0
4 TS 2 0 0
7 TS 4 0 0
9 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 0.4
10 C 17 8 0.471
13 C 14 6 0.429
17 C 13 2 0.154
18 C 12 2 0.167
3 TS 4 0 0
4 TS 4 2 0.5
6 TS 3 2 0.667
11 TS 4 1 0.25
14 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 0.58
5 1 0.22 0.25
8 1 0.45 0.47
11 1 0.48 0.38
16 1 0.24 0.29
2 2 0 0
4 2 0.5 0
7 2 0 0
9 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

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

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

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 Difference
A-1 C 1165.9 2230.4 -1064.5
A-2 TS 703.2 2427 -1723.8
A-3 S 3144.8 2442.8 702.0
A-4 TS 2161.5 2266 -104.5
A-5 C 1115.3 2115.2 -999.9
A-6 S 2380.3 2154.4 225.9
A-7 TS 2605.8 2315.7 290.1
A-8 C 2345.6 2256 89.6
A-9 TS 2067.6 2226.1 -158.5
A-10 TS 2050.4 2449.3 -398.9
A-11 C 2335.2 2271.8 63.4
A-12 B 2443.1 2170.7 272.4
A-13 B 2358.6 2190.6 168.0
A-14 B 2099.4 2213 -113.6
A-15 S 2275.2 2141.3 133.9
A-16 C 2772.5 2067.1 705.4
A-17 S 2537.1 2069.9 467.2
A-18 S 2597.1 1880.6 716.5
A-19 B 2289.9 2027.1 262.8
A-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 Difference
B-1 S 1366.7 1030.0 336.7
B-2 B 1014.8 940.3 74.5
B-3 TS 1477.7 1085.1 392.6
B-4 TS 1187.5 1286.5 -99.0
B-5 B 1419.6 1149.8 269.8
B-6 C 1450.2 1091.6 358.6
B-7 B 774.7 940.7 -166.0
B-8 C 1447.3 1081.3 366.0
B-9 B 1474.1 1227.0 247.1
B-10 C 1397.7 1034.5 363.2
B-11 TS 1465.7 1171.5 294.2
B-12 S 1783.3 1026.1 757.2
B-13 C 1512.4 1150.9 361.5
B-14 TS 1688.9 407.8 1281.1
B-15 B 1478.5 1085.4 393.1
136
B-16 S 1518.4 1076.7 441.7
B-17 C 1688.9 1049.7 639.2
B-18 C 1671.9 1465.5 206.4
B-19 S 1784.9 1315.5 469.4
B-20 S 1328.3 1133.9 194.4

3 Sisters

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

3 Sisters

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AN EVALUATION OF THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN

THREE SISTERS AGRICULTURE SYSTEM IN NORTHERN WISCONSIN

AT DIFFERENT N:CORN PRICE RATIOS

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi