Hubbry Logo
Three-field systemThree-field systemMain
Open search
Three-field system
Community hub
Three-field system
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Three-field system
Three-field system
Three-field system
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The three-field system is a regime of crop rotation in which a field is planted with one set of crops one year, a different set in the second year, and left fallow in the third year. A set of crops is rotated from one field to another. The technique was first used in China in the Eastern Zhou period[1] and was adopted in Europe in the medieval period.

Three-field system with ridge and furrow fields (furlongs)

The three-field system lets farmers plant more crops and therefore increase production. Under this system, the arable land of an estate or village was divided into three large fields: one was planted in the autumn with winter wheat or rye; the second field was planted with crops such as peas, lentils, or beans; and the third was left fallow (unplanted). Cereal crops deplete the ground of nitrogen, but legumes can fix nitrogen and so fertilize the soil. The fallow fields would overgrow with weeds which were used for grazing farm animals. Their excrement fertilized that field's soil to regain its nutrients. Crop assignments were rotated every year, so each field segment would be planted for two out of every three years.

Previously a two-field system had been in place, with half the land being left fallow. In Europe, the change to a three-field system happened from the 9th century to the 11th century.[2] With more crops available to sell and agriculture dominating the economy at the time, the three-field system created a significant surplus and increased economic prosperity.[3]

The three-field system needed more plowing of land, and its introduction coincided with the adoption of the moldboard plow. These parallel developments complemented each other and increased agricultural productivity. The legume crop needed summer rain to succeed, and so the three-field system was less successful around the Mediterranean. Oats for horse food could also be planted in the spring, which, combined with the adoption of horse collars and horseshoes, led to the replacement of oxen by horses for many farming tasks, with an associated increase in agricultural productivity and the nutrition available to the population.[4]

In his 1769 work Lehre vom Gyps als vorzueglich guten Dung zu allen Erd-Gewaechsen auf Aeckern und Wiesen, Hopfen- und Weinbergen,[5] Johann Friedrich Mayer was one of the first Germans to advocate for new ways of expanding beyond the medieval three-field system.

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Three-field system

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The three-field system was a medieval European method of that divided into three roughly equal parts, with one field planted in autumn with winter grains such as or for human consumption, another sown in spring with crops like , oats, peas, beans, or lentils to feed people and draft animals, and the third left fallow to restore nutrients through natural processes and . This rotation cycled annually, ensuring that each field served each purpose in succession, thereby maintaining fertility while maximizing compared to the preceding two-field system, where half the land lay idle each year. Introduced in the amid the Carolingian Empire's agricultural reforms, the system gradually spread across Western and , achieving widespread adoption by the despite initial resistance due to divisions and social structures. It complemented innovations like the heavy plow, , and horseshoe, which enabled deeper and animal-powered farming on heavier soils, further enhancing efficiency. By allowing two-thirds of the land to be cultivated each year, the three-field approach boosted crop yields by approximately 30-50%, supported from around 30 million in 1000 CE to over 70 million by 1300 CE, and facilitated economic surpluses that spurred , , and the rise of feudal . The system's success relied on communal open-field arrangements, where villagers shared strips of land to distribute soil types and risks, though it was most effective in regions with suitable climates for diverse crops, such as northern France, the , and . in the spring field naturally fixed nitrogen in the soil, reducing depletion and weeds, while the period prevented exhaustion and provided for , creating a balanced agro-ecosystem. However, vulnerabilities emerged in the , as climate shifts like the and overexploitation led to soil degradation, contributing to events such as the Great Famine of 1315-1317 and prompting gradual transitions to more intensive rotations during the . Overall, the three-field system represented a pivotal advance in , underpinning Europe's medieval economic expansion until the advent of modern techniques.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Adoption

The three-field system emerged during the in northern and the , representing an evolution from earlier Roman and Germanic agricultural practices that predominantly relied on a two-field involving one year of cultivation followed by extended fallow periods to restore . This transition marked a shift toward more systematic , building on the irregular fallow methods of and early medieval Germanic farming, where was often divided unevenly without rigid cycles. By the early , the system had developed into a regular three-course , allowing two successive grain crops annually on two-thirds of the land while the remaining third lay . Key evidence for its early adoption appears in Carolingian estate records from the late 8th and early 9th centuries, including the compiled for major monastic and royal domains, such as the Polyptych of Irminon for the of around 825 AD, which show early indications and prefigurations of tripartite divisions of arable fields, with sections for sowing alongside fallow land, as seen in descriptions of culturae. These inventories, along with similar records from other large abbeys like Saint-Denis and Corbie, illustrate the practical implementation of the system on lands under centralized management. While issued under around 800 AD, such as the de Villis, emphasized efficient estate organization and without explicitly detailing rotations, they reflect the administrative framework supporting such innovations in royal and ecclesiastical holdings. The adoption of the three-field system was initially motivated by the need to address soil exhaustion and support rising population pressures in the post-7th century Carolingian realm, where demographic recovery demanded higher yields from limited arable resources. This response was aided by improving climatic conditions, including milder winters and extended growing seasons that preceded and aligned with the onset of the around 950 AD, enabling better synchronization of winter and spring crops. First widespread implementations occurred in the 9th century within monastic estates and the burgeoning manorial systems of , where abbeys served as experimental hubs for agricultural advancements under the patronage of Carolingian rulers. These institutions, benefiting from centralized oversight and labor organization, pioneered the system's integration into daily farming routines, setting precedents for broader peasant adoption on dependent holdings.

Spread Across Europe

The three-field system, originating in northern France during the 8th and 9th centuries, began diffusing to following the of 1066, with partial implementations evident in the of 1086, which records early open-field divisions and intermixed strips but no widespread three-field rotation at that time. By the 13th century, the system had become prevalent in the and eastern regions, facilitated by Norman influences on land management and the reorganization of manors into more intensive arable farming, as seen in surveys from and documenting three-course rotations. In the , adoption accelerated in the 11th and 12th centuries amid feudal expansions, as lords encouraged land clearance and grain production to support growing territorial domains, with the system spreading from northern to central European grain-growing areas around 1000 CE and integrating into manorial practices by the mid-12th century. Similarly, in north-central during the 11th century, the system contributed to the fragmentation of large estates into smaller holdings, aligning with feudal shifts toward rental-based economies and rural repopulation, though its uptake remained more limited than in northern regions due to climatic differences. The system's introduction to , particularly and , occurred in the 12th and 13th centuries through the , the eastward migration of German settlers who brought the Frankish agrarian model, including three-field rotation, to Slavic lands east of the , reorganizing villages into nucleated settlements with long fields. Approximately 200,000 settlers from and the established these practices under the auspices of local princes and ecclesiastics, with pollen evidence indicating gradual integration into Polish regions like and Masovia by the 13th century. Several interconnected factors propelled this continental expansion during the . Population pressures during the , which saw Europe's population roughly double from about 35-40 million in 1000 CE to 70-80 million by 1300 CE, intensified land use, making the three-field system attractive for its ability to cultivate more annually. Monastic orders, notably the founded in 1098, played a key role by clearing wastelands and disseminating advanced farming techniques through their networks of daughter houses across , transforming marginal areas into productive fields. Trade routes further facilitated diffusion, as merchants and settlers carried knowledge of the system along paths from to the and eastward, linking agricultural innovation to emerging market demands.

Regional Variations

In , the three-field system became closely integrated with the open-field village structure, where arable land was organized into large communal fields divided into narrow strips allocated to individual holdings, promoting practices while maintaining personal tenure. This arrangement facilitated the standard three-course rotation of winter grains, spring crops, and , which was rigidly enforced through manorial courts to prevent deviations that could disrupt communal or . Manorial records from the period indicate that these courts imposed fines for non-compliance, ensuring uniformity in planting schedules and times across the village. By the , regional irregularities emerged, particularly in the English under what became known as the "Midland system," where the rigid rotation gave way to in some areas; here, fields could be temporarily shifted from arable to ley for several years to restore fertility, allowing greater flexibility in response to exhaustion or market demands for products. In Mediterranean regions like and , climatic constraints—characterized by hot, dry summers and irregular rainfall—led to significant modifications of the three-field model, often reverting to a two-field system in drier inland zones to minimize periods and conserve . Where the three-field approach persisted in more temperate coastal or irrigated areas, rotations incorporated perennial crops such as olives and grapevines alongside cereals and , creating mixed systems that leveraged the region's suitability for tree-based ; for instance, vines were interplanted or rotated with grains to optimize and provide diversified yields resistant to . Archaeobotanical evidence from sites in highlights this adaptation, showing viticulture's prominence from the 9th century onward, with olives gaining traction in the 11th century through specialized labor, thus deviating from the northern European emphasis on grains. Further north and east, in and , the three-field system blended with extensive , where the field's role extended beyond mere soil rest to prolonged communal for and sheep, supporting the livestock-heavy economies of these marginal landscapes. In eastern and southern , two- and three-field rotations coexisted with infield-outfield practices, allowing areas to remain under pasture for extended seasons to accommodate patterns influenced by short growing periods and harsh winters. Similarly, in 16th-century —representative of broader Eastern European adoption—the system featured equal-sized fields with strips plowed in parallel, but usage emphasized rights, integrating arable farming with noble-enforced pastoral obligations that prioritized animal for field fertility. These hybrids reflected local resource scarcity, where provided essential traction and products, often superseding strict crop sequencing.

Mechanics of the System

The Rotation Cycle

The three-field system divided arable land into three equal portions, typically labeled as fields A, B, and C, to facilitate systematic crop rotation and soil management. This division ensured that each field would alternate between cultivation and rest over a three-year period, maximizing land use while preventing soil exhaustion. The rotation cycle operated on an annual basis, with fields shifting roles each year to maintain balance. In Year 1, Field A was sown with winter crops in autumn, Field B remained fallow, and Field C was planted with spring crops; the following year, the pattern shifted so that Field B received winter crops, Field C spring crops, and Field A became fallow; by Year 3, Field C hosted winter crops, Field A spring crops, and Field B lay fallow, completing the full cycle before repeating. This sequential shift allowed two-thirds of the land to be productive annually, compared to the one-half utilization in earlier systems. The cycle synchronized closely with seasonal rhythms to optimize growth and labor. Winter crops, such as grains, were sown after the summer harvest in or , allowing them to establish roots before winter . Spring crops followed in or , capitalizing on milder weather for quicker maturation. The field was plowed twice yearly—once in early spring to aerate the and control weeds, and again in autumn after any —to prepare it for the next planting while suppressing unwanted . A key purpose of this rotation was to enhance through natural processes, particularly by incorporating in the spring fields, which fixed atmospheric into the soil via , thereby replenishing nutrients depleted by winter grain crops in subsequent years. This biological mechanism reduced reliance on external fertilizers and supported sustained productivity across the cycle.

Typical Crops and Practices

In the three-field system, the winter field was typically sown in autumn with or , which were primary crops the following summer. After , this field was grazed by on the stubble, providing communal access to while allowing natural manuring of the soil. The spring field was planted in spring with oats, , or such as peas, beans, and vetches, which were harvested in late summer. in this rotation contributed to through biological by in their root nodules. The field remained unplanted to allow recovery, with on it to deposit and improve levels. This field was plowed in both spring and autumn to aerate the , incorporate , and suppress growth. Key practices included seeds at rates of approximately 2 to 4 bushels per acre for , depending on regional conditions. was turned using wooden plows equipped with moldboards to invert the furrow and bury weeds effectively. Communal of animals on and stubble fields ensured shared use of resources while preventing through village regulations.

Land Management and Tools

In the three-field system, land was organized into expansive open fields divided into scattered strips held by individual households to ensure equitable distribution of types and mitigate risks. This communal structure fostered cooperation, as villagers collectively managed the without private enclosures, integrating it with common pastures and meadows for livestock grazing during periods. Fields lacked permanent fencing or internal boundaries to maintain accessibility for shared plowing and harvesting; instead, temporary markers such as earthen balks—unplowed ridges—or wooden stakes delineated strips, with communal oversight preventing encroachment. Village officials enforced these divisions through regular inspections, ensuring the system's rotational cycle proceeded without disruption. Central to land management was the heavy wheeled plow, known as the caruca, which featured a coulter for slicing turf, a plowshare for undercutting soil, and a moldboard for turning the furrow to improve drainage and aeration in heavy clay soils. Typically drawn by a team of eight oxen owned communally, this tool required coordinated effort across holdings, enabling deeper tillage that complemented the three-field rotation. For harvesting, peasants used sickles—curved blades for cutting grain close to the ground—and flails, paired wooden rods for separating grains from stalks post-reaping, both simple yet essential for manual labor in unfenced expanses. Harrowing followed plowing to break clods and cover seeds, often with drag harrows pulled by the same ox teams. Labor was divided among serfs through fixed obligations, including regular week-work on the lord's and extra boon-work days specifically for communal tasks like plowing the field and sowing across strips. The reeve, an elected or appointed overseer, coordinated these efforts, directing ox teams and ensuring synchronized activities to align with the rotation cycle, while the adjudicated disputes over labor shares or field infractions. This hierarchical yet participatory minimized conflicts in the open fields, binding the community in seasonal rhythms of preparation and cultivation.

Benefits and Impacts

Improvements in Productivity

The three-field system significantly enhanced in medieval by increasing the proportion of land under cultivation compared to the preceding two-field system. Under the two-field approach, only 50% of was cropped annually, with the remainder left to restore fertility. In contrast, the three-field rotation allowed approximately 66% of the land to be cultivated each year, as only one-third lay , thereby enabling roughly doubling the overall output per manor. Soil fertility was further improved through the incorporation of nitrogen-fixing , such as peas and beans, in the spring-sown field of the cycle. These crops replenished , reducing the need for prolonged fallowing and mitigating depletion that plagued earlier systems. As a result, grain yields rose notably; for instance, production increased from an average of 4-6 bushels per acre under less intensive rotations to 8-10 bushels per acre with the three-field method, reflecting enhanced and sustained cropping intensity. The system's emphasis on diverse cropping also doubled the availability of animal fodder through spring-sown grains and , which supported larger herds. Greater animal numbers, in turn, produced more for natural fertilization, creating a virtuous cycle that bolstered long-term productivity without relying on external inputs. These agronomic advances underpinned substantial demographic expansion across , sustaining from approximately 30 million in 1000 AD to around 74 million by 1300 AD by providing a more reliable and abundant food supply.

Economic and Social Consequences

The adoption of the three-field system generated agricultural surpluses that spurred beyond subsistence farming, enabling the development of regional trade networks and the proliferation of market towns across medieval starting in the . These surpluses allowed lords and peasants to exchange goods at local fairs and emerging urban centers, fostering in grains, , and manufactured items, which in turn diminished the isolation of manors and integrated rural economies into broader markets. Within the manorial system, the enhanced yields from the three-field rotation benefited lords through increased output from lands cultivated for their own use, while peasants gained from more reliable production on their allotted plots, thereby lowering the incidence of famines and improving for tenant families. This shift encouraged a partial transition from labor services to monetary rents, as lords sought to capitalize on surpluses via sales, providing peasants with greater flexibility in managing their holdings. The higher productivity of the system, which allowed cultivation of two-thirds of annually, underpinned these manorial adaptations by ensuring steadier harvests. Socially, the system's demands for coordinated planting and harvesting promoted labor specialization, with villagers dividing tasks across the rotation cycle, and contributed to the rise of labor opportunities by the 13th century as surplus labor migrated to towns or supplemented manor work for cash. These changes bolstered feudal stability by creating between lords and peasants, reducing unrest through shared prosperity and enabling the growth of a nascent merchant class that bridged rural and urban spheres. In terms of gender dynamics, women played essential roles in the three-field system's operations, particularly in labor-intensive activities like weeding spring crops and assisting with harvests, which were critical during peak seasons when labor was stretched thin. However, the manorial framework reinforced patriarchal structures by favoring primogeniture in , limiting women's access to and tying their economic contributions to familial or communal obligations rather than independent control.

Environmental Effects

The three-field system incorporated legume crops, such as peas and beans, in its rotation cycle, which fixed atmospheric into the through in their root nodules, thereby enhancing and reducing nutrient depletion relative to earlier practices. This enrichment helped maintain by promoting accumulation and preventing the rapid exhaustion seen in continuous cropping. Compared to the two-field system, where half the land lay without such restorative crops, the inclusion of in the three-field rotation provided a more balanced , mitigating long-term degradation in medieval European farmlands. However, the system's reliance on annual plowing with heavy moldboard plows in sloping or hilly terrains accelerated locally, as the deep turning of soil exposed it to wind and water runoff, particularly in regions like parts of and the . Additionally, the field's use for communal often led to and , as increased livestock numbers trampled the resting land, compacting and reducing its for water infiltration. These pressures were exacerbated in areas with expanding cultivation, where the conversion of one-third of land from to arable under the three-field regime diminished overall grazing capacity. Regarding biodiversity, the monoculture phases of cereal and legume fields in the rotation suppressed wild flora diversity within cultivated areas, favoring only crop-tolerant weeds and reducing habitat for native plant species. Yet, the annual fallow period permitted temporary recovery of weed populations and insect communities, as ungrazed or lightly grazed sections allowed seeds from surrounding areas to germinate and support pollinators and soil organisms during the rest year. The widespread adoption of the three-field system drove the expansion of , leading to along field margins and in woodland fringes to accommodate larger rotations, which altered local landscapes across medieval . This clearance, particularly in river valleys, disrupted natural hydrology by increasing runoff from bare or plowed soils, elevating risks and loads in waterways.

Comparisons and Transitions

Versus the Two-Field System

The two-field system, widely practiced in medieval Europe until the , operated on a biennial rotation that divided into two equal parts: one field sown with cereal crops such as , , or in the autumn, and the other left to restore nutrients through natural processes and . This method constrained , as only 50% of the land was under cultivation at any time, limiting overall output and requiring extensive labor to maintain without additional fertility enhancements. In comparison, the three-field system marked a significant advancement by partitioning land into three sections, with two cultivated each year—one for winter-sown cereals like and one for spring-sown crops, frequently such as peas or beans—while only one-third remained . This allowed for two fields to be cultivated annually rather than one, increasing the productive from 50% to approximately 67%, and introduced nitrogen-fixing that actively replenished , a benefit absent in the cereal-focused two-field rotation. The inclusion of diverse crops also mitigated risks associated with , promoting more stable yields over time. The shift from the two-field to the three-field system occurred gradually during the Carolingian period, with archaeological and , including isotopic analyses from sites like Bonn-Bechlinghoven and indicating systematic three-field practices by the 8th century, and polyptychs such as the 9th-century Polyptych of Irminon revealing transitional hybrid arrangements where estates combined elements of both systems. This evolution reduced the two-field system's vulnerabilities, particularly its heightened risk, as a single poor harvest from weather events could wipe out half of annual production with no immediate reserves from the fully fallow field, exacerbating food shortages in grain-dependent societies.

Shift to Modern Agriculture

The , which ravaged between 1347 and 1351, drastically reduced the rural labor force by an estimated 30-60%, prompting a shift away from labor-intensive arable farming under the three-field system toward less demanding pastoral uses like sheep and conversion. This depopulation crisis undermined the system's reliance on communal labor for plowing, , and harvesting across divided fields, leading to widespread abandonment of cultivated land and a gradual erosion of the rigid rotation cycle in . By the 16th century, the introduction of such as potatoes and from the further accelerated the decline of the three-field system by offering higher-yield alternatives that could be integrated into more flexible rotations, reducing dependence on the traditional wheat-fallow-legume cycle. Potatoes, in particular, thrived in marginal soils and provided multiple harvests per year without requiring periods, allowing farmers to intensify production and diversify beyond the system's limitations on crop variety and soil recovery. similarly enabled experimentation with and extended growing seasons in southern and eastern regions, gradually supplanting the need for the three-field's balanced but restrictive layout. In , the enclosure movements from the 16th to 19th centuries privatized communal open fields and through parliamentary acts, facilitating the adoption of innovative systems like the four-field Norfolk rotation promoted by in the 1730s, which eliminated fallow land entirely by alternating , turnips, , and . This consolidation of holdings into compact farms enabled individualized management and experimentation, rendering the communal three-field system's shared strips and synchronized cycles increasingly impractical and obsolete in the face of rising agricultural commercialization. The advent of , exemplified by Jethro Tull's horse-drawn patented in 1701, revolutionized planting efficiency by allowing precise row sowing that minimized seed waste and enabled deeper , further diminishing the need for the three-field's broad communal methods. Complementing this, the development of chemical fertilizers in the —beginning with Justus von Liebig's nitrogen theories in the 1840s and scaling up through industrial production of superphosphates and ammonium salts—provided artificial soil nutrients that bypassed the system's natural and legume-based restoration, permitting continuous cropping without constraints. While the three-field system faded in by the early 19th century, it persisted in until 20th-century land reforms, such as those in and post-World War I and after , which consolidated fragmented holdings and introduced collectivization or to modernize fragmented open-field arrangements. These reforms, often tied to communist land redistribution in the mid-20th century, finally dismantled remaining communal rotations in favor of state-planned or mechanized .

Legacy in Contemporary Farming

The principles of the three-field system continue to influence modern practices, particularly through the integration of nitrogen-fixing in sustainable and systems. In contemporary , legume-inclusive rotations echo the medieval alternation of grains and by harnessing biological to replenish soil nutrients without synthetic fertilizers. For instance, rotations often feature such as or , which fix 20–200 kg of per annually, reducing the need for external inputs and improving yields for subsequent crops like . These rotations are typically longer and more diverse than conventional ones, incorporating 48% more crop categories and providing 2.6 times the supply through compared to non-organic systems. No-till practices further adapt this legacy by minimizing soil disturbance while rotating crops to maintain fertility, as seen in legume-cereal sequences that enhance overall system resilience. Sustainability lessons from the three-field system's fallow field are evident in the widespread use of cover crops during idle periods to combat and degradation. (USDA) guidelines recommend planting cover crops like rye or on land to provide ground cover during critical erosion-prone seasons, ensuring soil loss remains below tolerance levels while integrating seamlessly into existing rotations. These cover crops, often terminated before the next planting via no-till methods, suppress weeds, increase , and prevent nutrient runoff, directly mirroring the restorative role of the field in medieval systems. By emphasizing such practices, modern guidelines promote long-term , reducing rates and supporting in ways that build on historical improvements from diversified . Similar triadic rotation systems appear in parts of , where patterns like the rice-wheat-fallow sequence in allocate land across grain crops, pulses, and rest periods to sustain productivity in regions. This approach, prevalent in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, incorporates a fallow or phase after and to restore soil nutrients, much like the European model's balance of cultivation and recovery. In , historical legume-cereal rotations dating back millennia further parallel these principles, adapting to local climates by alternating soybeans or with grains to fix and prevent depletion. The three-field system's emphasis on rotation remains highly relevant today amid global concerns over soil degradation and , with policies incentivizing its revival for resilient farming. Under the European Union's (CAP) for 2023–2027, farmers receive eco-scheme payments and rural development support for implementing diversified rotations, including the use of , to boost and . These incentives, outlined in Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, aim to mitigate erosion and enhance climate adaptation by mandating annual rotations and crop diversification on larger plots, thereby addressing widespread declines across the continent.

References

  1. https://engines.egr.uh.edu/episode/26
  2. https://www.dbu.edu/mitchell/medieval-resources/economicchangesmedieval.html
  3. https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/uahistjrnl/article/id/586/download/pdf/
  4. https://faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Ecology/PDFs/IndRevolution.pdf
  5. https://aae.wisc.edu/dbromley//pdfs/chavas-bromley.pdf
  6. https://facstaff.bloomu.edu/mhickey/late_middle_ages.htm
  7. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/08699/sample/9780521808699ws.pdf
  8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/carolingian-economy/BD0A5C21D952CA5CACEE83291991DAC7
  9. https://historyofeconomicthought.mcmaster.ca/grayHoward/EnglishFieldSys.pdf
  10. https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98038599.pdf
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316552312_The_Agrarian_East_1200-1861
  12. https://ehes.org/wp/EHES_70.pdf
  13. https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/munro5/L02MedievalPopulationC.pdf
  14. https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1321
  15. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/learning/laxton/theme2/introduction.aspx
  16. https://www.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/18n2a2.pdf
  17. https://academic.oup.com/book/2392/chapter/142591141
  18. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01052529v1/document
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226916215_Aspects_of_Early_Medieval_farming_from_sites_in_Mediterranean_France
  20. https://eh.net/book_reviews/peasants-and-their-fields-the-rationale-of-open-field-agriculture-700-1800/
  21. https://digitalcommons.imsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1212&context=proflearningday
  22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01433768.2020.1753984
  23. http://strangehorizons.com/wordpress/non-fiction/articles/the-medieval-agricultural-year/
  24. https://www.historyonthenet.com/medieval-farming-the-farming-year
  25. http://phog.umaine.edu/physicalocean/Tomczak/science%2Bsociety/lectures/illustrations/lecture13/threefield.html
  26. https://econweb.rutgers.edu/ewhite/McCloskey1989.pdf
  27. https://engines.egr.uh.edu/episode/1318
  28. https://read.dukeupress.edu/agricultural-history/article-pdf/85/4/460/1501936/ah.2011.85.4.460.pdf
  29. https://atlas.cs.brown.edu/data/gutenberg/1/6/5/9/16594/16594-8.txt
  30. https://www.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/33n1a2.pdf
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40275416
  32. https://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/1986/3/86.03.03/3
  33. https://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue19/5/5.2.cfm
  34. http://home.olemiss.edu/~tjray/medieval/feudal.htm
  35. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/learning/laxton/theme2/manorialcourt.aspx
  36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1006005
  37. https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-field-system
  38. https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/History/World_History/Western_Civilization_-_A_Concise_History_II_(Brooks)/01%3A_The_Crusades_and_the_High_Middle_Ages/1.06%3A_The_Medieval_Agricultural_Revolution
  39. https://colorado.pressbooks.pub/originsofeurope/chapter/chapter-14-the-high-middle-ages/
  40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1648518
  41. https://www.dbu.edu/mitchell/medieval_resources/economicchangesmedieval.html
  42. https://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture22b.html
  43. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hic3.12461
  44. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1981.tb03026.x
  45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3742255
  46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3098/ah.2011.85.4.460
  47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1883847
  48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23419685
  49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26162192
  50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26799022
  51. https://ediss.uni-goettingen.de/bitstream/handle/11858/00-1735-0000-0022-607D-D/Seifert_ArableFlora_2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3983678
  53. https://geography.fullerton.edu/taylor/ENST595T/darkages.pdf
  54. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/germania/article/download/92156/87812
  55. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.859
  56. https://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ogilvie.pdf
  57. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=undergraduate_theses
  58. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/research/centres/foodhistory/the_columbian_exchange_biological_and_cultural_con..._----_5_new_world_foods_and_old_world_demography_.pdf
  59. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/rural-history/article/old-and-new-plants-from-the-americas-to-europe-potatoes-corn-and-the-genetics-of-double-hybrid-corn-18001940/00D110235AA0C1D405DCE7819681D635
  60. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29772/w29772.pdf
  61. https://hal.science/hal-03352863v1/document
  62. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/34
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305748824001282
  64. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.767998/full
  65. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14271-6
  66. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/15/8/1966
  67. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/E340A%20-%20Cover%20crop%20to%20reduce%20soil%20erosion.pdf
  68. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/initiatives-and-highlighted-programs/peoples-garden/soil-health/cover-crops-and-crop-rotation
  69. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2387&context=usdaarsfacpub
  70. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67973-9
  71. https://www.novapublishers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Legume-Cereal-Crop-Rotation-Systems-in-China.pdf
  72. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/solutions-for-restoring-europes-agricultural-ecosystems
  73. https://redefine.food/en/cap-crop-rotation-and-the-crucial-role-of-legumes-in-sustainable-agriculture/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.