Economic Impacts of Cover Crops for a Missouri Wheat–Corn–Soybean Rotation

Cai, Zhen; Udawatta, Ranjith P.; Gantzer, Clark J.; Jose, Shibu; Godsey, Larry D.; Cartwright, Lauren

doi:10.3390/agriculture9040083

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lower corn yield following drilled CC than broadcasted, despite higher CC ground coverage after drill‐seeding (Figure 3), is rather surprising. The insignificant corn yield response to CC types found in our study aligned with findings of several past studies (Cai et al., 2019; Chu et al., 2017; García‐González, Quemada, Gabriel, Alonso‐Ayuso, & Hontoria, 2018; Snapp & Surapur, 2018). However, some other studies reported a favorable effect of CC on corn yield (Hunter et al., 2019; Seman‐Varner, Varco, & O'Rourke, 2017; Van Eerd, 2018).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Cover crop diversity for weed suppression and crop yield in a corn–soybean production system in Tennessee

Sabbagh

Jagadamma

Duncan

et al. 2020

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weed communities may potentially reduce row‐crop yields resulting in a loss of revenue for producers. Studies have reported a decrease in the efficacy of chemical methods of weed control due to increased weed resistance. With the goal of reducing reliance on chemical weed control and promoting sustainable crop production in mind, we evaluated different winter cover crop (CC) types (single‐, double‐, and multi‐species) and CC planting methods (broadcasting vs. drilling) on CC and weed groundcover and row‐crop yield in a no‐till corn (Zea mays L.)–soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] rotation system in Tennessee from 2013 to 2017. Our results showed that winter CC reduced spring weed ground coverage by 64–76% compared with winter fallow with no herbicide application. A five‐species CC mixture increased soybean yields by 6 to 8.5% across seeding method treatments compared with other CC treatments and winter fallow. This yield increase was more visible in a drought year. Corn, grown in years with normal weather patterns, did not show a yield response to CC types. From this study, cover cropping was found to be an effective strategy for weed control compared with leaving the field fallow without herbicide application following row‐crop harvest; however, no consistent species‐specific trends were observed on weed suppression and row‐crop yield. Future research should focus on understanding CC species composition and biomass production in double‐ and multi‐species mixtures from this field experiment to draw robust conclusions on agronomic responses of individual CC species and planting methods.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Cover crop diversity for weed suppression and crop yield in a corn–soybean production system in Tennessee

Sabbagh

Jagadamma

Duncan

et al. 2020

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cai et al. (2019) and Stanger et al. (2008) also concluded that corn and soybean prices were major contributors to higher economic returns for CS rotation in comparison with diversified crop rotations that include oats and alfalfa.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yield and economic performance of crop rotation systems in South Dakota

Feng

Wang

Osborne

et al. 2021

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop yield and economic profitability, both highly dependent on local crop management, soil characteristics, and weather conditions, are among the most influential factors to consider when considering a cropping system. The objective of this study was to compare the economic returns of three different 4-yr diverse crop rotations with that of a 2-yr traditional crop rotation in eastern South Dakota. The rotations included were (a) corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]-spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-pea (Pisum sativum L.) (CSSwP), (b) corn-pea-winter wheat-soybean (CPWwS), (c) corn-oat (Avena sativa L.)-winter wheat-soybean (COWwS), and (d) corn-soybean (CS). Results showed that total cost for the CS rotation was 7.2, 14.9, and 18.2% greater than the COWwS, CSSwP, and CPWwS rotations, respectively. Whereas CS rotation had comparable corn yield with CSSwP and COWwS rotations, its soybean yield ranked the lowest among all the rotations.When N fertilizer application fell below the level necessary to achieve for yield maximization, the CS rotation demonstrated a lack of resilience as indicated by a continual decline in economic returns over time. In comparison, the CSSwP rotation demonstrated high resilience to reduced N fertilizer application rate, and its net revenue was the highest among all rotations and surpassed the CS. Our results suggest that extending the traditional CS rotation to the more diversified CSSwP rotation could simultaneously reduce input costs and overreliance on N fertilizer.Abbreviations: COWwS, corn-oat-winter wheat-soybean; CPWwS, corn-pea-winter wheat-soybean; CS, corn-soybean; CSSwP, corn-soybean-spring wheat-pea.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

“…Cover crops have, however, costs that may limit their use. These include the cost of additional seed, the time required to manage an additional crop, which may necessitate changes to current cropping plans, and the cost of an additional herbicide or increased tillage to kill the cover crop in order to plant the cash crop (Cai et al, 2019).…”

Section: Economic Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of intercropping sunn hemp into maize at different times and densities on productivity under rainwater harvesting technique

Dzvene

Tesfuhuney

Walker

et al. 2022

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maize is a major food crop in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and its productivity is affected by climate change-adaptive sustainable management practices. A 2-year field study (2019/20 and 2020/21 growing seasons) was carried out to evaluate the effect of sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.) living mulch management on maize (Zea mays L.) production. Three sunn hemp planting periods were simultaneous with maize planting (P1), V15 maize growth stage (P2), and R1 maize growth stage (P3) and three densities 16.1 plants m−2 (D1-low), 32.1 plants m−2 (D2-medium), and 48.1 plants m−2 (D3-high). The intercrop components were planted in a split-plot treatment arrangement as an additive series with three replications and laid out in a randomized complete block design under the in-field rainwater harvesting (IRWH) technique. The growing season conditions revealed significant differences in rainfall distribution. Therefore, the planting period had highly significant (p < 0.001) effects on sunn hemp biomass, with an LSD value of 610.2 kg ha−1, showing that the highest was obtained in P2 (2636.7 kg ha−1) compared to P3 (811.3 kg ha−1). However, the P3 treatment resulted in maize grain yield penalty, with yields as follows: P3 (2775.2 kg ha−1), sole maize (3263.8 kg ha−1), P2 (3281.9 kg ha−1), and P1 (3287.8 kg ha−1). P2 yielded a significantly (p < 0.05) high-income equivalent ratio of 2.09, indicating a 109% advantage for increasing farmers' income by integrating sunn hemp under the no-till area of IRWH. P1 and P2 sunn hemp planting periods are viable options for smallholder farmers in summer rainfall regions to improve economic benefits.

show abstract

Economic Impacts of Cover Crops for a Missouri Wheat–Corn–Soybean Rotation

Cited by 15 publications

References 20 publications

Cover crop diversity for weed suppression and crop yield in a corn–soybean production system in Tennessee

Cover crop diversity for weed suppression and crop yield in a corn–soybean production system in Tennessee

Yield and economic performance of crop rotation systems in South Dakota

Effects of intercropping sunn hemp into maize at different times and densities on productivity under rainwater harvesting technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About