How much is policy driving the adoption of cover crops? Evidence from four EU regions

Kathage, Jonas; Smit, Bert; Janssens, Bas; Haagsma, Wiepie; Adrados, Jose Luis

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106016

Cited by 29 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among those many options, some measures are common in annual and perennial agriculture across Europe. For example, maintaining a (winter) cover crop is widely applied [13][14][15]. No-tillage or minimum tillage has been estimated to be applied on 25% of the agricultural land in the EU [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Soil Improving Cropping Systems (SICS) on Soil Erosion and Soil Organic Carbon Stocks across Europe: A Simulation Study

Nunes

Delden

Vanhout

et al. 2022

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Healthy soils are fundamental for sustainable agriculture. Soil Improving Cropping Systems (SICS) aim to make land use and food production more sustainable. To evaluate the effect of SICS at EU scale, a modelling approach was taken. This study simulated the effects of SICS on two principal indicators of soil health (Soil Organic Carbon stocks) and land degradation (soil erosion) across Europe using the spatially explicit PESERA model. Four scenarios with varying levels and combinations of cover crops, mulching, soil compaction alleviation and minimum tillage were implemented and simulated until 2050. Results showed that while in the scenario without SICS, erosion slightly increased on average across Europe, it significantly decreased in the scenario with the highest level of SICS applied, especially in the cropping areas in the central European Loess Belt. Regarding SOC stocks, the simulations show a substantial decrease for the scenario without SICS and a slight overall decrease for the medium level scenario and the scenario with a mix of high, medium and no SICS. The scenario with a high level of SICS implementation showed an overall increase in SOC stocks across Europe. Potential future improvements include incorporating dynamic land use, climate change and an optimal spatial allocation of SICS.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Soil Improving Cropping Systems (SICS) on Soil Erosion and Soil Organic Carbon Stocks across Europe: A Simulation Study

Nunes

Delden

Vanhout

et al. 2022

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cover crops are used extensively in organic vegetable production (Mennan et al, 2020), and finding ways to alter crop rotations to include CCs is of increased interest to farmers and policymakers (Kathage et al, 2022). Understanding CC species, their use in vegetable crop rotations, and the benefits and or tradeoffs they provide is essential to the adoption of their use and success in a cover cropping program (Baraibar et al, 2018;Romdhane et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of summer cover crops on cabbage yield, weed suppression, and N mineralization in a low input cropping system

Bilenky¹,

Nair²,

McDaniel³

2022

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summer cover crops (SCCs) provide valuable agroecosystem services to growers using spring and autumn vegetable crop rotations. Choosing the right SCCs to maximize agroecosystem services and fit growers' interests is challenging due to the wide array of SCC functions and one benefit may come at the cost of another (i.e., a tradeoff). In particular, fast-growing grasses may produce greater SCC biomass but may immobilize plant-available N needed by the autumn vegetable crop. We conducted a field study in Ames, Iowa US to compare agroecosystem services – weed suppression, autumn cabbage yield, soil nutrients, and net nitrogen (N) mineralization of eight SCC species over 2 years. Cover crop species were grown for an average of 55 days and included: brown top millet (Panicum ramosum L., BTM), buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench, “Mancan”, BW), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L). Walp., “Iron and Clay”, CP), flax (Linum usitassimum L. “Golden”, GF), mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek, MB), sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea L., SH), sorghum sudangrass (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench x Sorghum sudanense Piper Staph. “Sorgrow BMR Dwarf”, SS), and Teff grass (Eragrostis tef (Zuccagni) “Selam”, TEF), and a no-SCC control (NCC) treatment. The range of mean cover crop biomass was 0.8 (cowpea) to 7.5 (teff grass) Mg ha−1. There was a strong, negative correlation between SCC biomass and weed biomass (R2 = 0.83). Low biomass producing legumes resulted in greater weed biomass, but 34–58% greater cabbage yield in one of two experimental years. Ion exchange membranes (IEMs) were not able to capture differences in total net N mineralization among SCC treatments however, soil inorganic N was greater under legume SCCs at SCC termination. We show there are tradeoffs when choosing SCCs between weed suppression and net N mineralization and that the environmental conditions, i.e., climate, regulate whether these tradeoffs favor greater vegetable crop yields.

show abstract

“…Subsidy policies provide incentives for farmers to shift to planting segments that require new technologies more 39,40 , while institutional constraints discourage farmer adoption behaviour 15 . The government also motivates farmers through agricultural technology training [41][42] , advocacy and guidance, and monitoring and control 43 . In addition, agriculture is naturally vulnerable to multiple risks from natural disasters and market changes 44 , and it is important for farmers to take into account the possible risk factors when adopting a new technology so that they can allocate their available capital endowment e ciently.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study on the Influence Mechanism of Adoption of Smart Agriculture Technology Behavior

Liu

Chen

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smart agricultural (SA) technology has become an inevitable trend in the modernisation of China's agriculture and a realistic demand for the transformation and upgrading of traditional agriculture. Based on microscopic research data, a structural equation model (SEM) is constructed using deconstructive planning behaviour theory (DPBT) as the analytical framework to empirically analyse the factors and degrees of influence on cotton farmers' adoption of SA technologies. In-depth interviews were then combined to further reveal the mechanisms influencing cotton farmers' adoption of SA technology. The results show that: (1) the risk of the technology itself has a dampening effect on willingness, but cotton farmers value the positive role played by perceived usefulness more. (2) superior influences such as trial field demonstrations and government publicity have a greater impact on willingness to adopt SA technologies than the group effect of peer influence. (3) factors such as self-efficacy and information channels have an impact on willingness and behaviour to adopt. (4) Willingness influences technology adoption behaviour through mediating effects. (5) Policy and technology satisfaction have a positive moderating role in the occurrence of willingness and adoption behaviour.

show abstract

How much is policy driving the adoption of cover crops? Evidence from four EU regions

Cited by 29 publications

References 32 publications

The Effects of Soil Improving Cropping Systems (SICS) on Soil Erosion and Soil Organic Carbon Stocks across Europe: A Simulation Study

The Effects of Soil Improving Cropping Systems (SICS) on Soil Erosion and Soil Organic Carbon Stocks across Europe: A Simulation Study

Effect of summer cover crops on cabbage yield, weed suppression, and N mineralization in a low input cropping system

Study on the Influence Mechanism of Adoption of Smart Agriculture Technology Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About