Impacts of cover crop planting dates on soils after four years

Ruis, Sabrina J.; Blanco‐Canqui, Humberto; Elmore, Roger W.; Proctor, Christopher A.; Koehler‐Cole, Katja; Ferguson, Richard B.; Francis, Charles; Shapiro, Charles A.

doi:10.1002/agj2.20143

Cited by 26 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Changes in soil physical properties in this experiment were described by Ruis et al. (2020). Daily temperature and rainfall data were obtained from the High Plains Regional Climate Center from stations located at Harvard near Clay Center, Concord, and Mead Agrofarm.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Cover crop productivity and subsequent soybean yield in the western Corn Belt

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover crops (CC) in corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] rotations may prevent N loss and provide other ecosystem services but CC productivity in the western Corn Belt is limited by the short growing season. Our objective was to assess CC treatment and planting practice effects on CC biomass, spring soil nitrate concentrations, and soybean yield at two rainfed sites in eastern and one irrigated site in south‐central Nebraska over 4 yr. Cover crop treatments (cereal rye [Secale cereale L.] [RYE] and a mix of rye, legume, and brassica species [MIX]) were planted by broadcast interseeding into corn stands in September (pre‐harvest broadcast) or drilling after corn harvest (post‐harvest drilled) and terminated 2 wk before planting soybean. Cover crop biomass and N uptake varied between years, but generally at the eastern sites, pre‐harvest broadcasting produced more biomass than post‐harvest drilling (1.64 and 0.79 Mg ha−1, respectively) and had greater N uptake (37 and 24 kg ha−1, respectively). At the south‐central site, post‐harvest drilling produced more than pre‐harvest broadcasting (1.44 and 1.20 Mg ha−1, respectively). RYE had more biomass than MIX (1.41 and 1.09 Mg ha−1, respectively), but the same N uptake. Soil nitrate reductions after CC were small. In 3 of 12 site‐years, soybean yielded less after pre‐harvest CC. Yield reductions were not correlated to CC biomass, but were likely due to greater weed pressure. High CC productivity is necessary for high N uptake, and requires site‐specific selection of planting practice and CC treatments.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Cover crop productivity and subsequent soybean yield in the western Corn Belt

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar to late termination, early planting of CCs in the fall through broadcast interseeding or aerial seeding can increase CC growing degree days and increase CC biomass. Across three sites under rainfed, no-till continuous corn and corn-soybean systems in Nebraska, rye broadcastseeded about 30 d before corn or soybean harvest generally produced more biomass compared with CC drilled after grain crop harvest (Ruis et al, 2020).…”

Section: Planting Early and Terminating Latementioning

confidence: 96%

Harvesting cover crops for biofuel and livestock production: Another ecosystem service?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harvesting cover crops (CCs) for livestock and biofuel production can be an important ecosystem service from CCs, but this potential service has not been widely discussed. We reviewed the potential use of CCs for livestock or biofuel production, impacts of CC harvesting on soils and crops, the amount of harvestable CC biomass, and strategies to enhance CC biomass production. We searched literature in Web of Science using terms such as “cover crops,” “harvesting,” “soil properties,” and “crop yield,” among others, and found about 30 papers. The literature indicates that CC harvesting does not generally affect soil properties, crop yields, and weed suppression, although the studies are relatively few. Leaving 7.5‐10 cm of CC stubble after harvest could maintain soil ecosystem services. Cover crops produce 3.37 ± 2.96 Mg ha−1 (mean ± SD) of aboveground biomass and 1.33 ± 0.98 Mg ha−1 of belowground (root) biomass. Root biomass input, representing about 30% of the total CC biomass production, could be critical to the maintenance of soil services after CC harvest. The amount of harvestable biomass while maintaining soil services ranges from 1‐3 Mg ha−1 in semiarid regions and from 1‐6 Mg ha−1 in humid regions for high‐biomass‐producing CCs. Strategies to increase CC biomass production include planting CCs early and terminating late, adapting cropping systems by using earlier‐maturity group varieties, and using flexible cropping systems. Overall, CC harvesting appears feasible, but additional research on CC management and harvesting effects on ecosystem services is needed before harvesting CCs at large scales.

show abstract

“…A synthesis of global literature on the effects of CCs on soil compaction, aggregation, pore‐size distribution, saturated and unsaturated flow, water retention and available water, thermal processes, and others can be valuable to advance our understanding of CC management impacts on soil physical environment. Some individual studies on CCs reported that CC effects on soil physical properties can be variable depending on soil type, CC species, CC biomass production, tillage and cropping system, and climate (Blanco‐Canqui & Jasa;, 2019; Ruis et al., 2020; Sindelar, Blanco‐Canqui, Virginia, & Ferguson, 2019a, 2019b). Also, an increase in soil organic C (SOC) is often considered to improve soil physical properties, but such correlations across CC studies have not been widely discussed to better understand the mechanisms by which CCs can improve soil physical properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cover crop impacts on soil physical properties: A review

Blanco‐Canqui

Ruis

2020

Soil Science Soc of Amer J

Self Cite

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover crop (CC) impacts on soil ecosystem services including erosion control, C sequestration, soil productivity, and others have been reviewed. However, CC impacts on soil physical properties, which affect the soil's ability to perform a variety of soil ecosystem services, have not been synthesized. We reviewed 98 peer-reviewed publications up to 10 June 2020 on CCs and soil physical properties. Our review indicates that, in most studies, CCs reduce soil penetration resistance or compaction by 0-29% (average, 5%). They improve wet aggregate stability by 0-95% (average, 16%) and cumulative infiltration by 0-190% (average, 43%) but have negligible impacts on bulk density, dry aggregate stability, saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sat), unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (K unsat), volumetric water content at −10 to −33 kPa matric potential (field capacity), and plant available water. Soils under CCs can be cooler in daytime and warmer at nighttime, and warmer in winter and cooler in the rest of year. Volumetric heat capacity increases and thermal diffusivity decreases, indicating that CCs could moderate heat transport rate. Soil texture, tillage system, CC-derived soil C concentration, and CC duration affect CC impacts on physical properties. For example, the positive impacts from CCs can increase as CC management duration increases and combining CCs with no-till can improve water infiltration more than with tilled soils. Long-term data on hydraulic properties, thermal properties, dry aggregate stability, and pore-size distribution are scant. In general, CCs improve most soil physical properties, but the magnitude of improvement is highly site-and management specific.

show abstract

Impacts of cover crop planting dates on soils after four years

Cited by 26 publications

References 57 publications

Cover crop productivity and subsequent soybean yield in the western Corn Belt

Cover crop productivity and subsequent soybean yield in the western Corn Belt

Harvesting cover crops for biofuel and livestock production: Another ecosystem service?

Cover crop impacts on soil physical properties: A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About