2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107657
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pea-based cover crop mixtures have greater plant belowground biomass, but lower plant aboveground biomass than a pure stand of pea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
2
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the second year of the experiment, the above and belowground biomass was higher because of increasing temperature and ratio of Sudangrass growth performance. Similar results have been reported by researchers (Ileri et al, 2021;Lavergne et al, 2021;Li et al, 2021). The sole stand of common vetch had lesser aboveground biomass about 1000 kg ha -1 compared to row seeding configurations, and the highest aboveground biomass was observed in the same row seeding.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In the second year of the experiment, the above and belowground biomass was higher because of increasing temperature and ratio of Sudangrass growth performance. Similar results have been reported by researchers (Ileri et al, 2021;Lavergne et al, 2021;Li et al, 2021). The sole stand of common vetch had lesser aboveground biomass about 1000 kg ha -1 compared to row seeding configurations, and the highest aboveground biomass was observed in the same row seeding.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Intercropping resulted in a lower plant height in common vetch in comparison to the in sole grown, mainly due to the competition with Sudangrass. Similar results have been reported by Lavergne et al (2021), Li et al (2021). Common vetch was dominant within all mixtures and row seeding configuration and might have acted as different variations for each mixture.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Despite CC root biomass production being a key input for soil ecosystem service delivery (e.g., soil stabilization, soil-erosion control, soil C accumulation, soil health improvement, and others), most CC studies do not consider, or do not measure, root biomass yield when assessing CC benefits (Blanco-Canqui et al, 2020;Ruis et al, 2020). According to the available studies on CC root biomass, the extensive review by Blanco-Canqui et al (2020), which includes brassicas, grasses, legumes, and other CC groups, reports CC root biomass yields ranging from 0.27 to 5.02 Mg ha − 1 in the top 30 cm of soil; and, in a later study, Lavergne et al (2021) in a field experiment pea-based mixtures of up to 12 CC species (grass, legumes, brassicas an others), conducted at three site-years in Quebec (Canada) after harvesting spring barley or spelt, measured mean belowground biomass among all site-years ranging from 0.69 Mg ha − 1 (1CC or pure pea stand) to 0.92 Mg ha − 1 (12 CC mixture) in the 0-30 cm soil depth; while Jackson et al (1996), in a review synthesizing data on root biomass in major terrestrial biomes, calculated a global average of total root biomass of 1.5 Mg ha − 1 in croplands and 14 Mg ha − 1 in temperate grasslands. Our study helps to provide additional data on this matter in semiarid conditions.…”
Section: Fine Root Biomassmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, beneficial trait combinations in such crop species mixtures can be different from the monoculture system and dependent on the companion species (Nelson & Robichaux, 1997;Lavergne et al, 2021). Rather than directly going to the field to select suitable combinations, FSP modeling can be a useful tool to first explore the potential traits that may be beneficial in the system and thus propose species or genotypes that may likely provide mutual advantages when combined.…”
Section: Exploring Mechanisms From Monoculture To Mixturesmentioning
confidence: 99%