Simulating winter rye cover crop production under alternative management in a corn‐soybean rotation

Chatterjee, Nilovna; Archontoulis, Sotirios; Bastidas, A. M.; Proctor, Christopher A.; Elmore, Roger W.; Basche, Andrea

doi:10.1002/agj2.20377

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, optimizing planting and terminating dates are critical in cover crop management but there is a trade‐off between cover crop biomass and maize yield. Our modeling results found that longer cover crop growth period increases SOC benefits but has larger risks of cash crop yield reduction, which is consistent with earlier studies (Alonso‐Ayuso et al, 2018; Balkcom et al, 2015; Chatterjee et al, 2020), suggesting from the SOC perspective, the increase in cover crop biomass due to longer growth period exceeded the reduction in maize residue. However, due to the trade‐offs between SOC benefits from cover crops and cash crop yield, single metric evaluations are not adequate to select proper cover crop type and optimize cover crop planting and terminating dates.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Assessing long‐term impacts of cover crops on soil organic carbon in the central US Midwestern agroecosystems

Qin

Guan

Zhou

et al. 2023

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover crops have been reported as one of the most effective practices to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) for agroecosystems. Impacts of cover crops on SOC change vary depending on soil properties, climate, and management practices, but it remains unclear how these control factors affect SOC benefits from cover crops, as well as which management practices can maximize SOC benefits. To address these questions, we used an advanced process-based agroecosystem model, ecosys, to assess the impacts of winter cover cropping on SOC accumulation under different environmental and management conditions. We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) To what extent do cover crops benefit SOC accumulation, and how do SOC benefits from cover crops vary with different factors (i.e., initial soil properties, cover crop types, climate during the cover crop growth period, and cover crop planting and terminating time)? (2) How can we enhance SOC benefits from cover crops under different cover crop management options? Specifically, we first calibrated and validated the ecosys model at two long-term field experiment sites with SOC measurements in Illinois.We then applied the ecosys model to six cover crop field experiment sites spanning across Illinois to assess the impacts of different factors on SOC accumulation. Our modeling results revealed the following findings: (1) Growing cover crops can bring SOC benefits by 0.33 ± 0.06 MgC ha −1 year −1 in six cover crop field experiment sites across Illinois, and the SOC benefits are species specific to legume and non-legume cover crops. (2) Initial SOC stocks and clay contents had overall small influences on SOC benefits from cover crops. During the cover crop growth period (i.e., winter and spring in the US Midwest), high temperature increased SOC benefits from cover crops, while the impacts from larger precipitation on SOC benefits varied field by field. (3) The SOC benefits from cover crops can be maximized by optimizing cover crop management practices (e.g., selecting cover crop types and controlling cover crop growth period) for the US Midwestern maize-soybean rotation system. Finally, we discussed the economic and policy implications of adopting cover crops in the US Midwest, including that current economic incentives to grow cover crops may not be sufficient to cover costs. This study systematically assessed cover crop impacts for SOC change in the US Midwest context, while also demonstrating that the ecosys | 2573 QIN et al.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Assessing long‐term impacts of cover crops on soil organic carbon in the central US Midwestern agroecosystems

Qin

Guan

Zhou

et al. 2023

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cover crop biomass and LAI continue to increase after 100% soil cover is achieved under ideal growth conditions, and the linearity of the relationship may not hold true thereafter. Cover crop biomass production is affected by variability in annual weather and management practices (Chatterjee et al, 2020;Moore & Mirsky, 2020). We agree with Sunoj et al (2021) that more data on cover crop biomass and ground cover along a variety of locations, weather conditions, and cover crop species will advance our understanding of the relation between cover crop soil coverage and biomass of cover crops.…”

Section: Relation Between Biomass and Soil Coverage Of Cover Cropssupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tillage and cover crop mixtures interseeded in maize–soybean in the upper Midwest

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem benefits of winter-killed annual cover crops are less studied than winter hardy annuals. The objectives of this study were to determine (1) the effects of tillage practices and cover crop mixtures on biomass and soil cover of cover crops seeded into nearly mature maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] and (2) if cover crop biomass can be estimated from soil surface coverage measurements. The study was conducted within two long-term tillage trials from 2016 to 2018. Tillage included conventional-(CT), strip-(ST), and no-till-(NT). Cover crops included annual ryegrass (AR; Lolium multiflorum L.); AR and crimson clover (CC; Trifolium incarnatum L.) mixture (ARCC); AR, CC, and forage radish (FR; Raphanus sativus L.) mixture (ARCCFR); and no-cover (NC). Seeding rates for AR, ARCC, and ARCCFR were 28, 36, and 40.5 kg ha −1 , respectively. The ARCCFR mix produced the most biomass (256 kg ha −1 ), followed by AR (174 kg ha −1 ) and ARCC (165 kg ha −1 ). Cover crop biomass was 260 and 136 kg ha −1 in maize and soybean; and 218, 201, and 177 kg ha −1 in CT, ST, and NT, respectively. Cover crop soil coverage between rows was 25% in maize and 14% in soybean. Cover crop biomass was associated with soil surface coverage (R 2 = 0.841). Given that cover crop biomass drives ecosystem services associated with cover crops, limited biomass and ground coverage of winter killed cover crops seeded into nearly mature maize and soybean may not add ecosystem services in the upper Midwest. INTRODUCTIONThe maize (Zea mays L.)-soybean [Glycine max (L.

show abstract

“…Assuming a producer has both the maize and soybean phase of a maizesoybean rotation growing at a given time, there are two scenarios for cover crop integration, each including three decision alternatives with unique benefits and challenges (Table 1). Concomitant benefits and challenges of each decision No added costs or risks due to cover crop Low residue from soybean crop leaves soil vulnerable to erosion (Dickey et al, 1985) Soil nitrogen is likely to be lost from the field in the spring to leaching (Qi et al, 2008) Low residue contributes minimally to non-chemical weed control (Chatterjee et al, 2020;Nichols et al, 2020b) Cover crop may indirectly reduce subsequent maize yields by competing for workable field days and delaying maize planting, which often results in lower maize yields (Baum et al, 2019) Planting maize less than two weeks following cover crop termination may result in reduced yields, but the effect is unpredictable (Johnson et al, 1998;Acharya et al, 2017Acharya et al, , 2020 Cover crop residue reduces soil erosion following soybeans (Kaspar et al, 2001) Cover crop residue may provide weed control following soybeans (Nelson and Bennett, 2018) Cover crop growth can uptake soil nitrate thus mitigating nutrient pollution (Qi et al, 2008;Kaspar et al, 2012;Martinez-Feria et al, 2019) 3 Plant a cover crop, plan to terminate late April Enhances cover crop benefits due to more cover crop growth and biomass…”

Section: Decision Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No added costs or risks due to cover crop Soil nitrogen is likely to be lost from the field in the spring to leaching (Qi et al, 2008) 5 Plant a cover crop, plan to terminate early April Maize can leave large nitrate reserves in the soil at harvest, and cover crop growth can uptake the nitrate thus mitigating nutrient pollution (Qi et al, 2008;Kaspar et al, 2012;Martinez-Feria et al, 2019) Timely fall cover crop planting can be difficult following maize harvest Maize is harvested in late fall, and late-planted cover crops can result in low spring cover crop biomass (Chatterjee et al, 2020;Nichols et al, 2020b), and therefore minimal benefits, if terminated in early April Soybean planting dates are less sensitive to planting dates compared to maize (Kessler et al, 2020) alternative highlights the need to use a quantitative approach to decision optimization, which can be achieved using decision analysis frameworks.…”

Section: Decision Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying research priorities through decision analysis: A case study for cover crops

Nichols

MacKenzie²

2023

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn Midwestern maize (Zea-mays L.)-based systems, planting an over-wintering cover crop such as rye (Secale cereale L.) following fall harvests of summer crops maintains continuous soil cover, offering numerous environmental advantages. However, while adoption of cover crops has increased over the past decade, on a landscape-scale it remains low. Identifying where agronomic research could be most impactful in increasing adoption is therefore a useful exercise. Decision analysis (DA) is a tool for clarifying decision trade-offs, quantifying risk, and identifying optimal decisions. Several fields regularly utilize DA frameworks including the military, industrial engineering, business strategy, and economics, but it is not yet widely applied in agriculture.MethodsHere we apply DA to a maize-soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] rotation using publicly available weather, management, and economic data from central Iowa.ResultsIn this region, planting a cover crop following maize (preceding soybean) poses less risk to the producer compared to planting following soybean, meaning it may be a more palatable entry point for producers. Furthermore, the risk of reduced maize yields when planting less than 14 days following rye termination substantially contributes to the overall risk cover crops pose to producers, but also has significant potential to be addressed through agronomic research.DiscussionIn addition to identifying research priorities, DA provided clarity to a complex problem, was performed using publicly available data, and by incorporating risk it better estimated true costs to the producer compared to using input costs alone. We believe DA is a valuable and underutilized tool in agronomy and could aid in increasing adoption of cover crops in the Midwest.

show abstract

Simulating winter rye cover crop production under alternative management in a corn‐soybean rotation

Cited by 20 publications

References 67 publications

Assessing long‐term impacts of cover crops on soil organic carbon in the central US Midwestern agroecosystems

Assessing long‐term impacts of cover crops on soil organic carbon in the central US Midwestern agroecosystems

Tillage and cover crop mixtures interseeded in maize–soybean in the upper Midwest

Identifying research priorities through decision analysis: A case study for cover crops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About