The water conundrum of planting cover crops in the Great Plains: When is an inch not an inch?

Robinson, Clay; Nielsen, D. G.

doi:10.2134/cs2015-48-1-7

Cited by 29 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For all three crops, water use efficiencies were greater in the Northern Great Plains (lesser pan evaporation) than in the Central Great Plains (greater pan evaporation). Likewise Robinson and Nielsen (2015) showed increasing intercepts and decreasing slopes of water use/yield production functions (indicating decreasing water use efficiency) of wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) and corn ( Zea mays L.) as location changed from Northern to Southern Great Plains with concomitant increasing pan evaporation (relationships from Brown, 1971; Nielsen et al, 2011; C. Robinson, personal communication, 15 Dec. 2014). Therefore, transferring cover crop production results from the nNorthern Great Plains to the higher evaporative demand environment of the Central and Southern Great Plains should be done with some caution.…”

Section: Water Use Efficiency (Kg Ha−1 Mm−1) Of Seed Production For Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, they reported 518 g of water to produce a gram of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) in Williston, ND, and 1005 g of water to produce a gram of alfalfa in Dalhart, TX. This difference is due to the evaporative demand differences that exist across the region as quantified by the strong north to south gradient of pan evaporation across the Great Plains (Tanner and Sinclair, 1983; Robinson and Nielsen, 2015; Farnsworth et al, 1982; Stewart and Peterson, 2014; Sinclair and Weiss, 2010). Tanner and Sinclair (1983) indicated that dry matter production was inversely related to pan evaporation.…”

Section: Water Use Efficiency (Kg Ha−1 Mm−1) Of Seed Production For Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cover Crop Biomass Production and Water Use in the Central Great Plains

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The water‐limited environment of the semiarid Central Great Plains may not produce enough cover crop biomass to generate benefits associated with cover crop use in more humid regions. There have been reports that cover crops grown in mixtures produce more biomass with greater water use efficiency than single‐species plantings. This study was conducted to determine differences in cover crop biomass production, water use efficiency, and residue cover between a mixture and single‐species plantings. The study was conducted at Akron, CO, and Sidney, NE, during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons under both rainfed and irrigated conditions. Water use, biomass, and residue cover were measured and water use efficiency was calculated for four single‐species cover crops (flax [Linum usitatissimum L.], oat [Avena sativa L.], pea [Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L. Poir], rapeseed [Brassica napus L.]) and a 10‐species mixture. The mixture did not produce greater biomass nor exhibit greater water use efficiency than the single‐species plantings. The slope of the water‐limited yield relationship was not significantly greater for the mixture than for single‐species plantings. Water‐limited yield relationship slopes were in the order of rapeseed < flax < pea < mixture < oat, which was the expected order based on previously published biomass productivity values generated from values of glucose conversion into carbohydrates, protein, or lipids. Residue cover was not generally greater from the mixture than from single‐species plantings. The greater expense associated with a mixture is not justified unless a certain cover crop forage quality is required for grazing or haying.

show abstract

Section: Water Use Efficiency (Kg Ha−1 Mm−1) Of Seed Production For Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Water Use Efficiency (Kg Ha−1 Mm−1) Of Seed Production For Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cover Crop Biomass Production and Water Use in the Central Great Plains

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These forages, planted between traditional cropping sequences, can remove excess soil moisture in more humid areas, whereas, in semiarid and arid regions, cover crop impacts can range from increased to decreased soil moisture (Nielsen et al, 2015; Reese et al, 2014; Robinson and Nielsen, 2015). Winter cover crops can increase snow catch (CW, 2012; Dobberstein, 2016).…”

Section: Impacts Of Integrated Crop–livestock Systems On Crop Productmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating Crop–Livestock Reintegration in the Northern Great Plains

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated crop–livestock systems (ICLSs) can help increase food production while benefiting soils and the environment. This review summarizes recent impacts of ICLSs on crop and livestock production and rural economics and discusses lessons learned in the northern Great Plains (NGP). Research on ICLS conducted in the NGP indicates that the crop residue grazing, swath grazing, and annual forage grazing can positively influence crop production; whereas, livestock performance varies with season, forage nutritive value, and grazing management. Furthermore, ICLSs can reduce the costs and risks of agricultural production. The success of ICLSs in NGP region depends on trade‐offs, planning, economic benefits, policies, regulations, community acceptance, and management skills. The ICLSs could play a strategic role in future agricultural production. The lessons learned from adopting ICLSs in the NGP include the lack of available land for fertilizer (manure) management, that to implement ICLS practices skills and knowledge must be maintained, and ICLS provides an entry point for young farmers and ranchers however capital is needed. These experiences and lessons could be valuable references for producers to adopt ICLSs in the NGP or other regions. Core Ideas Integrated crop–livestock systems positively affect crop production by improving soil health. Common integrated crop–livestock system management techniques can enhance the northern Great Plains crop production. Integrated crop–livestock system livestock performance is impacted by season, forage selection, and management. Integrated crop–livestock systems can increase economic benefits and reduce economic risks. Experiences and lessons in the northern Great Plains could be valuable for other regions to adopt integrated crop–livestock systems.

show abstract

“…In those cases yield depressions were sometimes associated with emergence and stand establishment problems or N unavailability. In the results from the U.S northern Great Plains states and Canadian Prairie provinces, yields were not as frequently reduced by a prior cover crop and this is likely a result of the lower demand for water seen at those locations (Robinson and Nielsen, 2015)…”

Section: Previous Research On Cover Crop/previous Crop Effects On Yiementioning

confidence: 99%

Cover Crop Effect on Subsequent Wheat Yield in the Central Great Plains

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop production systems in the water‐limited environment of the semiarid central Great Plains may not have potential to profitably use cover crops because of lowered subsequent wheat (Triticum asestivum L.) yields following the cover crop. Mixtures have reportedly shown less yield‐reducing effects on subsequent crops than single‐species plantings. This study was conducted to determine winter wheat yields following both mixtures and single‐species plantings of spring‐planted cover crops. The study was conducted at Akron, CO, and Sidney, NE, during the 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 wheat growing seasons under both rainfed and irrigated conditions. Precipitation storage efficiency before wheat planting, wheat water use, biomass, and yield were measured and water use efficiency and harvest index were calculated for wheat following four single‐species cover crops (flax [Linum usitatissimum L.], oat [Avena sativa L.], pea [Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L. Poir], rapeseed [Brassica napus L.]), a 10‐species mixture, and a fallow treatment with proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) residue. There was an average 10% reduction in wheat yield following a cover crop compared with following fallow, regardless of whether the cover crop was grown in a mixture or in a single‐species planting. Yield reductions were greater under drier conditions. The slope of the wheat water use–yield relationship was not significantly different for wheat following the mixture (11.80 kg ha−1 mm−1) than for wheat following single‐species plantings (12.32–13.57 kg ha−1 mm−1). The greater expense associated with a cover crop mixture compared with a single species is not justified.

show abstract

The water conundrum of planting cover crops in the Great Plains: When is an inch not an inch?

Cited by 29 publications

References 2 publications

Cover Crop Biomass Production and Water Use in the Central Great Plains

Cover Crop Biomass Production and Water Use in the Central Great Plains

Facilitating Crop–Livestock Reintegration in the Northern Great Plains

Cover Crop Effect on Subsequent Wheat Yield in the Central Great Plains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About