White clover living mulch enhances soil health vs. annual cover crops

Hill, Nicholas S.; Levi, Matthew R.; Basinger, Nicholas T.; Thompson, Aaron; Cabrera, M. L.; Wallace, Jason; Saikawa, Eri; Avramov, Alexander; Mullican, Jill

doi:10.1002/agj2.20768

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because the weeds take up most of the space in CCCR treatments, the overall production was greater than WC. These results reveal that annual winter species, such as crimson clover and cereal rye are suited as cover crops (Andrews et al, 2020;Hill et al, 2021;Sanders et al, 2018;Xu et al, 2021) and not as an annual LM as we attempted in our study.…”

Section: Mulch Massmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Although in optimal conditions the WC can supplement the N required for corn growth, its decreased persistence in the third year did not confer any production advantages to the WC when compared to CCCR or control. It is important to note, however, that WC LM systems can improve soil health metrics that may support longer term productivity and reduce the need for inputs of herbicides and fertilizers (Hill et al., 2021). Yet, the 2‐year study was not sufficiently long enough to test the long‐term productivity and soil health in this case.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The living mulch (LM) is a system in which the forage species are established before or simultaneously with the row crop and maintained as a living cover throughout the growing season (Hartwig & Ammon, 2002). LM can improve soil structure by reducing soil erosion (Siller et al., 2016) while limiting weed competition between corn rows (Deguchi et al., 2017; Hill et al., 2021; Ilnicki & Enache, 1992; Sanders et al., 2018). Additionally, legume species used as an LM can provide N to the corn (Andrews et al., 2018; Brophy & Heichel, 1989; Ebelhar et al., 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diversifying corn production systems with living mulches in the southeastern United States

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Living mulch (LM) production systems are gaining traction as an alternative to the use of annual cover crops in the southeastern United States, warranting research on the viability and functionality of this system. Our objective was to evaluate the benefits of LM in corn silage and grain production and to evaluate the potential of LM grazing during the corn (Zea Mays L.) growing season. The experiment was conducted in Spring Hill, TN in 2020 and 2021 and consisted of two mulch species, white clover (WC) (Trifolium repens L.) and a mixture of crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) and cereal rye (CCCR) (Secale cereale L.). Cull cows were used for the grazing periods (4 weeks before planting and after the harvest of corn). The study evaluated the botanical composition, mulch mass, nutritive value, corn silage and grain production, and cow average daily weight gain (ADG). The WC treatment had a greater weed control than CCCR. In 2020, when differences in mulch mass were observed, CCCR had greater mass than WC mass due to the weed presence.Meanwhile, in 2021, the mulch mass did not differ between WC and CCCR, with both treatments showing less mass in spring and early summer. Grain production was 30% less than silage in 2020 and 90% less in 2021. The ADG was only observed for WC (0.5 kg −1 ) paddocks. It was concluded that WC as LM has greater corn production than CCCR treatments. The LM for grazing is a beneficial strategy if feeding costs are greater than $2.22 head day −1 .

show abstract

Section: Mulch Massmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diversifying corn production systems with living mulches in the southeastern United States

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the measurements of the average maize yields in 2018, Hill et al (2021) reported that similar yields were found for CC (14.73 Mg ha −1 ) and CR (16.06 Mg ha −1 ), while statistically significantly lower yields under LM (12.78 Mg ha −1 ). Achieving both soil health and increased yields remains a challenge.…”

Section: Ghg Fluxes In 2018mentioning

confidence: 60%

Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Fluxes Under Different Cover Crop Systems

Wang¹,

Saikawa²,

Avramov³

et al. 2022

Front. Clim.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultivated lands that support high productivity have the potential to produce a large amount of GHG emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4). Intensive land management practices can stimulate CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions from the soil. Cover crop establishment is considered as one of the sustainable land management strategies under warm and humid environmental conditions. To better understand how the incorporation of cover crops affect three major GHGs, we compared trace gas fluxes in a no-till maize field over the whole growing season in 2018 in a no cover crop (Tr) system and three cover crop systems: crimson clover (CC), cereal rye (CR), and living mulch (LM) using white clover. In 2019, we further explored potential differences in the three GHGs between in-row (IR) and between-row (BWR) of maize for LM and Tr systems during the early growing season. Measurements were taken using a cavity ring-down spectroscopy gas analyzer in Watkinsville, GA. In 2018, the highest CO2 flux (7.00 μmol m−2 s−1) was observed from BWR of maize for LM. The maximum N2O flux observed in LM on June 20th in 2018 was when soil N increase rate was the largest. Soils served as sinks for CH4 and Tr system served as the smallest CH4 sink compared to the other three cover crop systems. For N2O, the highest fluxes were observed from the TrIR plot (4.13 μmol m−2 hr−1) in 2019 with the greatest N inputs. In 2019, we observed a smaller CH4 sink in TrIR (−0.13 μmol m−2 hr−1) compared to TrBWR (−0.67 μmol m−2 hr−1) due potentially to greater NH4+ inhibition effects on CH4 consumption from greater N fertilizer inputs. The net carbon equivalent (CE) from May 23rd to Aug 16th in 2018, taking into account the three GHG fluxes, soil carbon content, and fertilizer, irrigation, and herbicide application, were 32–97, 35–101, 63–139, and 40–106 kg ha−1 yr−1 for CC, CR, LM, and Tr, respectively. LM had the lowest net CE after removing white clover respiration (−16–60 kg ha−1 yr−1). Our results show that implementing different types of cover crop systems and especially the LM system have some potential to mitigate climate change.

show abstract

“…For example, specific cover crops have been used to enhance soil biota to increase the yield of the subsequent crop (132). Living mulch has often been studied in the context of vegetable crop production, where it has been shown to provide multiple benefits (133)(134)(135). In the phytotechnology toolbox, both cover crops and intercropping/ living mulch can improve the diversity and the perenniality of agroecosystems.…”

Section: Cover Crops and Intercroppingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoring Soil Functions and Agroecosystem Services Through Phytotechnologies

Dessureault‐Rompré

2022

Front. Soil Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phytotechnology has traditionally been considered as a tool to remediate contaminated soils. While phytotechnology has been generally defined as the application of science and engineering to study problems and provide solutions involving plants, the practical applications go far beyond restoring contaminated land. This review aims to broaden the way we think about phytotechnologies while highlighting how these living technologies can restore, conserve and regenerate the multiple functions and ecosystem services provided by the soil, particularly in the context of agroecosystems. At first, the main problems of soil degradation in agroecosystems are shortly underlined. Subsequently, the importance of plants and their living roots as engines of restoration are reviewed. This paper demonstrates the importance of root traits and functions for soil restoration. It also demonstrates that plant and root diversity together with perenniality are key component of an efficient soil restoration process. Then, a phytotechnology toolbox which includes three pillars for agroecosystems restoration is presented. The three pillars are agricultural practices and land management (1), rhizosphere engineering (2) and ecological intensification (3). This paper also highlights the importance of developing targeted phytotechnology-based restoration strategies developed from root functions and knowledge of rhizosphere processes. More work is needed to evaluate the potential benefits of incorporating phytotechnology-based restoration strategies in the context of grain or vegetable crop productions as most of the studies for agroecosystem restoration strategies were intended to mimic natural prairies.

show abstract

White clover living mulch enhances soil health vs. annual cover crops

Cited by 9 publications

References 61 publications

Diversifying corn production systems with living mulches in the southeastern United States

Diversifying corn production systems with living mulches in the southeastern United States

Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Fluxes Under Different Cover Crop Systems

Restoring Soil Functions and Agroecosystem Services Through Phytotechnologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About