The legacy of cover crops on the soil habitat and ecosystem services in a heavy clay, minimum tillage rotation

Felicity V. Crotty; Chris Stoate

doi:10.1002/fes3.169

A framework for evaluating ecosystem services provided by cover crops in agroecosystems

Agricultural Systems ◽

10.1016/j.agsy.2013.11.004 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 125 ◽

pp. 12-22 ◽

Cited By ~ 198

Author(s):

Meagan E. Schipanski ◽

Mary Barbercheck ◽

Margaret R. Douglas ◽

Denise M. Finney ◽

Kristin Haider ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Cover Crops

Agricultural Beneficial Management Practices: A Synthesis of Co-benefits, Tradeoffs, and Co-costs between Crop Yield and Non-provisioning Ecosystem Services

10.32942/osf.io/ycwek ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Andrew Nicholas Kadykalo ◽

Kris Johnson ◽

Scott McFatridge ◽

C. Scott Findlay

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Crop Yield ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Management Practices ◽

Crop Yields ◽

Crop Rotations ◽

Agricultural Crop ◽

Beneficial Management Practices ◽

Provisioning Ecosystem Services ◽

The Impact

Although agricultural “best (or beneficial) management practices” (BMPs) first emerged to mitigate agro-environmental resource challenges, they may also enhance ‘non-provisioning’ ecosystem services. The enthusiasm for adopting BMPs partially depends on evidence that doing so will lead to agro-environmental benefits while not substantially reducing crop productivity or farmer income. We survey and synthesize evidence in the existing literature to document the joint effects on agricultural crop yield and 12 ecosystem service (ES) associated with implementation of 5 agricultural BMPs (crop rotations, cover crops, nutrient management, perennial vegetated buffers, reduced or no tillage). We also analyze the prevalence of co-benefits (‘win-win’), tradeoffs, and co-costs (‘lose-lose’) outcomes. On the basis of a set of contextual variables we then develop empirical models that predict the likelihood of co-benefits relative to tradeoffs, and co-costs. We found thirty-six studies investigating 141 combinations of crop yields and non-provisioning ES outcomes (YESs) in the relevant literatures covering the period 1983-2016. The scope of the review is global, but included studies are geographically concentrated in the U.S. Corn Belt (Midwestern United States). In the literature sample, reporting of co-benefits (26%) was much more prevalent than reporting of co-costs (4%) between yields and ES. Tradeoffs most often resulted in a reduction in crop yields and an increase in ES (28%); this was marginally greater than studies reporting a neutral influence on crop yields and an increase in ES (26%). Other Y/ES combinations were uncommon. Mixed-effects models indicated reduced tillage and crop rotations had generally positive associations with YESs. Temporal scale was an informative predictor suggesting studies with longer time scales resulted in greater positive outcomes on YESs, on average. Our results are a step towards identifying those contexts where co-benefits or partial improvement outcomes of BMPs are more likely to be realized, as well as the impact of particular practices on specific ES.

Weed Suppression in Cover Crop Monocultures and Mixtures

Weed Science ◽

10.1017/wsc.2017.59 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 66 (1) ◽

pp. 121-133 ◽

Cited By ~ 36

Author(s):

Barbara Baraibar ◽

Mitchell C. Hunter ◽

Meagan E. Schipanski ◽

Abbe Hamilton ◽

David A. Mortensen

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Cover Crop ◽

Biomass Accumulation ◽

Weed Suppression ◽

Species Selection ◽

Grass Species ◽

Weed Seed ◽

Crop Species ◽

Cereal Rye

Interest in planting mixtures of cover crop species has grown in recent years as farmers seek to increase the breadth of ecosystem services cover crops provide. As part of a multidisciplinary project, we quantified the degree to which monocultures and mixtures of cover crops suppress weeds during the fall-to-spring cover crop growing period. Weed-suppressive cover crop stands can limit weed seed rain from summer- and winter-annual species, reducing weed population growth and ultimately weed pressure in future cash crop stands. We established monocultures and mixtures of two legumes (medium red clover and Austrian winter pea), two grasses (cereal rye and oats), and two brassicas (forage radish and canola) in a long fall growing window following winter wheat harvest and in a shorter window following silage corn harvest. In fall of the long window, grass cover crops and mixtures were the most weed suppressive, whereas legume cover crops were the least weed suppressive. All mixtures also effectively suppressed weeds. This was likely primarily due to the presence of fast-growing grass species, which were effective even when they were seeded at only 20% of their monoculture rate. In spring, weed biomass was low in all treatments due to winter kill of summer-annual weeds and low germination of winter annuals. In the short window following silage corn, biomass accumulation by cover crops and weeds in the fall was more than an order of magnitude lower than in the longer window. However, there was substantial weed seed production in the spring in all treatments not containing cereal rye (monoculture or mixture). Our results suggest that cover crop mixtures require only low seeding rates of aggressive grass species to provide weed suppression. This creates an opportunity for other species to deliver additional ecosystem services, though careful species selection may be required to maintain mixture diversity and avoid dominance of winter-hardy cover crop grasses in the spring.

Including cover crops during fallow periods for increasing ecosystem services: Is it possible in croplands of Southern South America?

Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment ◽

10.1016/j.agee.2017.07.028 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 248 ◽

pp. 48-57 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Priscila Pinto ◽

María E. Fernández Long ◽

Gervasio Piñeiro

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

South America ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Southern South America

Weeds in Cover Crops: Context and Management Considerations

Agriculture ◽

10.3390/agriculture11030193 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 193

Author(s):

Barbara Baraibar ◽

Charles M. White ◽

Mitchell C. Hunter ◽

Denise M. Finney ◽

Mary E. Barbercheck ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Case Studies ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Ecosystem Service ◽

Cover Crop ◽

Soil Health ◽

Ground Cover ◽

The United States ◽

Service Provisioning ◽

Herbicide Resistant

Cover crops are increasingly being adopted to provide multiple ecosystem services such as improving soil health, managing nutrients, and decreasing soil erosion. It is not uncommon for weeds to emerge in and become a part of a cover crop plant community. Since the role of cover cropping is to supplement ecosystem service provisioning, we were interested in assessing the impacts of weeds on such provisioning. To our knowledge, no research has examined how weeds in cover crops may impact the provision of ecosystem services and disservices. Here, we review services and disservices associated with weeds in annual agroecosystems and present two case studies from the United States to illustrate how weeds growing in fall-planted cover crops can provide ground cover, decrease potential soil losses, and effectively manage nitrogen. We argue that in certain circumstances, weeds in cover crops can enhance ecosystem service provisioning. In other circumstances, such as in the case of herbicide-resistant weeds, cover crops should be managed to limit weed biomass and fecundity. Based on our case studies and review of the current literature, we conclude that the extent to which weeds should be allowed to grow in a cover crop is largely context-dependent.

Quantifying the Landscape’s Ecological Benefits—An Analysis of the Effect of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services

Land ◽

10.3390/land10010021 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 21

Author(s):

J. Carl Ureta ◽

Lucas Clay ◽

Marzieh Motallebi ◽

Joan Ureta

Keyword(s):

South Carolina ◽

Ecosystem Services ◽

Land Cover ◽

Land Cover Change ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Soil Nutrient ◽

Yield Potential ◽

Water Yield ◽

Sediment Retention ◽

Retention Capacity

The increasing pressure from land cover change exacerbates the negative effect on ecosystems and ecosystem services (ES). One approach to inform holistic and sustainable management is to quantify the ES provided by the landscape. Using the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model, this study quantified the sediment retention capacity and water yield potential of different land cover in the Santee River Basin Network in South Carolina, USA. Results showed that vegetated areas provided the highest sediment retention capacity and lowest water yield potential. Also, the simulations demonstrated that keeping the offseason crop areas vegetated by planting cover crops improves the monthly ES provision of the landscape. Retaining the soil within the land area prevents possible contamination and siltation of rivers and streams. On the other hand, low water yield potential translates to low occurrence of surface runoff, which indicates better soil erosion control, regulated soil nutrient absorption and gradual infiltration. The results of this study can be used for landscape sustainability management to assess the possible tradeoffs between ecological conservation and economic development. Furthermore, the generated map of ES can be used to pinpoint the areas where ES are best provided within the landscape.

Measuring the Supply of Ecosystem Services from Alternative Soil and Nutrient Management Practices: A Transdisciplinary, Field-Scale Approach

Sustainability ◽

10.3390/su131810303 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (18) ◽

pp. 10303

Author(s):

Alissa White ◽

Joshua W. Faulkner ◽

David Conner ◽

Lindsay Barbieri ◽

E. Carol Adair ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Ecosystem Services ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Management Practices ◽

Nutrient Management ◽

Soil Surface ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Silage Production ◽

The Impact

Farmers and policy makers pursue management practices that enhance water quality, increase landscape flood resiliency, and mitigate agriculture’s contribution to climate change, all while remaining economically viable. This study presents a holistic assessment of how two practices influence the supply of these ecosystem services—the use of an aerator prior to manure application in haylands, and the stacked use of manure injection, cover crops, and reduced tillage in corn silage production. Field data are contextualized by semi-structured interviews that identify influences on adoption. Causal loop diagrams then illustrate feedbacks from ecosystem services onto decision making. In our study, unseen nutrient pathways are the least understood, but potentially the most important in determining the impact of a practice on ecosystem services supply. Subsurface runoff accounted for 64% to 92% of measured hydrologic phosphorus export. Average soil surface greenhouse gas flux constituted 38% to 73% of all contributions to the equivalent CO2 footprint of practices, sometimes outweighing carbon sequestration. Farmers identified interest in better understanding unseen nutrient pathways, expressed intrinsic stewardship motivations, but highlighted financial considerations as dominating decision making. Our analysis elevates the importance of financial supports for conservation, and the need for comprehensive understandings of agroecosystem performance that include hard-to-measure pathways.

Enhancing ecosystem services in vineyards: using cover crops to decrease botrytis bunch rot severity

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability ◽

10.1080/14735903.2007.9684830 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 5 (4) ◽

pp. 305-314 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Marco A. Jacometti ◽

Stephen D. Wratten ◽

Monika Walter

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Bunch Rot

Promoting enhanced ecosystem services from cover crops using intra- and interspecific diversity

Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment ◽

10.1016/j.agee.2021.107586 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 323 ◽

pp. 107586

Author(s):

Emily R. Reiss ◽

Laurie E. Drinkwater

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Interspecific Diversity

SOIL PROPERTIES AND AGRONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF WATERMELON GROWN IN DIFFERENT TILLAGE AND COVER CROPS IN THE SOUTH EASTERN OF BRAZIL

Experimental Agriculture ◽

10.1017/s0014479714000313 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 51 (2) ◽

pp. 299-312

Author(s):

ROBERTO BOTELHO FERRAZ BRANCO ◽

RODRIGO HIYOSHI DALMAZZO NOWAKI ◽

FERNANDO ANDRÉ SALLES ◽

DENIZART BOLONHEZI ◽

RONAN GUALBERTO

Keyword(s):

Cover Crops ◽

Soil Cover ◽

Dry Mass ◽

Conventional Tillage ◽

Agronomic Performance ◽

No Tillage ◽

Nutrient Accumulation ◽

Minimum Tillage ◽

White Lupine ◽

Tillage Methods

SUMMARYMuch of the watermelon (Citullus lanatus) cultivation in Brazil is conducted in sandy soil and topographic conditions that favour the erosion process. Therefore, conservation tillage methods are critical for the sustainability of the production chain of this vegetable crop. We studied different tillage methods and cover crops in watermelon cultivation in the area of the reform of degraded pasture. For this purpose, two tillage methods were established as experimental treatments: minimum tillage preparation with subsoiling only, and no tillage. As cover crops white lupine (Lupinus albus) and bristle oat (Avena strigosa) were seeded. As control, watermelon was cultivated with conventional tillage, without prior cultivation of cover crops. For the experimental design, randomised blocks in a factorial arrangement with four replications were used. After liming and phosphate fertilisation of the soil, cover crops were cultivated in soil with minimum tillage and no tillage to produce straw to be used for soil cover, where subsequently the watermelon was grown. The productivity of dry mass and nutrient accumulation in the shoot of cover crops, the soil properties and the watermelon agronomic performance were evaluated. White lupine had better performance in the production of dry mass and nutrient accumulation in shoot than bristle oat. There were differences among treatments for soil penetration resistance, where in conventional tillage the values were lower in the first 30 cm of depth in relation to no-tillage cultivation. The tillage method also affected the fertility of the soil at a depth of 0 to 20 cm. The no tillage provided increased nitrogen leaf content in watermelon regardless of cover crops but restricted root growth in relation to minimum tillage and conventional tillage. Watermelon had similar commercial production by different treatments, with reduction only in no tillage on bristle oat straw.