scholarly journals Cover Cropping: A Malleable Solution for Sustainable Agriculture? Meta-Analysis of Ecosystem Service Frameworks in Perennial Systems

Agronomy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 862
Author(s):  
Cynthia M. Crézé ◽  
William R. Horwath
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Sustainable Agriculture ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Value Systems ◽  
Perennial Crop ◽  
Cover Cropping ◽  
Crop Types

Cover crops have been touted for their capacity to enhance multifunctionality and ecosystem services (ESs). Ecosystem services are benefits which people obtain from ecosystems. Despite nearly a century of cover crop research, there has been low adoption of the practice in perennial systems of many parts of the world. Emphasis on the multi-functional dimension of cover crop outcomes may misrepresent the practice as a panacea for sustainable agriculture and distract from the need to tailor the practice to specific contexts and differing value systems. In this study, we explore how cover crop ecosystem service (ES) frameworks reflect the distinct environmental realities of perennial agriculture. We considered that ES value systems are manifested through the non-randomization of research coverage. Therefore, value systems can be elucidated through evidence-based systematic mapping. Our analysis revealed differential systems of ES valuation specific to perennial crop types. While ES frameworks are heavily contextualized, the design of seed mixes is not. We suggest that cover crop adoption could be enhanced by clearly acknowledging the different conceptualizations of agricultural sustainability addressed by various cover crops. Furthermore, explicitly delineating the competing desires of stakeholders is a crucial step in rationally selecting between various cover crop seed mix options.

scholarly journals Weeds in Cover Crops: Context and Management Considerations

Agriculture ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Mustard Cover Crop Growth and Weed Suppression in Organic, Strawberry Furrows in California

HortScience ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 432-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric B. Brennan ◽  
Richard F. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Sinapis Alba ◽  
Weed Suppression ◽  
Shoot Biomass ◽  
Plastic Mulch ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Crop Cover ◽  
Cover Cropping ◽  
Growing Seasons

Strawberry (Fragaria ×ananassa Duch.) production in California uses plastic mulch–covered beds that provide many benefits such as moisture conservation and weed control. Unfortunately, the mulch can also cause environmental problems by increasing runoff and soil erosion and reducing groundwater recharge. Planting cover crops in bare furrows between the plastic cover beds can help minimize these problems. Furrow cover cropping was evaluated during two growing seasons in organic strawberries in Salinas, CA, using a mustard (Sinapis alba L.) cover crop planted at two seeding rates (1× and 3×). Mustard was planted in November or December after strawberry transplanting and it resulted in average densities per meter of furrow of 54 and 162 mustard plants for the 1× and 3× rates, respectively. The mustard was mowed in February before it shaded the strawberry plants. Increasing the seeding rate increased mustard shoot biomass and height, and reduced the concentration of P in the mustard shoots. Compared with furrows with no cover crop, cover-cropped furrows reduced weed biomass by 29% and 40% in the 1× and 3× seeding rates, respectively, although weeds still accounted for at least 28% of the furrow biomass in the cover-cropped furrows. These results show that growing mustard cover crops in furrows without irrigating the furrows worked well even during years with relatively minimal precipitation. We conclude that 1) mustard densities of ≈150 plants/m furrow will likely provide the most benefits due to greater biomass production, N scavenging, and weed suppression; 2) mowing was an effective way to kill the mustard; and 3) high seeding rates of mustard alone are insufficient to provide adequate weed suppression in strawberry furrows.

Cover cropping in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Manto Negro vineyards under Mediterranean conditions: effects on plant vigour, yield and grape quality

OENO One ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alícia Pou ◽  
Javier Gulías ◽  
Maria Moreno ◽  
Magdalena Tomàs ◽  
Hipolito Medrano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stomatal Conductance ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Yield Reduction ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Plant Vigour ◽  
Cover Cropping ◽  
Permanent Resident ◽  
Grape Quality ◽  
Intrinsic Water Use Efficiency

<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Aims</strong>: In temperate climates, cover crops are mainly used to reduce excess soil water and nutrient availability to grapevines, which otherwise could decrease grape quality. In Mediterranean climates, where water is a limiting factor, the use of cover crops is not as straightforward. However, in this scenario, summer senescent and self-seeding herbaceous cover crops could also help to decrease soil erosion as well as to reduce excessive early vegetative vigour, which could restrict grape water availability at later phenological stages. The aim of this experiment was to study the effects of particular cover crops in Mediterranean vineyards on grapevine vegetative growth, gas exchange, yield and grape quality.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Methods and results</strong>: The experiment was carried out over three consecutive years in an organic vineyard (cv. Manto Negro) in central Majorca, Spain. Three treatments (three cover cropping rows per treatment) were established: perennial grass and legume mixture (PM), no tillage, i.e., with permanent resident vegetation (NT), and traditional tillage or ploughed soil (TT). The grapevines were rain fed until veraison, and then drip irrigation was applied (30% potential evapotranspiration; ETP) until harvest. Plant water status was established according to a defined value of maximum daily leaf stomatal conductance (g<sub>s</sub>). Cover crops reduced total leaf area (LA), g<sub>s</sub> and grapevine vigour at early growth stages. g<sub>s</sub> and net photosynthesis (A<sub>N</sub>) were higher in cover crop treatments during the veraison and ripening stages, likely because of the reductions in LA. Intrinsic water use efficiency increased from flowering to veraison-maturity in all treatments. Yield was lower in the cover crop treatments (PM and NT) compared to TT for all years, but these differences were only significant in 2007. However, grape quality parameters slightly improved in the PM treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Conclusion</strong>: The use of cover crops decreased LA, helping to avoid dramatic reductions of stomatal conductance in mid-summer, but decreased yield and only slightly increased grape quality.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Significance and impact of the study</strong>: This study showed that the use of specific cover crops in vineyards under Mediterranean climates helps to reduce vegetative vigour. Nevertheless, yield reduction and slight quality improvement suggest that cover crops should be adjusted in order to reduce competition for water and thus prevent these negative effects of water scarcity.</p>

A survey of cover crop practices and perceptions of sustainable farmers in North Carolina and the surrounding region

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 550-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. O'Connell ◽  
J.M. Grossman ◽  
G.D. Hoyt ◽  
W. Shi ◽  
S. Bowen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Warm Season ◽  
Organic Production ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Cover Cropping ◽  
Survey Population ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Production Areas

AbstractThe environmental benefits of cover cropping are widely recognized but there is a general consensus that adoption levels are still quite low among US farmers. A survey was developed and distributed to more than 200 farmers engaged in two sustainable farming organizations in NC and the surrounding region to determine their level of utilization, current practices and perceptions related to cover cropping. The majority of farms surveyed had diverse crop production, production areas <8 ha, and total gross farm incomes <US$50,000. Approximately one-third of the survey population had an organic production component. Eighty-nine percent of participants had a crop rotation plan and 79% of the total survey population utilized cover cropping. More than 25 different cool- and warm-season cover crops were reported. The statements that generated the strongest agreement about cover crop benefits were that cover crops: increase soil organic matter, decrease soil erosion, increase soil moisture, contribute nitrogen to subsequent cash crops, suppress weeds, provide beneficial insect habitat and break hard pans with their roots. Economic costs associated with cover cropping were not viewed as an obstacle to implementation. A factor analysis was conducted to identify underlying themes from a series of positive and negative statements about cover crops. Pre- and post-management challenges were able to explain the most variability (30%) among participant responses. Overall, participants indicated that the incorporation of residues was their greatest challenge and that a lack of equipment, especially for no-till systems, influenced their decisions about cover cropping. Farmers did not always appear to implement practices that would maximize potential benefits from cover crops.

scholarly journals Alternative performance targets for integrating cover crops as a proactive herbicide-resistance management tool

Weed Science ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (5) ◽  
pp. 534-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jess M. Bunchek ◽  
John M. Wallace ◽  
William S. Curran ◽  
David A. Mortensen ◽  
Mark J. VanGessel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomass Production ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Selection Pressure ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Performance Targets ◽  
Cover Cropping ◽  
Management Concepts

AbstractIntensified cover-cropping practices are increasingly viewed as a herbicide-resistance management tool but clear distinction between reactive and proactive resistance management performance targets is needed. We evaluated two proactive performance targets for integrating cover-cropping tactics, including (1) facilitation of reduced herbicide inputs and (2) reduced herbicide selection pressure. We conducted corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] field experiments in Pennsylvania and Delaware using synthetic weed seedbanks of horseweed [Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronquist] and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) to assess winter and summer annual population dynamics, respectively. The effect of alternative cover crops was evaluated across a range of herbicide inputs. Cover crop biomass production ranged from 2,000 to 8,500 kg ha−1 in corn and 3,000 to 5,500 kg ha−1 in soybean. Experimental results demonstrated that herbicide-based tactics were the primary drivers of total weed biomass production, with cover-cropping tactics providing an additive weed-suppression benefit. Substitution of cover crops for PRE or POST herbicide programs did not reduce total weed control levels or cash crop yields but did result in lower net returns due to higher input costs. Cover-cropping tactics significantly reduced C. canadensis populations in three of four cover crop treatments and decreased the number of large rosettes (>7.6-cm diameter) at the time of preplant herbicide exposure. Substitution of cover crops for PRE herbicides resulted in increased selection pressure on POST herbicides, but reduced the number of large individuals (>10 cm) at POST applications. Collectively, our findings suggest that cover crops can reduce the intensity of selection pressure on POST herbicides, but the magnitude of the effect varies based on weed life-history traits. Additional work is needed to describe proactive resistance management concepts and performance targets for integrating cover crops so producers can apply these concepts in site-specific, within-field management practices.

scholarly journals Mustard and Other Cover Crop Effects Vary on Lettuce Drop Caused by Sclerotinia minor and on Weeds

Plant Disease ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 93 (10) ◽  
pp. 1019-1027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany A. Bensen ◽  
Richard F. Smith ◽  
Krishna V. Subbarao ◽  
Steven T. Koike ◽  
Steven A. Fennimore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Seed Viability ◽  
Weed Seed ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Sclerotinia Minor ◽  
Cover Cropping ◽  
Long Term Study ◽  
Lettuce Drop

Mustard cover crops have been suggested as a potential biofumigant for managing soilborne agricultural pests and weeds. We conducted several experiments in commercial lettuce fields in the Salinas Valley, CA, to evaluate the effects of mustard cover crops on lettuce drop caused by Sclerotinia minor and on weed density and seed viability. In a long-term study, we measured the effects of white and Indian mustard cover crops on the density of S. minor sclerotia in soil, lettuce drop incidence, weed densities, weed seed viability, and crop yield in head lettuce. We also tested broccoli and rye cover crop treatments and a fallow control. Across several short-term studies, we evaluated the density of S. minor sclerotia in soil, lettuce drop incidence, weed densities, and weed seed viability following cover cropping with a mustard species blend. Numbers of sclerotia in soil were low in most experimental locations and were not affected by cover cropping. Mustard cover crops did not reduce disease incidence in the long-term experiment but the incidence of lettuce drop was lower in mustard-cover-cropped plots across the short-term experiments. With the exception of common purslane and hairy nightshade, weed densities and weed seed viability were not significantly reduced by cover cropping with mustard. Head lettuce yield was significantly higher in mustard-cover-cropped plots compared with a fallow control. Glucosinolate content in the two mustard species was similar to those measured in other studies but, when converted to an equivalent of a commercial fumigant, the concentrations were much lower than the labeled rate for lettuce production. Although mustard cover cropping resulted in yield benefits in this study, there was little to no disease or weed suppression.

Weed Suppression in Cover Crop Monocultures and Mixtures

Weed Science ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-133 ◽  
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.

Cover-Crop Species as Distinct Biotic Filters in Weed Community Assembly

Weed Science ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 282-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G. Smith ◽  
Lesley W. Atwood ◽  
Fredric W. Pollnac ◽  
Nicholas D. Warren
Keyword(s):  
Cover Crops ◽  
Community Assembly ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Crop Species ◽  
Cover Cropping ◽  
Directional Filtering ◽  
Weed Communities ◽  
Sorghum Sudangrass

Cover crops represent a potentially important biological filter during weed community assembly in agroecosystems. This filtering could be considered directional if different cover-crop species result in weed communities with predictably different species composition. We examined the following four questions related to the potential filtering effects of cover crops in a field experiment involving five cover crops grown in monoculture and mixture: (1) Do cover crops differ in their effect on weed community composition? (2) Is competition more intense between cover crops and weeds that are in the same family or functional group? (3) Is competition more intense across weed functional types in a cover-crop mixture compared with cover crops grown in monocultures? (4) Within a cover-crop mixture, is a higher seeding rate associated with more effective biotic filtering of the weed community? We found some evidence that cover crops differentially filtered weed communities and that at least some of these filtering effects were due to differential biomass production across cover-crop species. Monocultures of buckwheat and sorghum–sudangrass reduced the number of weed species relative to the no-cover-crop control by an average of 36 and 59% (buckwheat) and 25 and 40% (sorghum–sudangrass) in 2011 and 2012, respectively. We found little evidence that competition intensity was dependent upon the family or functional classification of the cover crop or weeds, or that cover-crop mixtures were stronger assembly filters than the most effective monocultures. Although our results do not suggest that annual cover crops exert strong directional filtering during weed community assembly, our methodological framework for detecting such effects could be applied to similar future studies that incorporate a greater number of cover-crop species and are conducted under a greater range of cover-cropping conditions.

scholarly journals Effects of Long-Term Cover Cropping on Weed Seedbanks

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Nichols ◽  
Lydia English ◽  
Sarah Carlson ◽  
Stefan Gailans ◽  
Matt Liebman
Keyword(s):  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Early Spring ◽  
Weed Suppression ◽  
Winter Rye ◽  
Maize Crop ◽  
Cover Cropping ◽  
Crop Biomass

Cool-season cover crops have been shown to reduce soil erosion and nutrient discharge from maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] production systems. However, their effects on long-term weed dynamics are not well-understood. We utilized five long-term research trials in Iowa to quantify germinable weed seedbank densities and compositions after 10+ years of cover cropping treatments. All five trials consisted of zero-tillage maize-soybean rotations managed with and without the inclusion of a yearly winter rye (Secale cereal L.) cover crop. Seedbank sampling was conducted in the early spring before crop planting at all locations, with three of the five trials having grown a soybean crop the preceding year, and two a maize crop. Two of the trials (both previously soybean) showed significant and biologically relevant decreases (4,070 and 927 seeds m−2, respectively) in seedbank densities in cover crop treatments compared to controls. In another two trials, one previously maize and one previously soybean, no difference was detected in seedbank densities. In the fifth trial (previously maize), there was a significant, but biologically unimportant increase of 349 seeds m−2. All five trials' weed communities were dominated by common waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.)], and changes in seedbank composition from cover-cropping were driven by changes in this species. Although previous studies have shown that increases in cover crop biomass are strongly correlated with weed suppression, in our study we did not find a relationship between seedbank changes and the mean amount of cover crop biomass produced over a 10-years period (experiment means ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 Mg ha−1 yr−1), the stability of the cover crop biomass production, nor the amount produced going into the previous crop's growing season. We conclude that long-term use of a winter rye cover crop in a maize-soybean system has the potential to meaningfully reduce the size of weed seedbanks compared to winter fallows. However, identifying the mechanisms by which this occurs requires further research into processes such as seed predation and seed decay in cover cropped systems.

scholarly journals The hidden land use cost of upscaling cover crops

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Runck ◽  
Colin K. Khoury ◽  
Patrick M. Ewing ◽  
Michael Kantar
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
The United States ◽  
Maize Production ◽  
Cover Cropping ◽  
Current Production ◽  
Production Area ◽  
Annual Amount

AbstractCover cropping is considered a cornerstone practice in sustainable agriculture; however, little attention has been paid to the cover crop production supply chain. In this Perspective, we estimate land use requirements to supply the United States maize production area with cover crop seed, finding that across 18 cover crops, on average 3.8% (median 2.0%) of current production area would be required, with the popular cover crops rye and hairy vetch requiring as much as 4.5% and 11.9%, respectively. The latter land requirement is comparable to the annual amount of maize grain lost to disease in the U.S. We highlight avenues for reducing these high land use costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document