| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
a Dep. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
b Dep. of Agric. Economics, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
c W.K. Kellogg Biological Stn., Michigan State Univ. Ext., Land and Water Program, Hickory Corners, MI 49060
* Corresponding author (snapp{at}msu.edu)
Received for publication March 26, 2004.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONECONOMIC REVIEWFARMER ASSESSMENTPROMISING COVER CROP OPTIONSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONECONOMIC REVIEWFARMER ASSESSMENTPROMISING COVER CROP OPTIONSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
Considerable research on cover crops has been conducted recently, indicating the need to review the literature and identify species that are consistent performers. Costs and benefits of cover crops are evaluated here in terms of both internal effects on individual farms, and external effects on society and the environment (Labarta et al., 2002). In contrast to the broad scope of environmental services from cover crops that may provide benefits to a broad cross-section of citizens, increased production costs are typically borne by individual farmers. This has policy implications, because beneficial economic "externalities" can justify government cost-sharing under federal programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (Ogg, 1999).
There has been substantial research on winter annual cover crops (Kessavalou and Walters, 1999; Stivers-Young, 1998; Torbet et al., 1996; Wyland et al., 1998) and on summer cover crops for the Southeast and southern U.S. desert regions (Creamer et al., 1997; Creamer and Baldwin, 2000; Ngouajio et al., 2003). The other two niches considered here, Northern summer and Southern winter, have received less study. Despite the economic impact of foregoing a cash crop, some farmers express interest in planting cover crops in these niches, particularly for fields that require rehabilitation. For example, Michigan and New York producers are experimenting with summer cover crops to ameliorate degraded soils and persistent pest problems (Snapp and Mutch, 2003; Stivers-Young and Tucker, 1999).
The objectives of this paper are to (i) review the literature on the costs and benefits associated with cover crops; (ii) report findings from Michigan farmer assessment of cover crops, and (iii) identify promising species options for four cover crop niches (USDA Hardiness Zones 5–6 winter, Zones 5–6 summer, Zones 7–8 winter, and Zones 7–8 summer).
|
ECONOMIC REVIEW |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONECONOMIC REVIEWFARMER ASSESSMENTPROMISING COVER CROP OPTIONSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Benefits External to the Farm
Socially desirable benefits of wide-spread adoption of cover crops derive from soil conservation properties. A number of studies have found that duration of crop cover is a primary determinant of reduced soil erosion and nitrate leaching. Creamer et al. (1997) found that 13 cover crops and mixtures (mainly legumes) achieved 30% ground cover 1 mo after planting in North Carolina, and generally 100% cover within 3 mo. Field pea (Pisum sativum) provided adequate surface cover to control soil erosion effectively in a 4-yr rotation of wheat–fallow (Tanaka et al., 1997). In Norwegian cropping systems, 100% ground cover was rapidly achieved by subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L.), although hardiness of this species was marginal and more long-lasting ground cover was achieved using hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth.) (Brandsaeter et al., 2000). Hairy vetch is also an effective means to provide soil coverage and build soil organic matter in the Southern USA, as shown in a Georgia field study (Sainju et al., 2002).
Winter cover crops are of particular benefit on irrigated, sandy soils where bare soil is readily erodible if left unprotected during the colder months (Table 1). Winter cereals grown as cover crops, such as rye and wheat, can be highly effective at reducing wind and water erosion (Kessavalou and Walters, 1999; Kinyangi et al., 2001), and the combination of covers plus reduced tillage is a rapid means of building soil organic matter (Sainju et al., 2002). Surveys indicate that 25% of Western New York vegetable growers and 43% of Michigan potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) producers use winter cereals as cover crops to reduce erosion (Snapp et al., 2001; Stivers-Young and Tucker, 1999).
|
Costs External to the Farm
Integrated cropping systems bring costs as well as benefits to the farm and the environment (Table 2). Research on environmental effects has identified potentially negative consequences, particularly if cover crops are mismanaged. The presence of a vigorous cash crop or alternate cover crop is important to establish as a N-sink after a cover or forage is incorporated. Unless N is assimilated, there is considerable potential for N losses through leaching or volatilization from N-rich residues (Rosecrance et al., 2000). This is shown by soil nitrate monitoring after alfalfa incorporation, where high nitrate leaching rates were measured if establishment problems were encountered and the subsequent corn crop did not achieve an adequate plant population density (Rasse et al., 1999). Alfalfa and other deep-rooted cover crops may also enhance the formation of macropores in soil, which could increase water percolation and thus nitrate leaching under some circumstances (Foltz et al., 1993).
|
Greater yield stability is an important secondary benefit of cover crops. A long-term field study in Pennsylvania found, in drought years, that yield of organic corn and soybean–cover crop systems was higher than conventionally produced field crop systems grown without cover crops (Lotter et al., 2003).
Soils with a higher nutrient supply capacity require reduced fertilizer inputs. If fertilizer costs are reduced while yield is maintained, profitability over the long-term may more than compensate the immediate costs of cover crop establishment. Examples include the contribution of red clover and crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) to corn and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) yields (Drinkwater et al., 1995; Sweeney and Moyer, 1994; Torbet et al., 1996; Vyn et al., 1999) and the positive effect of berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) in a corn–soybean–oat (Avena sativa L.) rotation (Ghaffarzadeh, 1997). In potato-based rotations, legume cover crop residues supplied 25 to 260 kg ha–1 N to a subsequent crop (Griffin and Hesterman, 1991; Honeycutt et al., 1996). More recently, potato yields were enhanced by 16% and N fertilizer use reduced by 10% after a mixed cover crop of rye–hairy vetch compared with a bare winter fallow (Nyiraneza, 2003; Snapp et al., 2003). Hairy vetch grown as a winter cover crop supplies from 50 to 120 kg N ha–1 to subsequent tomato crops (Sainju et al., 2002; Teasdale and Abdul-Baki, 1998; Yaffa et al., 2000).
Cover crops also control weeds through competition, allelopathy, soil environmental changes, physical effects, enhancement of weed seed decay, and maintaining surface residues (Conklin et al., 2002; Creamer et al., 1996). Weed suppression can reduce herbicide use resulting in lower production costs. Stivers-Young (1998) found that oilseed radish (Brassica napus L.) and mustards [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.] suppress the majority of weeds compared with a bare fallow, primarily through competition in the fall and light interception by the residue in spring. Cover-crop mediated suppression was found in tomato (Creamer et al., 1996), peppers (Capsicum annuum L.) (Hutchinson and McGriffen, 2000), and in potato (Gallandt et al., 1998). Weed reduction was reported as a benefit by 15% of vegetable growers surveyed in New York (Stivers-Young and Tucker, 1999), and <5% of potato growers surveyed in Michigan (Snapp et al., 2001).
Cover crops have been shown to break disease and pest cycles, reducing the need for fumigation and pesticides. Reduced pesticide use lowers production costs and may offer environmental benefits both internal and external to the farm. Incorporation of a short alfalfa rotation reduced Rhizoctonia solani infection in potato by 50% (Honeycutt et al., 1996). Lazarus and White (1984) described chemical-use reduction through the integration of a rye cover crop into a range of cropping systems including potato, cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L.), beet (Beta vulgaris L.), and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Gebremedhin et al. (1998) found that alfalfa provided important disease and pest-suppressing benefits in irrigated sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) and bean systems. Nematode control, and the potential to reduce fumigation frequency, is promoted by some brassica species (McGuire, 2002; Porter et al., 1998). Suppression of Pythium spp. has been observed subsequent to incorporating glucosinolate-containing brassica cover crops, although this response is not always consistent (Abawi and Widmer, 2000; Lazzeri and Manici, 2001).
Longer-term studies than many of those conducted to date may be required to document the pest and nutrient cycling consequences of adopting cover crop (Drinkwater, 2002). This point is supported by a comprehensive on-farm study of 100 commercial potato fields, which found that soil organic matter was inversely related to Verticillium wilt (Davis et al., 2001).
Costs Internal to the Farm
Internal costs of cover crops take three forms: direct, indirect, and opportunity costs. The direct costs of cover crops are led by the costs of cover crop establishment, which are particularly high for legumes. Establishment costs can be 10 times higher for leguminous cover crops than for grasses (Labarta et al., 2002; Roberts and Swinton, 1996). This is due to legume biological traits that drive up seed costs and the amount of seed required for establishment, including a large seed size (this necessitates substantial seed weight be used at planting), seed dispersal mechanisms (this increases harvesting expense and thus the cost of legume cover crop seed), and generally weak emergence (requiring investment in practices such as tillage, irrigation, and fertilizer, as well as high seeding rates).
The indirect on-farm costs of cover crops fall into two categories: (i) hindering establishment of the succeeding cash crop (due to slow soil warming or delayed organic N release) and (ii) cover crop management problems that impede realization of the expected benefits (e.g., due to over-vigorous cover crops that are hard to kill or incorporate, or virulent cover crops that become weeds).
The leading cause of impeded cash crop establishment is slow soil warming. Stivers-Young and Tucker (1999) found that cover crops of clover, wheat, and rye shaded the soil, slowing the spring rise in soil temperatures on potato and vegetable farms in New York. This is not universally a negative aspect of cover crops, as soil cooling effects of cowpea residues were beneficial for desert vegetable production (Hutchinson and McGiffen, 2000).
An indirect cost of using cover crops as a nutrient source is the slow rate of N release from nonlegume cover crop residues, and the difficulty of accurately estimating residue mineralization, which can reduce synchrony of nutrient release with crop demand (Snapp and Fortuna, 2003). Initial N immobilization generally occurs for the first 2 mo after winter cereal cover crops are incorporated, although residue management can markedly alter the timing of N release (Snapp and Borden, 2004; Vyn et al., 1999). In addition to slow release of nutrients, mineralization of excess or unexpectedly high levels of N late in the growing season can occur after higher quality residues from legumes are incorporated (Griffin and Hesterman, 1991).
Overly vigorous cover crops can exact unexpected costs to kill the cover crop or to incorporate its residues into the soil. Cover crop biomass produced can be substantial, which leads to mechanical difficulties in incorporating residues if cover growth is allowed beyond about 30 cm in height.
Successful cover crops can become difficult to control. It is important to prevent cover crops from producing seed and establishing in areas where they will act as weeds (Mutch and Snapp, 2003). There are a number of covers that produce seeds with hard coats or other adaptations that can become part of the weed seed bank and germinate over many years (Benech-Arnold et al., 2000).
The opportunity cost of income foregone from cash crops may be the biggest cost of cover crops and the chief reason that they are rarely grown during periods when cash crop alternatives are feasible. Most evidence comes from whole-farm linear programming models that can estimate the opportunity cost in foregone earnings from forcing an enterprise into solution that was not optimal. While we are aware of no such studies that explicitly examine cover crops, a number of studies have explored the opportunity costs associated with crop rotations that include less remunderatives crops whose primary benefits come from reduced soil erosion or enhance N fixation.
Inclusion of soil-building rotation crops with potato in Long Island (Lazarus and White, 1984) and with corn and soybean in Michigan (Roberts and Swinton, 1995) both led to reduced net returns. Likewise, crop rotations based on corn–soybean or sugarbeet–dry bean that added small grains and/or alfalfa for reduced erosion and enhance fertility achieved the latter objectives but failed to deliver comparable net returns (Baffoe et al., 1987; Foltz et al., 1993). Enterprise budget analyses that do not explore the opportunity cost of farm resources shared across crop enterprises have had mixed results, with some showing cropping diversity to be profitable (e.g., Helmers et al., 1986) and others not so (e.g., Christenson et al., 1995). Although direct study of cover crop effects remains a research need, the evidence from prior whole-farm studies of crop rotations suggests that opportunity costs due to foregone income from cash crops can be an important disincentive to crop rotation and, by extension, to the adoption of cover crops that compete in time or space with cash crops.
|
FARMER ASSESSMENT |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONECONOMIC REVIEWFARMER ASSESSMENTPROMISING COVER CROP OPTIONSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Interseeding a cover crop into a cereal crop was discussed by growers, including frost-seeding a red clover into wheat (broadcasting red clover seed in early spring on a wheat crop) and aerial-seeding rye into corn, just before harvest. This approach minimizes opportunity costs, and was seen by most growers as about the only practical and economical means to produce a winter cover crop with large quantities of biomass (Table 1). A winter wheat crop interseeded with red clover allows the soil to remain undisturbed for 17 mo, combining cover crop inputs with reduced tillage to build soil organic matter (Snapp et al., 2003). Red clover and cereal rye were suggested as the best cover crops options to establish and survive a low light and competitive environment under a canopy. However, some farmers associated red clover with common scab (Streptomyces scabies) incidence in potato (Table 2). Alternative cover crops adapted to interseeding into grain crops were requested by growers. Promising research along this line includes efforts to find minimally competitive understory crops to sow in soybean–corn rotation sequences (DeHaan et al., 1997; Hively and Cox, 2001; Smeltekop et al., 2002).
Farmers that grew shorter-season crops such as snap bean or corn silage were experimenting with a wide range of winter cover crops, including buckwheat (Fagopyrm esculentum Moench), sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis L.), and oilseed radish. After long-season crops that are harvested late in the fall such as potato there are limited options for winter cover crops. Only wheat or rye, and in some cases rye mixtures with hairy vetch, were seen as sufficiently cold-hardy to survive planting late in the fall (Table 1).
Growers were also interested in using cover crops to ameliorate a poor site. This requires a willingness to substitute a cover crop for a cash crop in the summer niche to grow large amounts of biomass, for example sorghum–sudangrass [Sorgum bicolor (L.) Moench x S. sudanesnse L.]. Michigan growers reiterated that it is critical to manage for higher quality residues by limiting stem growth (Table 1). Other growers surveyed were more impressed by alfalfa managed as a cover crop, citing the "biological plow" effects of alfalfa's deep tap root and the N-enriched residues. A New York survey of vegetable growers supported these observations, as sorghum–sudangrass and alfalfa were the most common summer cover crops grown (Stivers-Young and Tucker, 1999).
On the whole, the literature and farmer observations coincide and indicate that substantial benefits can accrue from incorporating cover crops, ranging from environmental enhancement to cropping system health (Table 1). Farmers emphasized as well the risks associated with cover crop adoption, such as inadequate equipment or time to incorporate residues and less predictable N release compared with reliance solely on inorganic fertilizers (Table 2). This suggests that improved knowledge concerning management practices, residue quality, and N release could promote adoption of cover crops (Snapp and Borden, 2004). To assist growers and extension crop advisors interested in experimenting with cover crops, we offer information on species performance and "best bet" cover crop options for different niches in the next section.
|
PROMISING COVER CROP OPTIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONECONOMIC REVIEWFARMER ASSESSMENTPROMISING COVER CROP OPTIONSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
In general, cover crops appear to perform better in irrigated systems where competition for water and nutrients is reduced, thereby enhancing potential returns to cover crop investments. This observation is supported by the substantial number of farmers with irrigation that have adopted cover crops in Northern states (Snapp et al., 2001; Stivers-Young and Tucker, 1999). In systems without irrigation, nitrate leaching is more limited and moisture competition between cover crop and cash crop must be considered. An Ohio study found that field pea–rye mixture produced >4 Mg ha–1 biomass and enhanced productivity of a subsequent tomato crop, but only when moisture was adequate (Akemo et al., 2000). Surprisingly, annual medic grown as an intercrop in corn competed for N, but did not induce water stress, possibly due to enhanced water infiltration compared with conventionally grown corn with bare rows (Smeltekop et al., 2002). The impact of cover crops on water relations over time can be complex, as shown for cropping systems of the Northern great plains: yields of flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) and mustard were substantially reduced by intercropped sweetclover in dry years, whereas yield of the rotational wheat crop was enhanced by 47 to 75% when sweetclover replaced a tilled fallow (Blackshaw et al., 2001).
Northern Summer Cover Crops
The summer niche in Northern climates requires substitution of a cash crop with a cover crop, but it is used by farmers to rehabilitate poor-performing fields. A C4 grass such as sorghum sudangrass [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] is best able to use resources in a warm, high light environment and produce tremendous amounts of biomass, often more than 8 Mg ha–1 (Fig. 2). The quality of this biomass is very low (N content <1%), but it contributes substantially to soil C. Farmers surveyed in Michigan and New York plant sorghum sudangrass more frequently than any other summer cover crop (Snapp et al., 2001; Stivers-Young and Tucker, 1999). Management and timing of this cover is critical to facilitate residue decomposition and to reduce allelopathy and problems with stand establishment in subsequent crops (Ngouajio et al., 2003; Weston et al., 1989). The earlier cited farm surveys indicate that alfalfa, managed as a cover crop, is the primary alternative to C4 grasses. Growers cite the high quality of the residues (Table 1) as an inducement despite the relatively moderate quantity of biomass produced (Fig. 2). Alfalfa is, however, an expensive crop to establish and there can be problems with managing the high-N residues (Rasse et al., 1999).
|
4 to 7 Mg ha–1 of biomass are sweetclover–oat (1:2 or 1:5 ratio of sweetclover to oat plants) and cowpea–sorghum sudangrass (Fig. 2; Schmidt et al., 2001).
Northern Winter Cover Crops
Winter cover crops can be grown in this niche without sacrificing a cash crop, although establishment can be a challenge. The common planting window used is in the fall, after harvest of a cash crop. For short-season cash crops such as snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) or corn silage there are a wide range of cover crop species that can be established in this August to September time-frame (Stivers-Young, 1998). However, for crops harvested in the late fall only the most winter-hardy cover crop species can survive, such as hairy vetch and rye (Snapp et al., 2003). Overseeding a cover crop into a small grain crop or into corn is the other primary means of establishing a winter cover.
Winter cereals such as rye and wheat have extensive root systems and provide persistent soil cover; thus, they are effective at scavenging inorganic N and preventing soil erosion (Burket et al., 1997; Kessavalou and Walters, 1999). Rye produces between 0.8 and 2.9 Mg ha–1 biomass when fall-sown in Michigan (Fig. 2). Similar biomass production levels have been observed in surrounding states (Fig. 2; see Akemo et al., 2000; Vyn et al., 1999). The rapid growth of rye in the spring may require management practices such as herbicide application or mowing to facilitate residue incorporation and enhance N mineralization (Snapp and Borden, 2004). Brassicas also show potential as rapid N accumulators that can reduce nitrate leaching potential by >50% in Northern climates (Justes et al., 1999).
As described for the summer niche, a mixture of grasses and legumes can be used for winter cover. Erect cereal and viney legume growth habits can be highly complementary. They frequently produce larger amounts of biomass when they are planted together than when they are planted as sole crops (DeGregorio, 1995; Ranells and Wagger, 1997; Rosecrance et al., 2000). The mixed residues produced provide a diversity of substrate that supports soil microbial activity (Ovreas and Torsvik, 1998; Sanchez et al., 2001). Hairy vetch is the most versatile of winter-hardy legumes, it is well adapted to mixtures with rye and produces biomass that is consistently >2 Mg ha–1 with a C/N ratio below 22. This was observed in southern Michigan with hairy vetch and rye planted as late as October (Snapp et al., 2003). A red clover–cereal biculture is an outstanding candidate, as red clover has the ideotype of an ideal intercrop: establishing as an interseeded cover in corn or wheat, tolerant of low light, and consistently producing about 3.0 Mg ha–1 of high quality residues (Fig. 2). Red clover appears to be highly compatible with wheat, but not as an intercrop with soybean in New York (Hively and Cox, 2001). The legume mixtures in the Northern niche shown in Fig. 2 are red clover and hairy vetch cereal mixtures. None produced >3 Mg ha–1 (Fig. 2), but red clover intercropped with wheat has been shown to substantially enhance soil C and N mineralization potential in three Michigan trials (Mutch and Martin, 1998; Sanchez et al., 2001; Snapp et al., 2003) and in Ontario sites (Vyn et al., 1999).
If pest control is a major concern, then other species than legumes or grasses should be considered. Disease suppression has been observed with integration of alfalfa (Gebremedhin et al., 1998; Honeycutt et al., 1996), but the most effective cover crops for suppression of plant parasitic nematodes (Porter et al., 1998) or soil-borne diseases appear to be glucosinolate-containing brassica (Lazzeri and Manici, 2001). Winter survival in Zones 5–6 is uncertain and the biomass accumulated by oilseed radish and oriental mustard is highly variable, but 4 Mg ha–1 has been observed under Michigan conditions (Mutch et al., 2001). Fall-planted oriental mustard is being rapidly adopted in irrigated systems of the Pacific northwest to suppress soil-borne disease and nematodes (McGuire, 2002). More than 10000 ha of mustard are being grown as a managed cover crop, where irrigation and N fertilizer are applied to optimize the biomass produced. This indicates the potential for rapid adoption of cover crops that are effective at reducing a major input cost (e.g., fumigation) and that have immediate productivity or crop health benefits.
Southern Summer Cover Crops
Summer establishment of cover crops in warmer zones requires heat-tolerant species that grow rapidly. Not surprisingly, the warm-season grass sorghum–sudangrass was the outstanding biomass producer in a range of species evaluated by Creamer et al. (1997). Cowpea was less productive (4 Mg ha–1) in that study but has been shown in other summer cover systems to produce 6 to 8 Mg ha–1 (Hutchinson and McGriffen, 2000). Cowpea is as effective as sorghum–sudangrass in suppressing weeds in irrigated systems, while being consistently associated with yield enhancement in subsequent crops (Ngouajio et al., 2003). The same study documented crop suppression subsequent to sorghum–sudangrass incorporation, indicating the need for caution and knowledge concerning cover crop management.
Pest suppression properties are frequently associated with tropical legumes, which provides a wide range of options for Zone 7–8. Tropical legumes such as pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth], showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis Roth), hairy indigo (Indigofera hirsuta L.), joint-vetch (Aeschynomene america L.), and velvet bean [Mucuna deeringiana (Bort) Merr.] consistently reduced plant parasitic nematodes and increased yields in subsequent irrigated snap bean production in Florida (Reddy et al., 1986). Sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.) has also shown promise as a pest suppressing, alternative summer cover crop (Mansoer et al., 1997). In general, viney or indeterminate growth habit and long-duration growth (8–18 mo) habit legumes such as pigeon pea and Mucuna [Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC var. utiliz] appear to be the most effective cover crops at increasing N availability to the cash crop (Snapp and Silim, 2002).
Southern Winter Cover Crops
From the limited research conducted on this niche, it appears that the grass and legume species that perform well in winter Zone 5–6 are generally adapted to Zone 7–8 (Shennan, 1992). Jackson et al. (1993) demonstrated that substantial cover crop biomass could be produced by winter-grown rye and legumes in California. Soil nitrate leaching was reduced by >50 kg ha–1 N through integration of these winter cover crops in irrigated vegetables. Similarly, winter cover crops rye and phacelia were effective at recycling N in irrigated lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) (Wyland et al., 1998). Efficient suppression of weed growth as well as N-recycling occurred with the use of a winter cover cereal rye and rye–bellbean (Vicia faba L.) mixture in a coastal cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.) rotation, although bellbean alone was not effective at weed suppression (Putnam and Holt, 1983).
Research on winter covers that suppress pests could produce alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation. Although winter cover crops of rye and hairy vetch were the most consistent producers of biomass in a Florida study, no pest-suppressive effects were found and plant-parasitic nematode populations remained stable (McSorley and Dickson, 1989). Winter cover crops used by organic producers in California appear to be associated with enhanced soil biological activity and disease suppression (Workneh and van Bruggen, 1994). A follow up study documented enhanced soil microorganism activity and diversity supported by incorporating rye (Lundquist et al., 1999).
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONECONOMIC REVIEWFARMER ASSESSMENTPROMISING COVER CROP OPTIONSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Managers need improved information about the effect of residue quality and quantity on microbiota and soil N and C pools so that informed decisions can be made about species choice, residue management, and timing of operations. Trade-offs are evident between cover crops that have tremendous potential to produce low quality biomass, for example grasses, and those that produce moderate amounts of higher quality residues, for example legumes. Legume bicultures are promising, where legumes are combined with C4 grasses for warm zones, with C3 grasses for cool zones, and with brassica for pest-control. Many farmers value such cover crops benefits, but cannot necessarily afford the initial investment. Future research should document more fully the magnitude of the environmental services that cover crops offer and their compatibility with current crop systems. If it can be shown that reduced erosion, reduced nitrate leaching, enhanced wildlife habitat, and other such ecosystems services benefit the nonfarm public, the case could be made to cost-share cover crop plantings under farm programs.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONECONOMIC REVIEWFARMER ASSESSMENTPROMISING COVER CROP OPTIONSCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  W.D. Hively, M. Lang, G.W. McCarty, J. Keppler, A. Sadeghi, and L.L. McConnell Using satellite remote sensing to estimate winter cover crop nutrient uptake efficiency Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, September 1, 2009; 64(5): 303 - 313. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. S. Fae, R. M. Sulc, D. J. Barker, R. P. Dick, M. L. Eastridge, and N. Lorenz Integrating Winter Annual Forages into a No-Till Corn Silage System Agron. J., August 31, 2009; 101(5): 1286 - 1296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. E. Gentry, M. B. David, F. E. Below, T. V. Royer, and G. F. McIsaac Nitrogen Mass Balance of a Tile-drained Agricultural Watershed in East-Central Illinois J. Environ. Qual., July 23, 2009; 38(5): 1841 - 1847. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. Po, S. S. Snapp, and A. Kravchenko Rotational and Cover Crop Determinants of Soil Structural Stability and Carbon in a Potato System Agron. J., January 8, 2009; 101(1): 175 - 183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. H. Heggenstaller, R. P. Anex, M. Liebman, D. N. Sundberg, and L. R. Gibson Productivity and Nutrient Dynamics in Bioenergy Double-Cropping Systems Agron. J., November 7, 2008; 100(6): 1740 - 1748. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Singer Corn Belt Assessment of Cover Crop Management and Preferences Agron. J., October 21, 2008; 100(6): 1670 - 1672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Snapp, R. Price, and M. Morton Seed Priming of Winter Annual Cover Crops Improves Germination and Emergence Agron. J., September 8, 2008; 100(5): 1506 - 1510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Shennan Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture Phil Trans R Soc B, February 27, 2008; 363(1492): 717 - 739. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. G. Smith, F. D. Menalled, and G. P. Robertson Temporal Yield Variability under Conventional and Alternative Management Systems Agron. J., November 6, 2007; 99(6): 1629 - 1634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T.C. Kaspar, D.B. Jaynes, T.B. Parkin, and T.B. Moorman Rye Cover Crop and Gamagrass Strip Effects on NO3 Concentration and Load in Tile Drainage J. Environ. Qual., August 31, 2007; 36(5): 1503 - 1511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Nyiraneza and S. Snapp Integrated Management of Inorganic and Organic Nitrogen and Efficiency in Potato Systems Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., August 9, 2007; 71(5): 1508 - 1515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Sulc and B. F. Tracy Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems in the U.S. Corn Belt Agron. J., February 6, 2007; 99(2): 335 - 345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Singer, K. A. Kohler, and P. B. McDonald Self-Seeding Winter Cereal Cover Crops in Soybean Agron. J., January 1, 2007; 99(1): 73 - 79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Chen, D. L. Wyse, G. A. Johnson, P. M. Porter, S. R. Stetina, D. R. Miller, K. J. Betts, L. D. Klossner, and M. J. Haar Effect of Cover Crops Alfalfa, Red Clover, and Perennial Ryegrass on Soybean Cyst Nematode Population and Soybean and Corn Yields in Minnesota Crop Sci., July 25, 2006; 46(5): 1890 - 1897. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. E. Miguez and G. A. Bollero Winter Cover Crops in Illinois: Evaluation of Ecophysiological Characteristics of Corn Crop Sci., May 18, 2006; 46(4): 1536 - 1545. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. M. Cherr, J. M. S. Scholberg, and R. McSorley Green Manure Approaches to Crop Production: A Synthesis Agron. J., February 7, 2006; 98(2): 302 - 319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. W. Andraski and L. G. Bundy Cover Crop Effects on Corn Yield Response to Nitrogen on an Irrigated Sandy Soil Agron. J., July 13, 2005; 97(4): 1239 - 1244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| The SCI Journals | Crop Science | Vadose Zone Journal | |||
| Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education |
Soil Science Society of America Journal | ||||
| Journal of Plant Registrations | Journal of Environmental Quality |
The Plant Genome | |||
