Agronomic and economic impacts of cover crops in Texas rolling plains cotton

Abstract

Cover crops have been proposed as a resource that could enhance the effect of no‐till (NT) cropping systems. Crop yield limitations due to cover crops in the U.S. Great Plains are a concern to potential adopters. This research determined the impact of cover crops on crop yield and economic return compared with conventional practices in dryland systems of the Texas Rolling Plains. The study conducted at the Texas A&M AgriLife Chillicothe Research Station evaluated the following treatments: (a) conventional till (CT); (b) NT, and NT with the following cover crops; (c) Austrian winter pea (Pisum sativum L.); (d) hairy vetch (Vicia villosa L.); (e) crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.); (f) winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.); and (g) a multi‐species mixture. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields, expenses, and returns were determined over a 4‐yr period (2013–2016). Cover crops increased total seed costs compared to CT and NT. Hairy vetch and the multi‐species mixture increased total expenses over CT and NT. However, no significant treatment effect was determined for crop yield or net return among treatments. A multi‐species mixture did not provide an agronomic or economic advantage compared to single species cover crop approaches. Under dryland conditions in the Texas Rolling Plains, these selected cover crops maintained cotton yields without negatively affecting net returns. Other ecosystem services should be considered prior to implementing cover crops in studied cropping systems. Site‐specific research is warranted in regions of the southern Great Plains where water may be more limited than the Texas Rolling Plains.

Net return and risk analysis of winter cover crops in dryland cotton systems

“…We also found out that using crimson clover can reduce the variation in cotton lint yield. However, crimson clover was not a good biomass producer in our dryland experiment (DeLaune & Bevers, 2017). This is consistent with previous research on other cash crops that legume cover crops did not reduce yield (Nielsen et al., 2016; Snapp & Surapur, 2018), but may increase yield variation (Ott & Hargrove, 1989).…”

“…This indicates that by planting crimson clover, producers experience less income volatility with more stable income flow, and thereby face a lower chance of observing extremely low or extremely high net returns. However, experimental results on cover crop performance, soil health and soil water content showed crimson clover had 50% less biomass and lower water use efficiency, compared to other cover crops (DeLaune, Mubvumba, & Lewis, 2016; DeLaune & Bevers, 2017). The net return to cotton producers who adopted no‐till with crimson clover ranged from $92 to $635 ha −1 , which was the narrowest range of net returns among all treatments.…”

“…Compared to the conventional tillage without a cover crop, adoption of cover crops and no‐till may help stabilize crop yield by improving soil water holding capacity, adding extra organic C and N, increasing soil worm activity, and reducing soil erosion (DeLaune & Sij, 2012). However, adoption of cover crops requires additional costs for cover crop seed, and planting and termination of cover crops, while no‐till saves costs on plowing, bedding, and reshaping of the field.…”

Cover crop impact on irrigated cotton yield and net return in the southern Great Plains

“…(2017) reported no difference in soybean and corn yields following cover crops 1 to 2 yr after implementation. As several studies reported no significant lint yield reduction following cover crops under dryland conditions in the southern Great Plains (DeLaune et al, 2020; Segarra, Keeling, & Abernathy, 1991; Sij, Ott, Olson, Baughman, & Bordovsky, 2003), no yield reductions were expected under irrigated conditions as any deficit in stored soil moisture could be replaced by irrigation. Nouri, Lee, Yin, Tyler, and Saxton (2019) observed no significant difference in lint yields among a hairy vetch cover crop, wheat cover crop, and no cover crop (NT and CT) during years 33 and 34 of a 34‐yr Tennessee cotton cropping system.…”

“…Recent studies evaluating multispecies cover crops on agronomic production have shown mixed results (Chu et al., 2017; Finney, White, & Kaye, 2016; Smith, Atwood, & Warren, 2014; Wortman, Francis, Bernards, Drijber, & Lindquist, 2012). Within Texas cotton systems, research has shown no significant yield improvement due to a multispecies cover crop over a single species cover crop in irrigated (Lewis et al., 2018a) and dryland conditions (DeLaune, Mubvumba, Fan, & Bevers, 2020).…”