Cover Crop Biomass Production in Temperate Agroecozones

Ruis, Sabrina J.; Blanco‐Canqui, Humberto; Creech, Cody F.; Koehler‐Cole, Katja; Elmore, Roger W.; Francis, Charles

doi:10.2134/agronj2018.08.0535

Cited by 89 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Loss of excess nitrates through leaching is an increasing concern due to potential pollution of surface water and groundwater resources. If rye contains about 1.2% N (Kuo, Sainju, & Jellum, 1996) and produces about 4.68 ± 3.66 Mg ha −1 of biomass (Ruis et al, 2019), then about 75 kg ha −1 of N can be removed from the soil for the aboveground biomass alone. For example, a study found that grass CCs, such as rye, grown with 0, 34, 67, or 101 kg ha −1 of N produced about 2.2, 4.11, 4.8, and 6.2 Mg ha −1 of aboveground biomass and contained about 20.8, 33.1, 40.7, and 58.8 kg ha −1 of N (Balkcom, Duzy, Arriaga, Delany, & Watts, 2018).…”

Section: Nutrient or Pollutant Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, a brief discussion of the dominant factors that affect both aboveground and belowground CC biomass production is warranted to better understand variability of CC biomass production and sustainability of CC harvest. Ruis et al (2019) reported that CC biomass production in temperate regions ranges from 0.1 to 32 Mg ha −1 (average 3.37 ± 2.96 Mg ha −1 ). Cover crop biomass can be highly variable and site specific, depending on CC management, CC species, cropping system, and climate (i.e., precipitation and temperature).…”

Section: Amount Of Harvestable Cover Crop Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, an increase in temperature coupled with increased precipitation may lead to increased CC biomass production. Some high-biomass-producing CC species in temperate or humid regions include rye, two-species mixes, sunn hemp, hairy vetch, and crimson clover; those for semiarid regions include rye, two-species and complex mixes, and wheat (Ruis et al, 2019). The planting and termination dates of CCs also affect biomass production because they are closely linked with the cropping system.…”

Section: Amount Of Harvestable Cover Crop Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Harvesting cover crops for biofuel and livestock production: Another ecosystem service?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harvesting cover crops (CCs) for livestock and biofuel production can be an important ecosystem service from CCs, but this potential service has not been widely discussed. We reviewed the potential use of CCs for livestock or biofuel production, impacts of CC harvesting on soils and crops, the amount of harvestable CC biomass, and strategies to enhance CC biomass production. We searched literature in Web of Science using terms such as “cover crops,” “harvesting,” “soil properties,” and “crop yield,” among others, and found about 30 papers. The literature indicates that CC harvesting does not generally affect soil properties, crop yields, and weed suppression, although the studies are relatively few. Leaving 7.5‐10 cm of CC stubble after harvest could maintain soil ecosystem services. Cover crops produce 3.37 ± 2.96 Mg ha−1 (mean ± SD) of aboveground biomass and 1.33 ± 0.98 Mg ha−1 of belowground (root) biomass. Root biomass input, representing about 30% of the total CC biomass production, could be critical to the maintenance of soil services after CC harvest. The amount of harvestable biomass while maintaining soil services ranges from 1‐3 Mg ha−1 in semiarid regions and from 1‐6 Mg ha−1 in humid regions for high‐biomass‐producing CCs. Strategies to increase CC biomass production include planting CCs early and terminating late, adapting cropping systems by using earlier‐maturity group varieties, and using flexible cropping systems. Overall, CC harvesting appears feasible, but additional research on CC management and harvesting effects on ecosystem services is needed before harvesting CCs at large scales.

show abstract

Section: Nutrient or Pollutant Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Amount Of Harvestable Cover Crop Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Amount Of Harvestable Cover Crop Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Harvesting cover crops for biofuel and livestock production: Another ecosystem service?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While pre‐harvest planting did improve CC biomass production at two of three sites in both rotations, it was typically below 1 Mg ha −1 . Other studies in the region observed biomass production of 2.92–4.19 Mg ha −1 depending on species (Nielsen, Lyon, Hergert, Higgins, & Holman, 2015b), 0.26–0.51 Mg ha −1 if terminated in mid‐April, 1.60–2.85 Mg ha −1 if terminated in late April–early May (Ruis et al., 2017), 0.80 Mg ha −1 planted following corn harvest (Blanco‐Canqui et al., 2014), and 1.47 Mg ha −1 if planted in September into corn (Blanco‐Canqui, Sindelar, Wortmann, & Kreikemeier, 2017; Ruis et al., 2019). This means average CC biomass production in the region may be about 1.8 Mg ha −1 , which is above the CC biomass production in our study (<1 Mg ha −1 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of cover crop planting dates on soils after four years

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impacts of cover crop (CC) mixes and early CC planting on soil properties, CC biomass production, and CC biomass C input are not well understood. We assessed CC planting date (pre-or post-harvest) and CC type (rye [Secale cereale L.], mix of winter pea [Pisum sativum L.], hairy vetch [Vicia villosa L.], rye, and radish [Raphanussativus L.], or no CC) effects on soil physical properties, organic matter, and CC biomass C input under three no-till continuous corn (Zea mays L.) and corn-soybean (Glycine max L.) sites in the eastern Great Plains after 4 yr. Across sites and years, pre-harvest-planted CCs produced 0.81 ± 0.52 (mean ± SD), post-harvest-planted 0.59 ± 0.44, rye 0.83 ± 0.52, and mix 0.57 ± 0.42 Mg biomass ha −1 . Compared to no CC, pre-and post-harvest-planted CC effects varied by site. Pre-harvest-planted CCs increased wet-aggregate stability by 17% and particulate organic matter by 31% under continuous corn at one of three sites compared with post-harvest-planted CCs.Similarly, the CC mix had variable effects on cone index but reduced bulk density by 7% at one site under continuous corn and increased wet-aggregate stability by 21% at another site under corn−soybean. Planting date, but not CC type, effects were slightly more evident under continuous corn than corn−soybean. Across sites and years, pre-harvest-plant CC had 0.29 ± 0.38 Mg biomass C ha −1 , post-harvestplanted 0.22 ± 0.30, rye 0.33 ± 0.37, and the mix 0.16 ± 0.27. Low CC biomass (<1 Mg ha −1 ) production may explain the limited CC effects. Overall, pre-harvestplanted CCs and CC mixes had minimal effects on soil properties in this region after 4 yr.Abbreviations: CCs, cover crops.

show abstract

“…Planting cover crops in mid‐summer after hay harvest is popular in the Tulelake area because it allows producers to generate crop income while taking advantage of the warm temperatures of summer and early fall for cover crop growth (Ruis et al., 2019). However, incorporation of the cover crop in fall potentially increases the risk of leaching of NO 3 − derived from the cover crop residues below the root zone of the following crop with winter rains.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nitrogen in potato rotations with cover crops: Field trial and simulations using DSSAT

Geisseler

Wilson

2020

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 2-yr field trial was conducted in 2014−2015 in northern California to determine the N availability from different legume and grass cover crops grown during the summer and incorporated in fall. Russet Norkotah potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) were planted the following spring. The objectives of this study were to determine whether potato yield can be successfully predicted with the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) model for different cover crop treatments and to assess the risk of nitrate (NO 3 − ) leaching losses with winter precipitation. The total amount of N in the aboveground biomass of the legumes ranged from 73 to 253 kg ha −1 . The potato yield of the unfertilized control reached 39 Mg ha −1 , while it ranged from 34.8 to 47.9 Mg ha −1 in the cover crop treatments. The DSSAT model considerably underestimated the soil mineral N content before potato was planted in the treatments with legume cover crops. The results suggest that the legumes likely covered a larger proportion of their N requirements through N 2 fixation and less through uptake of soil mineral N than predicted by the model. The inaccurate simulation of cover crop soil N uptake contributed to a poor prediction of potato yields for individual treatments.In contrast, the model was successful in simulating N mineralization from cover crop residues. Using weather data from a 30-yr period revealed that NO 3 − leaching below the root zone of the subsequent potato crop is minimal in most winters.

show abstract

Cover Crop Biomass Production in Temperate Agroecozones

Cited by 89 publications

References 61 publications

Harvesting cover crops for biofuel and livestock production: Another ecosystem service?

Harvesting cover crops for biofuel and livestock production: Another ecosystem service?

Impacts of cover crop planting dates on soils after four years

Nitrogen in potato rotations with cover crops: Field trial and simulations using DSSAT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About