Cover crops reduce drainage but not always soil water content due to interactions between rainfall distribution and management

Meyer, Nicolas; Bergez, Jacques-Éric; Constantin, Julie; Belleville, Paul; Justes, Éric

doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105998

Cited by 39 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For less sensitive crops (e.g., wheat, sunflower, pea), the effect depended on the scenario and probably greatly on the production situation. For crops whose yields are strongly sensitive to water availability (e.g., maize), increasing soil cover by inserting cover crops and grassland may decrease soil water availability during crop growth (Meyer et al, 2020) and water drainage that supplies groundwater, which could be an issue in some arid regions (Meyer et al, 2019). This kind of trade‐off effect can be reduced by managing cover crops to decrease evapotranspiration, such as by applying mulch (Kaye & Quemada, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the carbon storage potential and greenhouse gas emissions of French arable cropland using high‐resolution modeling

Launay

Constantin

Chlébowski

et al. 2021

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have assessed the potential of agricultural practices to sequester carbon (C). A comprehensive evaluation of impacts of agricultural practices requires not only considering C storage but also direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and their side effects (e.g., on the water cycle or agricultural production). We used a high‐resolution modeling approach with the Simulateur mulTIdisciplinaire pour les Cultures Standard soil‐crop model to quantify soil organic C (SOC) storage potential, GHG balance, biomass production and nitrogen‐ and water‐related impacts for all arable land in France for current cropping systems (baseline scenario) and three mitigation scenarios: (i) spatial and temporal expansion of cover crops, (ii) spatial insertion and temporal extension of temporary grasslands (two sub‐scenarios) and (iii) improved recycling of organic resources as fertilizer. In the baseline scenario, SOC decreased slightly over 30 years in crop‐only rotations but increased significantly in crop/temporary grassland rotations. Results highlighted a strong trade‐off between the storage rate per unit area (kg C ha−1 year−1) of mitigation scenarios and the areas to which they could be applied. As a result, while the most promising scenario at the field scale was the insertion of temporary grassland (+466 kg C ha−1 year−1 stored to a depth of 0.3 m compared to the baseline, on 0.68 Mha), at the national scale, it was by far the expansion of cover crops (+131 kg C ha−1 year−1, on 17.62 Mha). Side effects on crop production, water irrigation and nitrogen emissions varied greatly depending on the scenario and production situation. At the national scale, combining the three mitigation scenarios could mitigate GHG emissions of current cropping systems by 54% (−11.2 from the current 20.5 Mt CO2e year−1), but the remaining emissions would still lie far from the objective of C‐neutral agriculture.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the carbon storage potential and greenhouse gas emissions of French arable cropland using high‐resolution modeling

Launay

Constantin

Chlébowski

et al. 2021

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this review, we focused specifically on water retained at field capacity and permanent wilting point and not on actual field water content. Available studies reporting actual field water content generally indicate that CCs can reduce water for the next crop in semiarid regions (Holman et al., 2018; Meyer, Bergez, Constantin, & Belleville, 2020; Nielsen, Lyon, Hergert, Higgins, & Homan, 2015, 2016; Unger & Vigil, 1998), whereas in regions with high precipitation CCs do not generally reduce water required for the subsequent crop. Indeed, in regions with high precipitation, the use of water by CCs can be beneficial to reduce excess soil water (Blanco‐Canqui et al., 2011; Kahimba, Ranjan, Froese, Entz, & Nason, 2008).…”

Section: Do Cover Crops Enhance the Ability Of The Soil To Retain Water?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cover crop impacts on soil physical properties: A review

Blanco‐Canqui

Ruis

2020

Soil Science Soc of Amer J

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover crop (CC) impacts on soil ecosystem services including erosion control, C sequestration, soil productivity, and others have been reviewed. However, CC impacts on soil physical properties, which affect the soil's ability to perform a variety of soil ecosystem services, have not been synthesized. We reviewed 98 peer-reviewed publications up to 10 June 2020 on CCs and soil physical properties. Our review indicates that, in most studies, CCs reduce soil penetration resistance or compaction by 0-29% (average, 5%). They improve wet aggregate stability by 0-95% (average, 16%) and cumulative infiltration by 0-190% (average, 43%) but have negligible impacts on bulk density, dry aggregate stability, saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sat), unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (K unsat), volumetric water content at −10 to −33 kPa matric potential (field capacity), and plant available water. Soils under CCs can be cooler in daytime and warmer at nighttime, and warmer in winter and cooler in the rest of year. Volumetric heat capacity increases and thermal diffusivity decreases, indicating that CCs could moderate heat transport rate. Soil texture, tillage system, CC-derived soil C concentration, and CC duration affect CC impacts on physical properties. For example, the positive impacts from CCs can increase as CC management duration increases and combining CCs with no-till can improve water infiltration more than with tilled soils. Long-term data on hydraulic properties, thermal properties, dry aggregate stability, and pore-size distribution are scant. In general, CCs improve most soil physical properties, but the magnitude of improvement is highly site-and management specific.

show abstract

“…All statements reported here were focused on CCs concerning their agronomic performance, environmental impacts, and contribution to CSA. Statements were formulated based on findings reported on a high number of recent papers [3,10,13,[21][22][23]. The questionnaire was test run with four farmer-researchers who had long-term experience of CCs in Finland.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pioneering Farmers Value Agronomic Performance of Cover Crops and Their Impacts on Soil and Environment

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover crops (CCs) have aroused a great deal of interest as a multifunctional measure to improve the sustainability of agriculture. Understanding farmers’ views are important for future farm-scale implementation. A farmer survey was carried out in Finland in 2021 with the aims to gather farmers’ views on agronomic performance of CCs, their environmental impacts and contribution to climate smart agriculture, and understand how farmers’ views on CCs differed depending on farm/farmer characteristics. The farmers’ sample was conventional and organic farms that had selected CCs as a registered measure in 2020. 6493 farmers were invited to answer a questionnaire with 18 statements (a Likert scale, 5 answer choices), and 1130 responded (17.4%). A Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test was used to measure the strength of the association between ten characteristics of the respondents and 18 statements. Farmers considered CCs to have wide-ranging benefits for soil conditions. Only 21% of farmers agreed that CCs increase the need for nitrogen fertilizer use. 49% of farmers agreed that CCs reduce weed problems. Farmers mostly agreed (ca. 80%) that CCs reduce nutrient leaching and erosion. They were in general more uncertain about CCs’ contribution to climate change mitigation (53% agreed), adaptation (51%), and resilience (58%). In agri-environmental schemes subsidies for use of CCs should aim large-scale implementation with two important target groups: younger farmers (≤50 years) as they were slightly more skeptical than older ones and farmers with less diverse land use as they were more doubtful of benefits provided by CCs.

show abstract

Cover crops reduce drainage but not always soil water content due to interactions between rainfall distribution and management

Cited by 39 publications

References 44 publications

Estimating the carbon storage potential and greenhouse gas emissions of French arable cropland using high‐resolution modeling

Estimating the carbon storage potential and greenhouse gas emissions of French arable cropland using high‐resolution modeling

Cover crop impacts on soil physical properties: A review

Pioneering Farmers Value Agronomic Performance of Cover Crops and Their Impacts on Soil and Environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About