Evaluation of Grass and Legume Species as Perennial Ground Covers in Corn Production

Abstract

Corn (Zea mays L.) stover has been identified as an important feedstock for biofuel production but its removal will likely increase soil erosion. To address this issue 35 species of grasses and legumes were evaluated as potential perennial ground covers (PGCs) in corn. Selection of species encompassed both C3 and C4 species with a wide range of developmental and morphological features. The objectives were to (i) identify species that could support a high level of corn production while requiring minimal management and (ii) identify morphological traits and growth habits of suitable entries as PGC. Over the 3‐yr study period species with slow growing and spreading habits were more conducive to corn production, even though these PGCs still caused an average 23% reduction in corn grain yield. Meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis Huds.), sheep fescue (Festuca ovina L.), Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa L.), fowl bluegrass (Poa palustris L.), and colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris L.) were identified as suitable PGC species. These species were generally shorter and slower to spread into the corn rows compared with other, more aggressive species. Based on these observations an ideotype for future PGC species should be low growing, clump forming, and shade tolerant and have delayed green‐up in the spring.

Living Mulch for Sustainable Maize Stover Biomass Harvest

“…These findings are consistent with earlier reports, which found that consistent and uniform maize stands in maize-sod systems were challenging to achieve (Stanley and Gallaher, 1980), observed delayed maturity in intercropped maize (Kloeke et al, 1989) and reported that greater LM cover generally resulted in lower maize plant density than the control (Flynn et al, 2013). Observed reductions in plant density in the no LM treatment maize with residue retention versus no LM treatment maize with residue removal are consistent with other reports regarding lower emergence rates for maize treatments with residue retention across various tillage methods (Dam et al, 2005) and reduced maize plant growth when the maize plant was in close proximity to residue (Yakle and Cruse, 1983).…”

“…The maize grain yield reduction for LM treatment maize is similar to other reports in that excessive competition from LM resulted in lower grain yield than conventional maize (Adams et al, 1970;Carreker et al, 1972;Robertson et al, 1976;Flynn et al, 2013). In the SM sequence at Boone, the yield-stable hybrid produced greater total aboveground biomass in no LM treatments than LM treatments, at 20.20 and 14.33 Mg ha −1 , respectively.…”

“…In the SM sequence at Boone, the yield-stable hybrid produced greater total aboveground biomass in no LM treatments than LM treatments, at 20.20 and 14.33 Mg ha −1 , respectively. Previous reports attribute observed yield suppression of maize in LM to early-season stresses (Flynn et al, 2013;Bartel et al, 2017). Box et al (1980) observed that maize grain yield was lower in strip-killed sod than completely killed sod, and while water availability was not a limitation, observed differences may have been due to phytotoxicity.…”

“…Although grain yield reductions were still documented in the LM treatment maize, Poa and Festuca species were identified as compatible groundcovers for a maize row crop system (Flynn et al, 2013). Although grain yield reductions were still documented in the LM treatment maize, Poa and Festuca species were identified as compatible groundcovers for a maize row crop system (Flynn et al, 2013).…”

“…Living mulch (LM) offers a potential solution for reconciling stover removal with natural resources preservation, and grass species have been evaluated for their use as LM. Although grain yield reductions were still documented in the LM treatment maize, Poa and Festuca species were identified as compatible groundcovers for a maize row crop system (Flynn et al, 2013). Substantial benefits of cover crops in a natural resources management capacity occur through diminished soil erosion, enhanced soil fertility, and water infiltration (Teasdale, 1996).…”