Explore the vast range of titles available.

Increasing the quantity and quality of plant biomass production in space and time can improve the capacity of agroecosystems to capture and store atmospheric carbon (C) in the soil. Cover cropping is a key practice to increase system net primary productivity (NPP) and increase the quantity of high-quality plant residues available for integration into soil organic matter (SOM). Cover crop management and local environmental conditions, however, influence the magnitude of soil C stock change. Here, we used a comprehensive meta-analysis approach to quantify the effect of cover crops on soil C stocks from the 0–30 cm soil depth in temperate climates and to identify key management and ecological factors that impact variation in this response. A total of 40 publications with 181 observations were included in the meta-analysis representing six countries across three different continents. Overall, cover crops had a strong positive effect on soil C stocks (P < 0.0001) leading to a 12% increase, averaging 1.11 Mg C/ha more soil C relative to a no cover crop control. The strongest predictors of SOC response to cover cropping were planting and termination date (i.e., growing window), annual cover crop biomass production, and soil clay content. Cover crops planted as continuous cover or autumn planted and terminated led to 20–30% greater total soil C stocks relative to other cover crop growing windows. Likewise, high annual cover crop biomass production (>7 Mg·ha−1·yr−1) resulted in 30% higher total soil C stocks than lower levels of biomass production. Managing for greater NPP by improving synchronization in cover crop growing windows and climate will enhance the capacity of this practice to drawdown carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere across agroecosystems. The integration of growing window (potentially as a proxy for biomass growth), climate, and soil factors in decision-support tools are relevant for improving the quantification of soil C stock change under cover crops, particularly with the expansion of terrestrial soil C markets.

Cover crops (CCs) are a promising and sustainable agronomic practice to ameliorate soil health and crop performances. However, the complex of relationships between CCs, the soil, and the plant nutritional status has been little investigated. In this article, for the first time, we critically review, under a holistic approach, the reciprocal relationships between CCs and the soil physical and hydraulic properties, microbial, and faunal communities, soil nutrient availability, and plant nutritional status in temperate climates. For each of these topics, we report the current state of understanding, the influence of CC management options and suggested strategies, thus including both fundamental and applied aspects. In addition, we provide a detailed focus on the history of CCs and a list of the main temperate CCs. Cover cropping is a helpful practice in improving the physical, chemical, and biological soil properties, optimizing nutrient use efficiency and reducing the dependency of crops on external supplies of nutrients. The interactions between CCs and the nutritional status of soil and plants are complex and dynamic. Their understanding could be useful to set up an appropriate and site-specific management of fertilization. Management options play a key role in developing an effective and context-specific cover cropping.

Climate change adaptation requires building agricultural system resilience to warmer, drier climates. Increasing temporal plant diversity through crop rotation diversification increases yields of some crops under drought, but its potential to enhance crop drought resistance and the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We conducted a drought manipulation experiment using rainout shelters embedded within a 36-year crop rotation diversity and no-till experiment in a temperate climate and measured a suite of soil and crop developmental and eco-physiological traits in the field and laboratory. We show that diversifying maize-soybean rotations with small grain cereals and cover crops mitigated maize water stress at the leaf and canopy scales and reduced yield losses to drought by 17.1 ± 6.1%, while no-till did not affect maize drought resistance. Path analysis showed a strong correlation between soil organic matter and lower maize water stress despite no significant differences in soil organic matter between rotations or tillage treatments. This positive relationship between soil organic matter and maize water status was not mediated by higher soil water retention or infiltration as often hypothesized, nor differential depth of root water uptake as measured with stable isotopes, suggesting that other mechanisms are at play. Crop rotation diversification is an underappreciated drought management tool to adapt crop production to climate change through managing for soil organic matter.

Interest in planting mixtures of cover crop species has grown in recent years as farmers seek to increase the breadth of ecosystem services cover crops provide. As part of a multidisciplinary project, we quantified the degree to which monocultures and mixtures of cover crops suppress weeds during the fall-to-spring cover crop growing period. Weed-suppressive cover crop stands can limit weed seed rain from summer- and winter-annual species, reducing weed population growth and ultimately weed pressure in future cash crop stands. We established monocultures and mixtures of two legumes (medium red clover and Austrian winter pea), two grasses (cereal rye and oats), and two brassicas (forage radish and canola) in a long fall growing window following winter wheat harvest and in a shorter window following silage corn harvest. In fall of the long window, grass cover crops and mixtures were the most weed suppressive, whereas legume cover crops were the least weed suppressive. All mixtures also effectively suppressed weeds. This was likely primarily due to the presence of fast-growing grass species, which were effective even when they were seeded at only 20% of their monoculture rate. In spring, weed biomass was low in all treatments due to winter kill of summer-annual weeds and low germination of winter annuals. In the short window following silage corn, biomass accumulation by cover crops and weeds in the fall was more than an order of magnitude lower than in the longer window. However, there was substantial weed seed production in the spring in all treatments not containing cereal rye (monoculture or mixture). Our results suggest that cover crop mixtures require only low seeding rates of aggressive grass species to provide weed suppression. This creates an opportunity for other species to deliver additional ecosystem services, though careful species selection may be required to maintain mixture diversity and avoid dominance of winter-hardy cover crop grasses in the spring.

This study presents results from the first 5 years of an organic cropping trial in Ontario, Canada, where legume cover crops were the primary nitrogen source in a soybean-winter wheat/cover crop-corn rotation. Treatments included cover crop termination using moldboard plow (MP) or chisel plow (CP), a no-cover crop control under conventional production (CK-C), and four cover crops including summer-seeded crimson clover (CC, Trifolium incarnatum L.), summer-seeded hairy vetch (HV, Vicia villosa L. Roth), summer-seeded red clover (RC ss , Trifolium pratense L.), and frost-seeded red clover (RC fs ). Summer-seeding occurred after wheat harvest (July–August), and frost-seeding occurred in early spring (March–April). At cover crop termination, average aboveground cover crop biomass ranged from 5.9 to 8.1 Mg ha −1 , while accumulated biomass nitrogen ranged from 155 to 193 kg ha −1 . Corn grain yields were 11.6 Mg ha −1 for MP and 10.2 Mg ha −1 for CP tillage-termination method; and 13.3 Mg ha −1 for CK-C, 10.9 Mg ha −1 for RC fs , 10.6 Mg ha −1 for HV, 10.2 Mg ha −1 for CC, and 9.5 Mg ha −1 for RC ss . Organic winter wheat yields were nitrogen-limited, averaging 27% lower than CK-C. Winter wheat yields were 10–15% lower in the RC fs than in other summer-seeded cover crop treatments. Soybean yields were largely unaffected by the treatments. It was concluded that summer-seeded legume cover crops are an effective primary nitrogen source for corn, but not as effective for the winter wheat phase of the soybean-winter wheat-corn rotation.

Rationale and Purpose Adding multispecies cover crop (CC) mixtures could diversify the current simplified crop rotations and enhance soil health more than monoculture CCs. Further, CC mixtures with diverse plant species could adapt better to changing climatic and environmental conditions than monoculture CCs. However, our current understanding of the soil benefits of CC mixtures is still limited. This review discussed whether CC mixtures are better than monoculture CCs to improve soil physical health. Methods All studies published up to May 25, 2023 comparing soil physical properties between CC mixtures and their constituents grown as monocultures were searched in the available databases. To avoid potential sampling bias, only studies that compared mixtures against all its constituents grown alone were discussed. Results Cover crop mixture studies on soil physical properties were relatively few. Mixtures did not reduce soil bulk density in 83% of cases, penetration resistance in 75%, wet aggregate stability in 67%, and dry aggregate stability and saturated hydraulic conductivity in 100% compared with monoculture CCs. Mixtures had inconsistent effects on water infiltration and plant available water. The number of CC species in the mixture and management duration do not differently affect mixture impacts. The limited or no differences in soil physical properties between mixtures and monocultures could be due to the similarities in CC biomass production and soil C between these two systems. Conclusion Cover crop mixtures do not enhance soil physical properties relative to monoculture CCs in most cases. However, the few cases where mixtures outperformed monocultures suggest soil benefits of mixtures should be evaluated on a site-specific basis. More long-term (> 10 yr) data are needed for more definitive conclusions. Highlight Cover crop mixtures do not generally improve soil physical health more than monoculture CCs.

Living mulches are cover crops grown simultaneously with and in close proximity to cash crops. Advantages of living mulches over dead cover crops may include increased weed suppression, reduced erosion and leaching, better soil health, and greater resource-use efficiency. Advantages of living mulches over synthetic mulches may include enhanced agroecosystem biodiversity and suitability for a wider range of cropping systems. A major disadvantage of this practice is the potential for competition between living mulches and cash crops. The intensity and outcome of mulch-crop competition depend on agroecosystem management as well as climate and other factors. In this review, we consider the management of living mulches for weed control in field and vegetable cropping systems of temperate environments. More than 50 yr of research have demonstrated that mechanical or chemical suppression of a living mulch can limit mulch-crop competition without killing the mulch and thereby losing its benefits. Such tactics can also contribute to weed suppression. Mechanical and chemical regulation should be combined with cultural practices that give the main crop a competitive advantage over the living mulch, which, in turn, outcompetes the weeds. Promising approaches include crop and mulch cultivar selection; changes to planting time, density, and planting pattern; and changes to fertilization or irrigation regimes. A systems approach to living mulch management, including an increased emphasis on the interactions between management methods, may increase the benefits and lower the risks associated with this practice.

With changes to climate and crop insurance, earlier soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] planting dates need to be investigated. Additionally, the use of a cover crop prior to soybean is promoted as a sustainable practice though little is known about cover crop and ultra‐early soybean planting (prior to April 15). The objective was to evaluate soybean planting date and cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) cover crop termination timing on cover crop biomass, soybean plant population, and yield. The study was conducted in Northeast and West Central Ohio in 2021 and 2022. Treatments included three soybean planting dates (early April, late April, and late May) and three cover crop treatments (termination 1–2 weeks prior to planting or “early,” termination at or after planting or “late,” and no cover crop). Cover crop biomass increased as termination was delayed. Soybean planted in early April resulted in a yield reduction of 1.8 Mg ha−1 when planted into a cover crop compared to the no cover crop control. However, when soybean was planted in late April, grain yield was not different among cover crop treatments. Yield reduction associated with early April planting with a cover crop was likely due to low soybean plant population, especially in Northeast Ohio, where plant population was <55,000 plants ha−1 with a cover crop and >120,000 plants ha−1 without a cover crop. To maximize yield, soybean should be planted by the end of April in Northeast Ohio. In West Central Ohio, soybean can be planted in early April without a cover crop. Core Ideas Soybean planting date and cover crop termination timing on cover crop biomass and grain yield were assessed. Cover crop biomass increased with later termination dates. In West Central Ohio, soybean planted in April yielded greater than soybean planted in May. Planting soybean in early April after a cover crop reduced soybean plant population and grain yield.

Cover crops are increasingly being adopted to provide multiple ecosystem services, including weed suppression. Understanding what drives weed biomass in cover crops can help growers make the appropriate management decisions to effectively limit weed pressure. In this paper, we use a unique dataset of 1764 measurements from seven cover crop research experiments in Pennsylvania (USA) to predict, for the first time, weed biomass in winter cover crops in the fall and spring. We assessed the following predictors: cover crop biomass in the fall and spring, fall and spring growing degree days between planting and cover crop termination, cover crop type (grass, brassica, legume monocultures, and mixtures), system management (organic, conventional), and tillage before cover crop seeding (no-till, tillage). We used random forests to develop the predictive models and identify the most important variables explaining weed biomass in cover crops. Growing degree days, cover crop type, and cover crop biomass were the most important predictor variables in both the fall ( r 2  = 0.65) and spring ( r 2  = 0.47). In the fall, weed biomass increased as accumulated growing degree days increased, which was mainly related to early planting dates. Fall weed biomass was greater in legume and brassica monocultures compared to grass monocultures and mixtures. Cover crop and weed biomass were positively correlated in the fall, as early planting of cover crops led to high cover crop biomass but also to high weed biomass. In contrast, high spring cover crop biomass suppressed weeds, especially as spring growing degree days increased. Grass and brassica monocultures and mixtures were more weed-suppressive than legumes. This study is the first to be able to predict weed biomass in winter cover crops using a random forest approach. Results show that weed suppression by winter cover crops can be enhanced with optimal cover crop species selection and seeding time.

The magnitude of ecosystem services provided by winter cover crops is linked to their performance (i.e., biomass and associated nitrogen content, forage quality, and fractional ground cover), although few studies quantify these characteristics across the landscape. Remote sensing can produce landscape-level assessments of cover crop performance. However, commonly employed optical vegetation indices (VI) saturate, limiting their ability to measure high-biomass cover crops. Contemporary VIs that employ red-edge bands have been shown to be more robust to saturation issues. Additionally, synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data have been effective at estimating crop biophysical characteristics, although this has not been demonstrated on winter cover crops. We assessed the integration of optical (Sentinel-2) and SAR (Sentinel-1) imagery to estimate winter cover crops biomass across 27 fields over three winter–spring seasons (2018–2021) in Maryland. We used log-linear models to predict cover crop biomass as a function of 27 VIs and eight SAR metrics. Our results suggest that the integration of the normalized difference red-edge vegetation index (NDVI_RE1; employing Sentinel-2 bands 5 and 8A), combined with SAR interferometric (InSAR) coherence, best estimated the biomass of cereal grass cover crops. However, these results were season- and species-specific (R2 = 0.74, 0.81, and 0.34; RMSE = 1227, 793, and 776 kg ha−1, for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), triticale (Triticale hexaploide L.), and cereal rye (Secale cereale), respectively, in spring (March–May)). Compared to the optical-only model, InSAR coherence improved biomass estimations by 4% in wheat, 5% in triticale, and by 11% in cereal rye. Both optical-only and optical-SAR biomass prediction models exhibited saturation occurring at ~1900 kg ha−1; thus, more work is needed to enable accurate biomass estimations past the point of saturation. To address this continued concern, future work could consider the use of weather and climate variables, machine learning models, the integration of proximal sensing and satellite observations, and/or the integration of process-based crop-soil simulation models and remote sensing observations.