Abstract
Summary The objective of this study was to obtain detailed information on the long‐term weed suppression potential of four winter soil cover types included in an arable crop system managed at various input levels. We used weed seedbank size and composition to assess weed suppression potential. A field experiment was established in 1993 as a split‐split‐plot design with four replications, including two tillage systems [a conventional system (CS) including ploughing in the cover crops and a low‐input system (LIS) including no tillage with surface mulching of the cover crops] in the main plots, three mineral nitrogen fertilization rates for the main crop in the sub‐plots and four soil cover types (main crop residue, rye, crimson clover and subterranean clover) in the sub‐sub‐plots. Seedbank sampling took place in winter 2000/01. The weed seedbank was analysed with the seedling emergence method. Data were analysed using anova and multivariate techniques. Results indicated that the seedbank density in the LIS was about five times higher than in the conventional input system. In the CS, use of a rye cover crop resulted in a lower seedbank density with respect to the crop residue treatment (−25%), whereas in the LIS the subterranean clover cover crop decreased weed seedbank density as compared with the other cover crops and the crop residue treatment (−22% on average). Differences in species composition were mainly related to tillage system. Implications for cover crop management and the development of sustainable cropping systems are discussed.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 4
Claim · model-written summary
The low input system had about five times the weed seedbank density of the conventional input system.
- Treatment
- LISe0
- Outcome
- seedbank densitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- about five timese0
- Comparator
- conventional input systeme0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the seedbank density in the LIS was about five times higher than in the conventional input system”
t0“cover‐crop‐maize management systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Rye cover cropping lowered weed seedbank density by 25% relative to crop residue in the conventional system.
- Treatment
- rye cover crope0
- Outcome
- seedbank densitye0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- −25%e0
- Qualifier
- CSe0
- Comparator
- crop residue treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the CS, use of a rye cover crop resulted in a lower seedbank density with respect to the crop residue treatment (−25%)”
t0“cover‐crop‐maize management systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Subterranean clover cover cropping reduced weed seedbank density by 22% on average in the low input system.
- Treatment
- subterranean clover cover crope0
- Outcome
- weed seedbank densitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- −22%e0
- Qualifier
- LISe0
- Comparator
- the other cover crops and the crop residue treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the LIS the subterranean clover cover crop decreased weed seedbank density as compared with the other cover crops and the crop residue treatment (−22% on average)”
t0“cover‐crop‐maize management systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed species composition differences were mainly related to tillage system.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in species composition were mainly related to tillage system.”
t0“cover‐crop‐maize management systems”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.