Abstract
The use of high rates of N fertilizer in intensive sweet corn ( Zea mays L.) production may result in leaching losses and contamination of adjacent waterways and ground water. Cover crops planted after sweet corn harvest could absorb residual soil N and minimize losses of fertilizer in gravitational water. Field experiments were conducted on a Ste. Rosalie heavy clay (fine, mixed, frigid, Typic Humaquept) and a St. Bernard sandy clay loam (fine loamy, mixed, nonacid, frigid Typic Eutrochrept). Cover crop effects on nutrient uptake, subsequent N release, loss of N, P, and K in leaching water, and denitrification rates were measured. Fertilizer N rates were 0, 75, and 150 kg ha −1 Cover crops were red clover ( Trifolium pratense L.), crimson clover ( Trifolium incarnatum L.), forage radish ( Raphanus sativus L.), canola ( Brassica rapa L.), barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), and annual ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum L.). A control treatment with no cover crop was also included. Three replicates were used in a split‐plot arrangement of a randomized complete block design. Fall residual soil NO − 3 –N levels were higher in control plots than cover crop plots. Gravitational water NO − 3 –N was greater in control plots and ranged from 17 to 76 kg N yr −1 N, compared with cover crop plot values of 1 to 55 kg N yr −1 . Cover crops had no effect on denitrification rates, or on NH + 4 –N, P, or K concentrations in gravitational water. Forage radish, canola, and barley were effective cover crops in reducing soil NO − 3 –N. Cover crop effects on subsequent sweet corn were found only in grain N uptake.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Fall residual soil NO3-N was higher in control plots without cover crops than in cover crop plots.
Verbatim
t0“Cover Crops and Nutrient Retention for Subsequent Sweet Corn Production”
e1“Fall residual soil NO − 3 –N levels were higher in control plots than cover crop plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Gravitational water NO3-N was greater in control plots than in cover crop plots, 17 to 76 versus 1 to 55 kg N per year.
Verbatim
t0“Cover Crops and Nutrient Retention for Subsequent Sweet Corn Production”
e2“Gravitational water NO − 3 –N was greater in control plots and ranged from 17 to 76 kg N yr −1 N, compared with cover crop plot values of 1 to 55 kg N yr −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops had no effect on denitrification rates.
Verbatim
t0“Cover Crops and Nutrient Retention for Subsequent Sweet Corn Production”
e3“Cover crops had no effect on denitrification rates”
e4“A control treatment with no cover crop was also included”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops had no effect on NH4-N, P, or K concentrations in gravitational water.
Verbatim
t0“Cover Crops and Nutrient Retention for Subsequent Sweet Corn Production”
e4“A control treatment with no cover crop was also included”
e5“Cover crops had no effect on denitrification rates, or on NH + 4 –N, P, or K concentrations in gravitational water”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage radish, canola and barley were effective cover crops in reducing soil NO3-N.
- Taxon
- sweet cornt0
- Treatment
- Forage radish, canola, and barleye6
- Outcome
- soil NO − 3 –Ne6
- Direction
- reducinge6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Cover Crops and Nutrient Retention for Subsequent Sweet Corn Production”
e6“Forage radish, canola, and barley were effective cover crops in reducing soil NO − 3 –N”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop effects on subsequent sweet corn were found in grain N uptake only; the direction is not stated.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
t0“Cover Crops and Nutrient Retention for Subsequent Sweet Corn Production”
e7“Cover crop effects on subsequent sweet corn were found only in grain N uptake”
The same questions in other papers
Raphanus sativus · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
cover crop · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →cover crop · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 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.