Abstract
Much of cover crop research to date focuses on key indicators of impact without considering the implications over multiple years, in the absence of a systems-based approach. To evaluate the effect of three years of autumn cover crops on subsequent processing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) production in 2010 and 2011, a field split-split-plot factorial design trial with effects of cover crop type, urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer rate (0 or 140 kg N ha-1 preplant broadcast incorporated) and tomato cultivar (early vs. late) was conducted. The main plot factor, cover crop, included a no cover crop control, oat (Avena sativa L.), winter cereal rye (hereafter referred to as rye) (Secale cereale L.), oilseed radish (OSR) (Raphanus sativus L. var. oleiferus Metzg Stokes), and mix of OSR and rye (OSR + rye) treatments. Cover crop biomass of 0.5 to 2.8 and 1.7 to 3.1 Mg ha-1 was attained in early Oct. and the following early May, respectively. In general, OSR increased soil mineral N during cover crop growth and into the succeeding summer tomato growing season, while the remaining cover crops did not differ from the no cover crop control. The lack of a cover crop by N rate interaction in soil and plant N analyses at harvest suggests that growers may not need to modify N fertilizer rates to tomatoes based on cover crop type. Processing tomato fruit quality at harvest (rots, insect or disease damage, Agtron colour, pH, or natural tomato soluble solids (NTSS)) was not affected by cover crop type. In both years, marketable yield in the no cover crop treatment was lower or not statistically different than all planted cover crops. Partial profit margins over both years were 1320 $ ha-1 higher with OSR and $960 higher with oat compared to the no cover crop control. Thus, results from a systems-based approach suggest that the cover crops tested had no observed negative impact on processing tomato production and have the potential to increase marketable yield and profit margins.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop biomass ranged from 0.5 to 2.8 Mg ha-1 in early October.
Verbatim
e0“Cover crop biomass of 0.5 to 2.8 and 1.7 to 3.1 Mg ha-1 was attained in early Oct. and the following early May, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop biomass ranged from 1.7 to 3.1 Mg ha-1 the next May.
Verbatim
e0“Cover crop biomass of 0.5 to 2.8 and 1.7 to 3.1 Mg ha-1 was attained in early Oct. and the following early May, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
OSR increased soil mineral N through the succeeding tomato summer.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- OSRe0
- Outcome
- soil mineral Ne0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- during cover crop growth and into the succeeding summer tomato growing seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“OSR increased soil mineral N during cover crop growth and into the succeeding summer tomato growing season”
Claim · model-written summary
Other cover crops did not differ from no cover crop for soil mineral nitrogen.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- remaining cover cropse0
- Outcome
- soil mineral Ne0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- no cover crop controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“OSR increased soil mineral N during cover crop growth and into the succeeding summer tomato growing season, while the remaining cover crops did not differ from the no cover crop control.”
Claim · model-written summary
No cover crop by N rate interaction was seen in soil and plant N analyses at harvest.
Verbatim
e0“The lack of a cover crop by N rate interaction in soil and plant N analyses at harvest”
e1“processing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) production”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors suggest growers may not need to change tomato N rates by cover crop type.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- may not need to modify N fertilizer rates to tomatoes based on cover crop typee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“growers may not need to modify N fertilizer rates to tomatoes based on cover crop type”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop type did not affect tomato fruit rots, insect or disease damage.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- cover crop typee0
- Outcome
- rots, insect or disease damagee0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Processing tomato fruit quality at harvest (rots, insect or disease damage, Agtron colour, pH, or natural tomato soluble solids (NTSS)) was not affected by cover crop type.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop type did not affect tomato colour, pH or soluble solids.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- cover crop typee0
- Outcome
- Agtron colour, pH, or natural tomato soluble solids (NTSS)e0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Processing tomato fruit quality at harvest (rots, insect or disease damage, Agtron colour, pH, or natural tomato soluble solids (NTSS)) was not affected by cover crop type.”
Claim · model-written summary
No-cover tomato marketable yield was lower than or not significantly different from planted cover crops in both years.
Verbatim
e0“In both years, marketable yield in the no cover crop treatment was lower or not statistically different than all planted cover crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
OSR increased partial profit margins by 1320 $ ha-1 over no cover crop.
Verbatim
e0“Partial profit margins over both years were 1320 $ ha-1 higher with OSR and $960 higher with oat compared to the no cover crop control.”
e1“processing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) production”
Claim · model-written summary
Oat increased partial profit margins by $960 over no cover crop.
Verbatim
e0“Partial profit margins over both years were 1320 $ ha-1 higher with OSR and $960 higher with oat compared to the no cover crop control.”
e1“processing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) production”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors conclude tested cover crops had no observed negative impact on tomato production and could improve yield and margins.
Verbatim
e0“the cover crops tested had no observed negative impact on processing tomato production and have the potential to increase marketable yield and profit margins.”
The same questions in other papers
Raphanus sativus · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
cover crop · pest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
cover crop · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- no effect
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.