Paper · 2019 · Australian Journal of Crop Science

Cover crops as modifying agents of microbiological soil attribute

Catia Aparecida Simon; Sebastião Ferreira de Lima; Meire Silvestrini Cordeiro; et al.

5
claims
9
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Carbon sources are exuded and deposited by different soil cover plants. They promote growth, diversity and enhancement of soil microbial community functionality, due to organic matter degradation by participating in major biochemical cycles and the availability of inorganic nutrients to plants. In this way, it is necessary to evaluate the microbiological attributes of the soil after cover cropping, which allows for surveying and monitoring the soil quality, thereby enabling rapid responses in relation to managing changes in the soil. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate soil microbiological attributes and soybean grain yield under the influence of different cover crops. The experiment was installed in the year 2015. The treatments were constituted by the following vegetation coverages: sorghum, millet, Urochloa ruziziensis, forage turnip, Urochloa brizantha, crambe and fallow area, with cover crops sown in succession to the soybean crop for three years prior to the date of installation of the experiment .The evaluated parameters were soil microbial biomass carbon, soil basal respiration, metabolic quotient, enzymatic activity of acid phosphatase and soil β-glucosidase, plant phytomass produced by the different cover crops and soybean yield in each area. The use of cover crops promotes higher soybean yield. The microbial activity and its efficiency were modulated according to the type of cover crop used. Soil under sorghum mulch provided lower microbial efficiency. The U. ruziziensis plant residues remain for less time on the soil. The results show that U. brizantha may be the most suitable for its use as a soil cover plant, providing improvements in its attributes.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cover crops increased soybean yield.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe0
Treatment
cover cropse0
Outcome
soybean yielde0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The use of cover crops promotes higher soybean yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1287–1339 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil microbial activity and efficiency varied with cover crop type.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe1
Treatment
type of cover crope0
Outcome
microbial activity and its efficiencye0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The microbial activity and its efficiency were modulated according to the type of cover crop used”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1341–1438 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cover crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–11 · show in text ↑
e1

“The use of cover crops promotes higher soybean yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1287–1339 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sorghum mulch was associated with lower soil microbial efficiency.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe1
Treatment
sorghum mulche0
Outcome
microbial efficiencye0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil under sorghum mulch provided lower microbial efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1440–1500 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cover crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–11 · show in text ↑
e1

“The use of cover crops promotes higher soybean yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1287–1339 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

U. ruziziensis residues persisted for less time on soil.

Taxon
U. ruziziensisUrochloa ruziziensise0
Outcome
plant residues remain for less time on the soile0
Direction
lesse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Urochloa ruziziensis
Urochloa ruziziensis · TaxonKym Nicolson · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The U. ruziziensis plant residues remain for less time on the soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1502–1568 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest U. brizantha may be the most suitable cover plant for improving soil attributes.

Taxon
U. brizanthaUrochloa brizanthae0
Outcome
use as a soil cover plante0
Qualifier
providing improvements in its attributese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Urochloa brizantha
Urochloa brizantha · Taxonhttp://www.hear.org/starr/imageusepolicy.htm This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Attribution: Forest & Kim Starr · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“U. brizantha may be the most suitable for its use as a soil cover plant, providing improvements in its attributes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1592–1705 · show in text ↑

cover crop · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

101 papers: 33 positive, 68 negative or no effect

32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 57 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

97 papers more in this group

See all 101 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.