Abstract
Abstract The introduction of cover crops as fallow replacement in the traditional cereal-based cropping system of the Northern Great Plains has the potential to decrease soil erosion, increase water infiltration, reduce weed pressure and improve soil health. However, there are concerns this might come at the cost of reduced production in the subsequent wheat crop due to soil water use by the cover crops. To determine this risk, a phased 2-year rotation of 15 different cover crop mixtures and winter wheat/spring wheat was established at the Northern Agricultural Research Center near Havre, MT from 2012 to 2020, or four rotation cycles. Controls included fallow–wheat and barley–wheat sequences. Cover crops and barley were terminated early July by haying, grazing or herbicide application. Yields were significantly decreased in wheat following cover crops in 3 out of 8 years, up to maximum of 1.4 t ha −1 (or 60%) for winter wheat following cool-season cover crop mixtures. However, cover crops also unexpectedly increased following wheat yields in 2018, possibly due in part to residual fertilizer. Within cool-, mid- and warm-season cover crop groups, individual mixtures did not show significant differences impact on following grain yields. Similarly, cover crop termination methods had no impact on spring or winter wheat grain yields in any of the 8 years considered. Wheat grain protein concentration was not affected by cover crop mixtures or termination treatments but was decreased in winter wheat following barley. Differences in soil water content across cover crop groups were only evident at the beginning of the third cycle in one field, but important reductions were observed below 15 cm in the last rotation cycle. In-season rainfall explained 43 and 13% of the variability in winter and spring wheat yields, respectively, compared to 2 and 1% for the previous year cover crop biomass. Further economic analyses are required to determine if the integration of livestock is necessary to mitigate the risks associated with the introduction of cover crops in replacement of fallow in the Northern Great Plains.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat yields were significantly decreased following cover crops in 3 of 8 years, by up to a maximum of 1.4 t/ha (60%) for winter wheat after cool-season mixtures.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- cover cropse0
- Outcome
- Yieldse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 1.4 t ha −1 (or 60%)e0
- Qualifier
- 3 out of 8 yearse0
- Comparator
- fallow–wheat and barley–wheat sequencese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields were significantly decreased in wheat following cover crops in 3 out of 8 years, up to maximum of 1.4 t ha −1 (or 60%) for winter wheat following cool-season cover crop mixtures”
e1“Controls included fallow–wheat and barley–wheat sequences”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops unexpectedly increased following wheat yields in 2018, possibly due in part to residual fertilizer.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- cover cropse0
- Outcome
- following wheat yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- in 2018e0
- Comparator
- fallow–wheat and barley–wheat sequencese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cover crops also unexpectedly increased following wheat yields in 2018”
e1“Controls included fallow–wheat and barley–wheat sequences”
Claim · model-written summary
Within cool-, mid- and warm-season cover crop groups, individual mixtures did not differ significantly in their impact on following wheat grain yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- individual mixturese0
- Outcome
- following grain yieldse0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Within cool-, mid- and warm-season cover crop groups, individual mixtures did not show significant differences impact on following grain yields”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop termination methods had no impact on spring or winter wheat grain yields in any of the 8 years.
- Taxon
- spring or winter wheate0
- Treatment
- cover crop termination methodse0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- no impacte0
- Qualifier
- any of the 8 yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“cover crop termination methods had no impact on spring or winter wheat grain yields in any of the 8 years considered”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain protein concentration was not affected by cover crop mixtures.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- cover crop mixturese0
- Outcome
- grain protein concentratione0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat grain protein concentration was not affected by cover crop mixtures or termination treatments but was decreased in winter wheat following barley”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain protein concentration was not affected by cover crop termination treatments.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- termination treatmentse0
- Outcome
- grain protein concentratione0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat grain protein concentration was not affected by cover crop mixtures or termination treatments but was decreased in winter wheat following barley”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain protein concentration was decreased in winter wheat following barley.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- following barleye0
- Outcome
- grain protein concentratione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat grain protein concentration was not affected by cover crop mixtures or termination treatments but was decreased in winter wheat following barley”
Claim · model-written summary
Differences in soil water content across cover crop groups were evident only at the beginning of the third cycle in one field.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Differences in soil water contente0
- Qualifier
- only evident at the beginning of the third cycle in one fielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in soil water content across cover crop groups were only evident at the beginning of the third cycle in one field”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Important reductions in soil water content were observed below 15 cm in the last rotation cycle.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- soil water contente0
- Qualifier
- below 15 cm in the last rotation cyclee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in soil water content across cover crop groups were only evident at the beginning of the third cycle in one field, but important reductions were observed below 15 cm in the last rotation cycle”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
In-season rainfall explained 43% of the variability in winter wheat yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- In-season rainfalle0
- Outcome
- variability in winter and spring wheat yieldse0
- Value
- 43e0
- Qualifier
- wintere0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In-season rainfall explained 43 and 13% of the variability in winter and spring wheat yields, respectively, compared to 2 and 1% for the previous year cover crop biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
In-season rainfall explained 13% of the variability in spring wheat yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- In-season rainfalle0
- Outcome
- variability in winter and spring wheat yieldse0
- Value
- 13%e0
- Qualifier
- springe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In-season rainfall explained 43 and 13% of the variability in winter and spring wheat yields, respectively, compared to 2 and 1% for the previous year cover crop biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
Previous year cover crop biomass explained 2% of the variability in winter wheat yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- previous year cover crop biomasse0
- Outcome
- variability in winter and spring wheat yieldse0
- Value
- 2e0
- Qualifier
- wintere0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In-season rainfall explained 43 and 13% of the variability in winter and spring wheat yields, respectively, compared to 2 and 1% for the previous year cover crop biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
Previous year cover crop biomass explained 1% of the variability in spring wheat yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- previous year cover crop biomasse0
- Outcome
- variability in winter and spring wheat yieldse0
- Value
- 1%e0
- Qualifier
- springe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In-season rainfall explained 43 and 13% of the variability in winter and spring wheat yields, respectively, compared to 2 and 1% for the previous year cover crop biomass”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
cover crop · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 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.