Abstract
Abstract Winter cover crops (CC) may facilitate weed management by inhibiting weed seed germination and seedling emergence and suppressing weed growth within the cash crop. In southern New Mexico, with scarce winter precipitation and limited irrigation water, producing sufficient CC biomass for effective weed suppression while conserving water resources is challenging. This study assessed the water requirement to produce a CC with enough biomass for weed suppression benefits during cash crop growth at two locations in New Mexico. Three winter CC species, barley, Austrian winter pea and mustard, grown singly and in a three‐way mix, under three differential irrigation treatments (one, two or three irrigations after emergence) were evaluated for their weed‐suppressive potential. Maize was planted as a cash crop four weeks after winter CC termination. Number of irrigations had no effect on the CC and weed biomass production. All CCs had lower weed density prior to maize planting compared with fallow. Barley and the three‐way mix reduced weed density by 56–96% and 68–95%, respectively. All CC treatments had lower weed biomass at the end of critical period for weed control in maize compared with fallow. Weed biomass at maize harvest did not differ between treatments. The maize yield was consistently higher in conventionally managed, weed‐free subplots, than in unsprayed weedy subplots, suggesting that CCs did not suppress weeds throughout the maize growing season. Except for barley, CCs did not cause reductions in maize yield compared with fallow. Overall, the study suggested that with adequate winter precipitation, weed‐suppressive winter cover crop stands can be produced with just one irrigation at seeding and one supplemental irrigation, making them a viable option in water‐limited agroecosystems.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Number of irrigations did not affect cover crop biomass.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Number of irrigations had no effect on the CC and weed biomass production.”
Claim · model-written summary
Number of irrigations did not affect weed biomass.
- Treatment
- Number of irrigationse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed biomass productione0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Number of irrigations had no effect on the CC and weed biomass production.”
Claim · model-written summary
All cover crops reduced weed density before maize planting versus fallow.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All CCs had lower weed density prior to maize planting compared with fallow.”
Claim · model-written summary
Barley reduced weed density by 56–96%.
- Taxon
- Barley
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgaree0 - Treatment
- Barleye0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 56–96%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Barley and the three‐way mix reduced weed density by 56–96% and 68–95%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
The three-way cover crop mix reduced weed density by 68–95%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Barley and the three‐way mix reduced weed density by 56–96% and 68–95%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
All cover crops lowered weed biomass at the end of the critical weed-control period compared with fallow.
- Treatment
- All CC treatmentse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed biomasse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All CC treatments had lower weed biomass at the end of critical period for weed control in maize compared with fallow.”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed biomass at maize harvest did not differ among treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weed biomass at maize harvest did not differ between treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed-free maize subplots consistently yielded more than unsprayed weedy subplots.
- Treatment
- conventionally managed, weed‐free subplotse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- unsprayed weedy subplotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The maize yield was consistently higher in conventionally managed, weed‐free subplots, than in unsprayed weedy subplots”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops except barley did not reduce maize yield compared with fallow.
- Treatment
- CCse0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- did not cause reductionse0
- Qualifier
- Except for barleye0
- Comparator
- fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Except for barley, CCs did not cause reductions in maize yield compared with fallow.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest winter cover crops can suppress weeds with one seeding irrigation and one supplemental irrigation given adequate winter precipitation.
- Treatment
- one irrigation at seeding and one supplemental irrigatione0
- Outcome
- weed‐suppressive winter cover crop standse0
- Qualifier
- with adequate winter precipitatione0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“with adequate winter precipitation, weed‐suppressive winter cover crop stands can be produced with just one irrigation at seeding and one supplemental irrigation, making them a viable option in water‐limited agroecosystems.”
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 →herbicide · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
499 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 24 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
647 papers more in this group
See all 651 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.