Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:50:34.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Considering canopy architecture when planning cover crop mixtures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2016

Randy L. Anderson
Randy L. Anderson*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Brookings, South Dakota 57006, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: randy.anderson@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Producers may be able to improve growth of cover crop mixtures by selecting species to occupy different levels (zones) in the cover crop canopy. This suggestion is based on a study where we compared four cover crop treatments, comprised of one, three, six and nine species, for biomass production. Oat, dry pea and oilseed radish were present in all multi-species mixtures. Treatments were established in August, following spring wheat harvest. Biomass was harvested 9 weeks later. The most productive treatment was the oat–dry pea–oilseed radish mixture. Species of this mixture occupied different zones in the canopy and minimized interspecies competition to improve production. Cover crop mixtures of six and nine species produced 24% less biomass, which we partially attribute to unequal distribution of species in zones of the canopy. This suggestion with canopy architecture could be tested further with other cover crop species to quantify its impact.

Keywords

canopy architecturefall growthinterspecies competition
Type
From the Field
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 109 - 111
Check for updates
Creative Commons
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brainard, D.C., Bellinder, R.R., and Kumar, V. 2011. Grass–legume mixtures and soil fertility affect cover crop performance and weed seed production. Weed Technology 25:473–479.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.J., Owens, V.N., Beck, D., and Sexton, P. 2013. Suitability of cover crop monocultures for late-season forage in South Dakota. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 93:589–597.Google Scholar
[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service 2015. Cover crops. Available at Web site http://www.nrcs.usda.gov Google Scholar
Phatak, S.C. and Diaz-Perez, J.C. 2007. Managing pests with cover crops. In Clark, A. (ed.). Managing Cover Crops Profitably. 3rd ed. Handbook 9. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, College Park, Maryland. p. 25–33.Google Scholar
Smith, R.G., Atwood, L.W., and Warren, N.C. 2014. Increased productivity of a cover crop mixture is not associated with enhanced agroecosystem services. PLoS ONE 9:e97351.Google Scholar
Snapp, S.S., Swinton, S.M., Labarta, R., Mutch, D., Black, J.R., Leep, R., Nyiraneza, J., and O'Neil, K. 2005. Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs, and performance within cropping system niches. Agronomy Journal 97:322–332.Google Scholar
Szumigalski, A.R. and Van Acker, R.C. 2006. Nitrogen yield and land use efficiency in annual sole crops and intercrops. Agronomy Journal 98:1030–1040.Google Scholar
Szumigalski, A.R. and Van Acker, R.C. 2008. Land equivalent ratios, light interception, and water use in annual intercrops in the presence or absence of in-crop herbicides. Agronomy Journal 100:1145–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in productivity in biodiversity: A search for general principles. Ecology 80:1455–1474.Google Scholar
Tremmel, D.C. and Bazzaz, F.A. 1993. How neighbor canopy architecture affects target plant performance. Ecology 74:2114–2124.Google Scholar
Wortman, S.E., Francis, C.A., and Lindquist, J.L. 2012. Cover crop mixtures for the western Corn Belt: Opportunities for increased productivity and stability. Agronomy Journal 104:699–705.Google Scholar