Abstract
The benefits of cover crops within crop rotations are well documented, but information is limited on using cover crops for forage within midwestern United States cropping systems, especially under no‐tillage management. Our objective was to evaluate plant, animal, and soil responses when integrating winter cover crop forages into no‐till corn ( Zea mays L.) silage production. Three cover crop treatments were established no‐till after corn silage in September 2006 and 2007 at Columbus, OH: annual ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum L.), a mixture of winter rye ( Secale cereale L.) and oat ( Avena sativa L.), and no cover crop. Total forage yield over autumn and spring seasons was 38 to 73% greater ( P ≤ 0.05) for oat + winter rye than for annual ryegrass. Soil penetration resistance (SPR) in May 2007 was 7 to 15% greater ( P ≤ 0.10) in the grazed cover crops than in the nongrazed no cover crop treatment; however, subsequent silage corn yield did not differ among treatments, averaging 10.4 Mg ha −1 in August 2007. Compared with the no cover crop treatment, cover crops had three‐ to fivefold greater root yield, threefold greater soil microbial biomass (MB) in spring 2008, and 23% more particulate organic carbon (POC) concentrations in the 0‐ to 15‐cm soil depth. Integration of forage cover crops into no‐till corn silage production in Ohio can provide supplemental forage for animal feed without detrimental effects on subsequent corn silage productivity, with the added benefit of increasing labile soil C.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Oat plus winter rye yielded 38 to 73% more forage than annual ryegrass.
- Taxon
- oat
Avena sativae0 - Treatment
- oat + winter ryee0
- Outcome
- Total forage yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 38 to 73%e0
- Comparator
- annual ryegrasse0
- Setting
- Columbus, OHe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total forage yield over autumn and spring seasons was 38 to 73% greater ( P ≤ 0.05) for oat + winter rye than for annual ryegrass”
e1“at Columbus, OH”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazed cover crops had 7 to 15% greater soil penetration resistance in May 2007 than the nongrazed no-cover treatment.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- grazed cover cropse0
- Outcome
- Soil penetration resistancee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 7 to 15%e0
- Comparator
- nongrazed no cover crop treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil penetration resistance (SPR) in May 2007 was 7 to 15% greater ( P ≤ 0.10) in the grazed cover crops than in the nongrazed no cover crop treatment”
t0“Corn Silage System”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsequent corn silage yield did not differ among treatments and averaged 10.4 Mg ha −1.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- silage corn yielde0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Value
- 10.4 Mg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- among treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“subsequent silage corn yield did not differ among treatments, averaging 10.4 Mg ha −1 in August 2007”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops produced three- to fivefold greater root yield than no cover crop.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- cover cropse0
- Outcome
- root yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- three‐ to fivefolde0
- Comparator
- no cover crop treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the no cover crop treatment, cover crops had three‐ to fivefold greater root yield”
t0“Corn Silage System”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops produced threefold greater soil microbial biomass in spring 2008.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- cover cropse0
- Outcome
- soil microbial biomasse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- threefolde0
- Comparator
- no cover crop treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the no cover crop treatment, cover crops had three‐ to fivefold greater root yield, threefold greater soil microbial biomass (MB) in spring 2008”
t0“Corn Silage System”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops increased particulate organic carbon concentration by 23% at 0 to 15 cm.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- cover cropse0
- Outcome
- particulate organic carbon (POC) concentrationse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 23%e0
- Qualifier
- 0‐ to 15‐cm soil depthe0
- Comparator
- no cover crop treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the no cover crop treatment, cover crops had three‐ to fivefold greater root yield, threefold greater soil microbial biomass (MB) in spring 2008, and 23% more particulate organic carbon (POC) concentrations in the 0‐ to 15‐cm soil depth”
t0“Corn Silage System”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrating forage cover crops into Ohio no-till corn silage can supply animal forage without reducing subsequent silage production and can increase labile soil carbon.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- provide supplemental forage for animal feed without detrimental effects on subsequent corn silage productivitye0
- Setting
- Ohioe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Integration of forage cover crops into no‐till corn silage production in Ohio can provide supplemental forage for animal feed without detrimental effects on subsequent corn silage productivity, with the added benefit of increasing labile soil C.”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →grazing · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
cover crop · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →cover crop · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →cover crop · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
103 papers in the same direction as this paper · 104 in the opposite direction · 14 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
218 papers more in this group
See all 222 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.