Paper · 2010 · Agronomy Journal

Nitrogen Contribution from Red Clover for Corn following Wheat in Western Ohio

David C. Henry; Robert W. Mullen; Clayton E. Dygert; et al.

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
26
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Inclusion of a winter legume cover crop into a crop rotation has been suggested as a method to provide a substantial portion of the N requirement of the following crop. While the benefits of winter cover crops such as reduced soil erosion, increased soil organic matter, and increased mulch cover have been well documented, the N contribution to the subsequent crop has shown to be variable. The objective of this study was to determine the N contribution from a red clover ( Trifolium pratense L.) cover crop following wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) to a subsequent corn ( Zea mays L.) crop. The experiment was conducted at two western Ohio locations over 3 yr. At both locations, red clover was either interseeded into wheat or seeded after harvest, the red clover cover crop was eliminated with tillage or herbicide application, and corn was planted with three N rates (0, 90, and 180 kg N ha −1 ). The data revealed that for three of the four site years (when the cover crop was successfully established) there was no N contribution attributable to the presence of red clover. The one site that did show a N contribution revealed that the amount of N contributed was less than 90 kg N ha −1 However, even when no N benefit was found, yields were improved by non‐N‐related rotational effects. Significant reductions in N fertilization rates following a red clover cover crop are likely to result in lost corn yield opportunities in western Ohio.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Three of four site years showed no nitrogen contribution from red clover when cover crops established.

Treatment
presence of red clovere0
Interactor
red cloverTrifolium pratensee0other
Outcome
N contributione0
Direction
noe0
Value
three of the four site yearse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trifolium pratense
Trifolium pratense · InteractorIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“for three of the four site years (when the cover crop was successfully established) there was no N contribution attributable to the presence of red clover.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 924–1079 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 42–46 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At the one site with a nitrogen contribution, it was less than 90 kg N per hectare.

Interactor
red cloverTrifolium pratensee1othere0
Outcome
amount of N contributede0
Direction
less thane0
Value
90 kg N ha −1e0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trifolium pratense
Trifolium pratense · InteractorIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The one site that did show a N contribution revealed that the amount of N contributed was less than 90 kg N ha −1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1080–1193 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn following Wheat in Western Ohio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“red clover ( Trifolium pratense L.) cover crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 463–509 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn yields improved through rotational effects unrelated to nitrogen even when no nitrogen benefit occurred.

Treatment
Red Clovert0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
improvede0
Qualifier
non‐N‐related rotational effectse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“even when no N benefit was found, yields were improved by non‐N‐related rotational effects.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1203–1294 · show in text ↑
t0

“Red Clover for Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–46 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors caution that large nitrogen rate reductions after red clover likely lose corn yield opportunity in western Ohio.

Treatment
Significant reductions in N fertilization rates following a red clover cover crope0
Outcome
lost corn yield opportunitiese0
Setting
western Ohioe0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Significant reductions in N fertilization rates following a red clover cover crop are likely to result in lost corn yield opportunities in western Ohio.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1295–1447 · show in text ↑

Trifolium pratense · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 11 positive, 3 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.