Paper · 2013 · Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

Greening summer fallow with legume green manures: On-farm assessment in north-central Montana

J.K. O'Dea; P.R. Miller; C.A. Jones

13
claims
27
verbatim quotes
45
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Replacing summer fallow practices with annual legumes as green manures (LGMs) may increase the sustainability of northern Great Plains wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) systems. Viability hinges on soil water use management and realizing biologically fixed nitrogen (N) benefits. Plot-scale research has shown that managing LGMs with first-flower stage termination and no-till practices conserves soil water and that rotational N benefits can increase wheat grain quality. Nonetheless, farmer adoption of LGMs has been negligible. To better understand this practice and its regional adoption potential, we conducted a participatory on-farm assessment of no-till LGM versus summer fallow–wheat rotations in north-central Montana. Soil water and nitrate (NO3) levels to 0.9 m (3 ft), potentially mineralizable N (PMN) to 0.3 m (1 ft), wheat yields, conservation potential, and producer adoption challenges were assessed at five farmer-managed, field-scale sites. Compared to fallow, LGM treatment diminished mean wheat yield by 6% (0.24 Mg ha−1 [3.7 bu ac−1]), diminished grain protein by 9 g kg−1 when wheat was fertilized with N (p = 0.01), and increased grain protein by 5 g kg−1 when wheat was unfertilized (p = 0.08). Small soil water depletions in LGM treatments below fallow at wheat seeding (17%; 30 mm [1.2 in]) and near-record high rainfall during the wheat growing season (280 to 380 mm [11 to 14 in]) suggest that LGMs likely did not limit soil water available to wheat in this study. Soil NO3 levels following LGMs were 29% to 56% less than summer fallow at wheat seeding, and conversely, greater PMN was detected in LGM treatments at 3 of 5 sites. We theorize that N mineralization from LGMs was insubstantial by wheat seeding due to dry soil conditions and low LGM biomass N contributions, consequently affecting wheat yield potential due to limited early season soil N availability. LGMs increased average use efficiency of available N by 24% during the wheat year and increased total residue carbon (C) and N returned to soils by 260 and 26 kg ha−1 (232 and 23 lb ac−1), respectively, after two years. Our results illustrated that farmers viably managed LGM soil water use with early termination and no-till practices but that LGM adoption may be hindered by a lack of immediate wheat yield or protein benefits from legume-N and seed costs for LGMs. Appropriate incentives, management strategies, and yield benefit expectations (short versus long term) should be fostered to increase the adoption potential of this N-economizing soil and water conservation strategy.

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 13

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Legume green manure diminished mean wheat yield by 6%.

Treatment
LGM treatmente0
Outcome
mean wheat yielde0
Direction
diminishede0
Value
6%e0
Qualifier
0.24 Mg ha−1 [3.7 bu ac−1]e0
Comparator
fallowe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Compared to fallow, LGM treatment diminished mean wheat yield by 6% (0.24 Mg ha−1 [3.7 bu ac−1])”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 956–1052 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 135–171 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Legume green manure diminished grain protein by 9 g kg−1 when wheat received nitrogen fertilizer.

Treatment
LGM treatmente1
Outcome
grain proteine0
Direction
diminishede0
Value
9 g kg−1e0
Qualifier
when wheat was fertilized with N (p = 0.01)e0
Comparator
fallowe2

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“diminished grain protein by 9 g kg−1 when wheat was fertilized with N (p = 0.01)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1054–1134 · show in text ↑
e1

“Compared to fallow, LGM treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 956–989 · show in text ↑
e2

“Compared to fallow, LGM treatment diminished mean wheat yield by 6% (0.24 Mg ha−1 [3.7 bu ac−1])”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 956–1052 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 135–171 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Legume green manure increased grain protein by 5 g kg−1 in unfertilized wheat.

Treatment
LGM treatmente1
Outcome
grain proteine0
Direction
increasede0
Value
5 g kg−1e0
Qualifier
when wheat was unfertilized (p = 0.08)e0
Comparator
fallowe2

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased grain protein by 5 g kg−1 when wheat was unfertilized (p = 0.08)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1140–1214 · show in text ↑
e1

“Compared to fallow, LGM treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 956–989 · show in text ↑
e2

“Compared to fallow, LGM treatment diminished mean wheat yield by 6% (0.24 Mg ha−1 [3.7 bu ac−1])”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 956–1052 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 135–171 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green manure treatment had 17% lower soil water at wheat seeding than fallow.

Treatment
LGM treatmentse0
Outcome
Soil water depletionse0
Direction
belowe0
Value
17%e0
Qualifier
30 mm [1.2 in]e0
Comparator
fallowe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil water depletions in LGM treatments below fallow at wheat seeding (17%; 30 mm [1.2 in])”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 1222–1313 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green manure likely did not limit soil water available to wheat under high rainfall.

Treatment
LGMse0
Outcome
soil water available to wheate0
Direction
did not limite0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“LGMs likely did not limit soil water available to wheat in this study”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1419–1488 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil nitrate after green manure was 29% to 56% below fallow at wheat seeding.

Treatment
LGMse0
Outcome
Soil NO3 levelse0
Direction
lesse0
Value
29% to 56%e0
Qualifier
at wheat seedinge0
Comparator
summer fallowe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil NO3 levels following LGMs were 29% to 56% less than summer fallow at wheat seeding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1490–1577 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 135–171 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Authors theorized limited green manure nitrogen mineralization by wheat seeding due to dry soil and low biomass nitrogen.

Outcome
N mineralization from LGMse0
Qualifier
dry soil conditions and low LGM biomass N contributionse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N mineralization from LGMs was insubstantial by wheat seeding due to dry soil conditions and low LGM biomass N contributions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1672–1796 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green manure increased available nitrogen use efficiency by 24% during the wheat year.

Treatment
LGMse0
Outcome
average use efficiency of available Ne0
Direction
increasede0
Value
24%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“LGMs increased average use efficiency of available N by 24% during the wheat year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1892–1973 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green manure increased residue carbon returned to soil by 260 kg ha−1 after two years.

Treatment
LGMse1
Outcome
total residue carbon (C)e0
Direction
increasede0
Value
260e0
Qualifier
after two yearse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased total residue carbon (C) and N returned to soils by 260 and 26 kg ha−1 (232 and 23 lb ac−1), respectively, after two years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1978–2110 · show in text ↑
e1

“LGMs increased average use efficiency of available N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1892–1944 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 135–171 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green manure increased residue nitrogen returned to soil by 26 kg ha−1 after two years.

Treatment
LGMse1
Outcome
N returned to soilse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
26 kg ha−1e0
Qualifier
after two yearse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased total residue carbon (C) and N returned to soils by 260 and 26 kg ha−1 (232 and 23 lb ac−1), respectively, after two years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1978–2110 · show in text ↑
e1

“LGMs increased average use efficiency of available N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1892–1944 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 135–171 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Farmers viably managed green manure soil water use through early termination and no-till.

Outcome
LGM soil water usee0
Qualifier
early termination and no-till practicese0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“farmers viably managed LGM soil water use with early termination and no-till practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2141–2227 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 135–171 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Authors identified lack of immediate wheat yield or protein gains and seed costs as possible adoption barriers.

Outcome
LGM adoptione0
Qualifier
a lack of immediate wheat yield or protein benefits from legume-N and seed costs for LGMse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“LGM adoption may be hindered by a lack of immediate wheat yield or protein benefits from legume-N and seed costs for LGMs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2237–2358 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors recommended incentives, management strategies and yield expectations to improve green manure adoption.

Outcome
Appropriate incentives, management strategies, and yield benefit expectations (short versus long term)e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Appropriate incentives, management strategies, and yield benefit expectations (short versus long term) should be fostered to increase the adoption potential”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2360–2516 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 135–171 · show in text ↑

fertilization · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

98 papers: 85 positive, 13 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 85 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

94 papers more in this group

See all 98 papers →

fertilization · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

214 papers: 190 positive, 24 negative or no effect

189 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

210 papers more in this group

See all 214 papers →

fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

288 papers: 232 positive, 56 negative or no effect

231 papers in the same direction as this paper · 54 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

284 papers more in this group

See all 288 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.