Abstract
Core Ideas Assessment of living mulch establishment in soybean and maize row crop systems. Differences in elite soybean and maize germplasm responses to living mulch. Impact of living mulch establishment on soybean and maize production. With increasing removal of maize ( Zea mays L.) stover for cellulosic biofuels, livestock bedding, and feedstuffs, there exists a need to address natural resources‐related issues such as soil erosion, nitrate leaching, and loss of organic matter content. Perennial groundcover (PGC) offers a potential solution for alleviating these problems associated with maize stover removal from conventional cropping systems. We conducted a field study to ascertain the costs of PGC establishment on the primary crop of economic interest and groundcover success under a maize or soybean ( Glycine max L.) crop. To test this concept, we established either Kentucky bluegrass (KB) ( Poa pratensis L.) or creeping red fescue (CF) ( Festuca rubra L.) as living mulch (LM) concurrently with either maize or soybean, documenting impacts on crop maturity, stand density, leaf area index (LAI), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), grain yield, grain quality, yield components, and stover C and N. First‐year maize and first‐ and second‐year soybean in the no LM control yielded on average 13.00, 3.38, and 4.86 Mg ha −1 , respectively, 30, 84, and 27% greater than LM systems. However, yield did not significantly differ in the second site‐year between the no LM and LM maize. Moreover, PGC treatments did not affect expected ethanol yield in the second year, averaging 5459 L ha −1 in Year 2 over all treatments. These results indicate that further research is needed to achieve both groundcover establishment and subsequent natural resources benefits in row crop production while minimizing impact on yield.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Maize without living mulch yielded 13.00 Mg ha −1, 30% more than mulch systems in year one.
- Treatment
- no LM controle0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 13.00e0
- Qualifier
- First‐year maizee0
- Comparator
- LM systemse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“First‐year maize and first‐ and second‐year soybean in the no LM control yielded on average 13.00, 3.38, and 4.86 Mg ha −1 , respectively, 30, 84, and 27% greater than LM systems.”
Claim · model-written summary
First year soybean without living mulch yielded 3.38 Mg ha −1, 84% more than mulch systems.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- no LM controle0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 3.38e0
- Qualifier
- first‐ and second‐year soybeane0
- Comparator
- LM systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“First‐year maize and first‐ and second‐year soybean in the no LM control yielded on average 13.00, 3.38, and 4.86 Mg ha −1 , respectively, 30, 84, and 27% greater than LM systems.”
Claim · model-written summary
Second year soybean without living mulch yielded 4.86 Mg ha −1, 27% more than mulch systems.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- no LM controle0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 4.86e0
- Qualifier
- second‐year soybeane0
- Comparator
- LM systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“First‐year maize and first‐ and second‐year soybean in the no LM control yielded on average 13.00, 3.38, and 4.86 Mg ha −1 , respectively, 30, 84, and 27% greater than LM systems.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield did not significantly differ between no mulch and mulch in the second site year.
- Treatment
- LMe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not significantly differe0
- Qualifier
- second site‐yeare0
- Comparator
- no LMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield did not significantly differ in the second site‐year between the no LM and LM maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Groundcover did not affect expected ethanol yield in year two.
- Treatment
- PGC treatmentse0
- Outcome
- expected ethanol yielde0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Value
- 5459 L ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- Year 2e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PGC treatments did not affect expected ethanol yield in the second year, averaging 5459 L ha −1 in Year 2 over all treatments.”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 57 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
97 papers more in this group
See all 101 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
- positive
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.