Abstract
Integrated crop-livestock system (ICLS) is an alternative that can help in intensifying food production while benefiting the environment. However, the assessments of the impacts of ICLS on the soil and economic benefits relative to specific environments in South Dakota are still lacking. This study was to assess the effects of ICLS on soil health and economic benefits under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota. Cover crops blends were planted after the rye crop, and grazing treatments (with and without) were applied after the cover crops establishment in 2015-2016. Data from this study indicate that most soil properties are not negatively impacted by grazing. However, the grazing increased soil bulk density (BD) and decreased soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil water retention (SWR) compared with the ungrazing. The effect of grazing on corn yield was not significant. The cover crops did not impact the pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total nitrogen (TN), β-glucosidase, acid hydrolysis carbon fraction, microbial biomass carbon, and SWR, but impacted the SOC, hot/cold water carbon fraction, BD, infiltration rate (qs) in some phases and depths. The effects of different cover crop blends on corn yield were not as strong. The economic analysis showed that implementing ICLS increased the profit of the farm by $17.23 ac−1 in the first year and $43.61 ac−1 in the second year. These findings indicate that ICLS practices with proper management benefit soil health and producer income.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing increased soil bulk density relative to ungrazed plots.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse1 - Treatment
- grazinge0
- Outcome
- soil bulk density (BD)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- ungrazinge0
- Setting
- South Dakotae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the grazing increased soil bulk density (BD) and decreased soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil water retention (SWR) compared with the ungrazing”
e1“under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing decreased soil organic carbon relative to ungrazed plots.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- grazinge0
- Outcome
- soil organic carbon (SOC)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- ungrazinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the grazing increased soil bulk density (BD) and decreased soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil water retention (SWR) compared with the ungrazing”
e1“under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing decreased soil water retention relative to ungrazed plots.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- grazinge0
- Outcome
- soil water retention (SWR)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- ungrazinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the grazing increased soil bulk density (BD) and decreased soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil water retention (SWR) compared with the ungrazing”
e1“under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing had no significant effect on corn yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- grazinge0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of grazing on corn yield was not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops did not affect soil pH, electrical conductivity or total nitrogen.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- cover cropse0
- Outcome
- pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total nitrogen (TN)e0
- Direction
- did not impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cover crops did not impact the pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total nitrogen (TN), β-glucosidase, acid hydrolysis carbon fraction, microbial biomass carbon, and SWR”
e1“under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops did not affect β-glucosidase, acid hydrolysis carbon fraction or microbial biomass carbon.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- cover cropse0
- Outcome
- β-glucosidase, acid hydrolysis carbon fraction, microbial biomass carbone0
- Direction
- did not impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cover crops did not impact the pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total nitrogen (TN), β-glucosidase, acid hydrolysis carbon fraction, microbial biomass carbon, and SWR”
e1“under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops did not affect soil water retention.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- cover cropse0
- Outcome
- SWRe0
- Direction
- did not impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cover crops did not impact the pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total nitrogen (TN), β-glucosidase, acid hydrolysis carbon fraction, microbial biomass carbon, and SWR”
e1“under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops affected soil organic carbon and hot/cold water carbon fractions in some phases and depths.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse2
- Treatment
- cover cropse1
- Outcome
- SOC, hot/cold water carbon fractione0
- Qualifier
- in some phases and depthse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but impacted the SOC, hot/cold water carbon fraction, BD, infiltration rate (qs) in some phases and depths”
e1“The cover crops did not impact the pH”
e2“under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops affected soil bulk density and infiltration rate in some phases and depths.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse2
- Treatment
- cover cropse1
- Outcome
- BD, infiltration rate (qs)e0
- Qualifier
- in some phases and depthse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but impacted the SOC, hot/cold water carbon fraction, BD, infiltration rate (qs) in some phases and depths”
e1“The cover crops did not impact the pH”
e2“under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota”
Claim · model-written summary
Effects of cover crop blends on corn yield were weak.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- different cover crop blendse0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effects of different cover crop blends on corn yield were not as strong”
Claim · model-written summary
ICLS increased farm profit by $17.23 ac−1 in the first year.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- implementing ICLSe0
- Outcome
- profit of the farme0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- $17.23 ac−1e0
- Qualifier
- first yeare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“implementing ICLS increased the profit of the farm by $17.23 ac−1 in the first year and $43.61 ac−1 in the second year”
e1“under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota”
Claim · model-written summary
ICLS increased farm profit by $43.61 ac−1 in the second year.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- implementing ICLSe0
- Outcome
- profit of the farme0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- $43.61 ac−1e0
- Qualifier
- second yeare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“implementing ICLS increased the profit of the farm by $17.23 ac−1 in the first year and $43.61 ac−1 in the second year”
e1“under a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.)-rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation in South Dakota”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →grazing · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →grazing · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
cover crop · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →cover crop · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →grazing · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
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.