Abstract
Abstract Cover crop (CC) grazing can be a strategy to reintegrate livestock with crops, but how this integration affects soils and crop yields is unclear. We studied the impact of cattle grazing an oat ( Avena sativa L.) CC in the fall on soil properties of a silt loam in a field‐scale irrigated no‐till corn ( Zea mays L.)–soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] experiment in eastern Nebraska. Each rotation was present each year in two adjacent fields. During the 5‐yr study, Field I was grazed two times, and Field II was grazed three times. Grazing occurred on each field every other year. Treatments were arranged in a split‐plot design with corn harvest (corn silage and high‐moisture corn [HMC]) as main plots with no CC, nongrazed CC, and grazed CC as split plots. Corn silage was harvested 15 d before HMC; HMC was harvested about 25 d before typical corn harvest time. Cover crop grazing reduced aboveground CC biomass without affecting soil penetration resistance, bulk density, aggregate stability, hydraulic properties, organic matter concentration, particulate organic matter concentration, microbial biomass, and corn and soybean yields compared with nongrazed CC. Likewise, compared with no CC, nongrazed CC had no effect except for some improvement in soil microbial properties. However, corn silage harvest negatively affected most near‐surface soil properties but not crop yields compared with HMC. Cover crop did not generally offset the negative impacts of corn silage on soil properties. In conclusion, CC grazing had no impact on soil properties and yields, but corn silage adversely affected soil properties.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing reduced aboveground oat cover crop biomass compared with the nongrazed cover crop.
- Taxon
- oat
Avena sativae0 - Treatment
- Cover crop grazinge1
- Outcome
- aboveground CC biomasse2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Comparator
- nongrazed CCe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“oat ( Avena sativa L.)”
e1“Cover crop grazing”
e2“reduced aboveground CC biomass”
e3“compared with nongrazed CC”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop grazing did not affect soil penetration resistance, bulk density or aggregate stability compared with the nongrazed cover crop.
- Taxon
- oatAvena sativae0
- Treatment
- Cover crop grazinge1
- Outcome
- soil penetration resistance, bulk density, aggregate stabilitye2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Comparator
- nongrazed CCe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“oat ( Avena sativa L.)”
e1“Cover crop grazing”
e2“soil penetration resistance, bulk density, aggregate stability”
e3“compared with nongrazed CC”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop grazing did not affect hydraulic properties, organic matter concentration or particulate organic matter concentration compared with the nongrazed cover crop.
- Taxon
- oatAvena sativae0
- Treatment
- Cover crop grazinge1
- Outcome
- hydraulic properties, organic matter concentration, particulate organic matter concentratione2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Comparator
- nongrazed CCe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“oat ( Avena sativa L.)”
e1“Cover crop grazing”
e2“hydraulic properties, organic matter concentration, particulate organic matter concentration”
e3“compared with nongrazed CC”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop grazing did not affect soil microbial biomass compared with the nongrazed cover crop.
- Taxon
- oatAvena sativae0
- Treatment
- Cover crop grazinge1
- Outcome
- microbial biomasse2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Comparator
- nongrazed CCe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“oat ( Avena sativa L.)”
e1“Cover crop grazing”
e2“microbial biomass”
e3“compared with nongrazed CC”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop grazing did not affect corn yield compared with the nongrazed cover crop.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse2 - Treatment
- Cover crop grazinge1
- Outcome
- yieldse2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Comparator
- nongrazed CCe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“oat ( Avena sativa L.)”
e1“Cover crop grazing”
e2“corn and soybean yields”
e3“compared with nongrazed CC”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop grazing did not affect soybean yield compared with the nongrazed cover crop.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe2 - Treatment
- Cover crop grazinge1
- Outcome
- yieldse2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Comparator
- nongrazed CCe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“oat ( Avena sativa L.)”
e1“Cover crop grazing”
e2“corn and soybean yields”
e3“compared with nongrazed CC”
Claim · model-written summary
Nongrazed cover crop had no effect on soil properties compared with no cover crop, except for some improvement in soil microbial properties.
- Taxon
- oatAvena sativae0
- Treatment
- nongrazed CCe1
- Outcome
- no effecte1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- no CCe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“oat ( Avena sativa L.)”
e1“nongrazed CC had no effect except for some improvement in soil microbial properties”
e2“compared with no CC”
Claim · model-written summary
Nongrazed cover crop gave some improvement in soil microbial properties compared with no cover crop.
- Taxon
- oatAvena sativae0
- Treatment
- nongrazed CCe1
- Outcome
- soil microbial propertiese1
- Direction
- improvemente1
- Comparator
- no CCe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“oat ( Avena sativa L.)”
e1“nongrazed CC had no effect except for some improvement in soil microbial properties”
e2“compared with no CC”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn silage harvest negatively affected most near-surface soil properties compared with high-moisture corn harvest.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- corn silage harveste1
- Outcome
- most near‐surface soil propertiese1
- Direction
- negatively affectede1
- Comparator
- HMCe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“corn silage harvest negatively affected most near‐surface soil properties but not crop yields compared with HMC”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn silage harvest did not affect crop yields compared with high-moisture corn harvest.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- corn silage harveste1
- Outcome
- crop yieldse1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- HMCe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“corn silage harvest negatively affected most near‐surface soil properties but not crop yields compared with HMC”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop did not generally offset the negative impacts of corn silage on soil properties.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- Cover crope1
- Outcome
- negative impacts of corn silage on soil propertiese1
- Direction
- did not generally offsete1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Cover crop did not generally offset the negative impacts of corn silage on soil properties”
The same questions in other papers
Zea mays subsp. mays · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
95 papers in the same direction as this paper · 196 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
288 papers more in this group
See all 292 papers →grazing · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →grazing · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →cover crop · molecular: metabolites · Avena sativa (oats)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
cover crop · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →processing · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →cover crop · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
97 papers more in this group
See all 101 papers →cover crop · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
117 papers in the same direction as this paper · 104 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
218 papers more in this group
See all 222 papers →8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.