Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-v9xhf Total loading time: 0.374 Render date: 2022-05-21T07:25:59.442Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Root traits of cover crops and carbon inputs in an organic grain rotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2020

Joseph P. Amsili*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Pennsylvania State University, 116 ASI, University Park, PA, 16802, USA Section of Crop and Soil Sciences, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, 1001 Bradfield Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA
Jason P. Kaye
Affiliation:
Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Pennsylvania State University, 116 ASI, University Park, PA, 16802, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Joseph P. Amsili, E-mail: jpa28@cornell.edu

Abstract

Cover crops are widely used to increase the quantity of organic carbon (C) returned to the soil between cash crops. Roots play an important role in increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) levels, but the root traits that impact SOC likely vary widely among cover crop species and this variation has yet to be characterized. Recently, cover crop mixtures have expanded in popularity as a way to increase the diversity of cover crop benefits. We tested the quantity, quality and spatial distribution of roots in three monocultures and one mixture to increase our understanding of root trait variation among species, and how that variation impacts mixture design. Root cores were taken from in-row and between-row locations to a depth of 40 cm from cover crops planted after winter wheat during the 2016–2017 growing season. These samples were taken from a larger maize–soybean–winter wheat organic grain rotation experiment (2012–2018) located in central Pennsylvania, USA. Cover crop treatments included monocultures of triticale (X Triticosecale Wittmack cv. ‘Trical 815’), canola (Brassica napus L. cv. ‘Wichita’), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L. cv. ‘Dixie’) and a five species mixture dominated by those three species. Additionally, cumulative carbon (C) inputs were assessed for the entire rotation to determine cover crop and cash crop root C contributions. Root biomass C vertical and horizontal distribution, root-to-shoot (R:S) ratio, and root carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratio differed among cover crop treatments. Triticale produced more root biomass in the between-row space at all depth intervals compared to other cover crop treatments. The five species mixture had more total 0–5 cm and between-row 0–5 cm root biomass than crimson clover in spring 2017. Cover crop and cash crop roots increased cumulative C estimates by between 37% (crimson clover) and 46% (triticale) compared to shoot C alone. Cover crop root trait information can inform the belowground benefits from combining different species into cover crop mixtures. Crimson clover produced less root biomass, surface root biomass and between-row root biomass than other cover crop treatments. Therefore, combining crimson clover with grass and certain brassica species can improve total root biomass production, and root distribution compared to crimson clover monocultures, whereas reducing the C:N ratio of roots compared to grass species monocultures. The five species mixture led to greater cumulative carbon inputs compared to monoculture treatments, which was due to greater cover crop biomass C and its influence on the following corn crop's biomass C.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adkins, J, Jastrow, JD, Morris, GP, Six, J and de Graaff, M-A (2016) Effects of switchgrass cultivars and intraspecific differences in root structure on soil carbon inputs and accumulation. Geoderma 262, 147154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amato, M and Pardo, A (1994) Root length and biomass losses during sample preparation with different screen mesh sizes. Plant and Soil 161, 299303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amsili, JP (2018) Root traits of cover crops and their influence on soil organic carbon stabilization. M.S. in Soil Science (Master's thesis). Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Austin, EE, Wickings, K, McDaniel, MD, Robertson, GP and Grandy, AS (2017) Cover crop root contributions to soil carbon in a no-till corn bioenergy cropping system. GCB Bioenergy 9, 12521263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baraibar, B, Hunter, MC, Schipanski, ME, Hamilton, A and Mortensen, DA (2017) Weed suppression in cover crop monocultures and mixtures. Weed Science 66, 121133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardgett, RD, Mommer, L and De Vries, FT (2014) Going underground: Root traits as drivers of ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29, 692699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanco-Canqui, H, Shaver, TM, Lindquist, JL, Shapiro, CA, Elmore, RW, Francis, CA and Hergert, GW (2015) Cover crops and ecosystem services: insights from studies in temperate soils. Agronomy Journal 107, 24492474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodner, G, Himmelbauer, M, Loiskandl, W and Kaul, H-P (2010) Improved evaluation of cover crop species by growth and root factors. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30, 455464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodner, G, Leitner, D, Nakhforoosh, A, Sobotik, M, Moder, K and Kaul, H-P (2013) A statistical approach to root system classification. Frontiers in Plant Science 4, 292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Böhm, W (1979). Techniques of Root Washing. Methods of Studying Root Systems, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 115124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinder, MA, Janzen, HH, Gregorich, EG, Angers, DA and VandenBygaart, AJ (2007) An approach for estimating net primary productivity and annual carbon inputs to soil for common agricultural crops in Canada. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 118, 2942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonifas, KD, Walters, DT, Cassman, KG and Lindquist, JL (2005) Nitrogen supply affects root:shoot ratio in corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti ). Weed Science 53, 670675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CTIC (2015) Report of the 2014–15 national cover crop survey. West Lafayette, IN, joint publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center, the North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, and the American Seed Trade Association.Google Scholar
CTIC (2016) Report of the 2015–16 national cover crop survey. West Lafayette, IN, joint publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center, the North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, and the American Seed Trade Association.Google Scholar
De Mendiburu, F (2017) Agricolae: Statistical procedures for agricultural research, R package version 1.2-8.Google Scholar
do Rosário G. Oliveira, M, van Noordwijk, M, Gaze, SR, Brouwer, G, Bona, S, Mosca, G and Hairiah, K (2000) Auger sampling, ingrowth cores and pinboard methods. In Smit, AL, Bengough, AG, Engels, C, Noordwijk M. van, Pellerin S and Geijn SC van de (eds), Root Methods: A Handbook. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 175210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, DM and Kaye, JP (2016) Functional diversity in cover crop polycultures increases multifunctionality of an agricultural system. Journal of Applied Ecology 54, 509517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, DM, White, CM and Kaye, JP (2016) Biomass production and carbon/nitrogen ratio influence ecosystem services from cover crop mixtures. Agronomy Journal 108, 3952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, DM, Murrell, EG, White, CM, Baraibar, B, Barbercheck, ME, Bradley, BA, Cornelisse, S, Hunter, MC, Kaye, JP, Mortensen, DA, Mullen, CA and Schipanski, ME (2017) Ecosystem services and disservices are bundled in simple and diverse cover cropping systems. Agricultural & Environmental Letters 2, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, MCT, Eissenstat, DM and Lynch, JP (2002) Lack of evidence for programmed root senescence in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) grown at different levels of phosphorus supply. New Phytologist 153, 6371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frasier, I, Noellemeyer, E, Fernández, R and Quiroga, A (2016) Direct field method for root biomass quantification in agroecosystems. MethodsX 3, 513519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, Y, Duan, A, Qiu, X, Liu, Z, Sun, J, Zhang, J and Wang, H (2010) Distribution of roots and root length density in a maize/soybean strip intercropping system. Agricultural Water Management 98, 199212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H, Ambus, P and Jensen, ES (2001) Temporal and spatial distribution of roots and competition for nitrogen in pea-barley intercrops—a field study employing 32p technique. Plant and Soil 236, 6374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, ZD, Ngouajio, M and Brainard, DC (2014) Rye–vetch mixture proportion tradeoffs: cover crop productivity, nitrogen accumulation, and weed suppression. Agronomy Journal 106, 904914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, JP and Quemada, M (2017) Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 37, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemanian, AR (2017) Pennsylvania harvest indexes, personal communication.Google Scholar
Kemanian, AR, Stöckle, CO and Huggins, DR (2007) Estimating grain and straw nitrogen concentration in grain crops based on aboveground nitrogen concentration and harvest index. Agronomy Journal 99, 158165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiaer, LP, Weisbach, AN and Weiner, J (2013) Root and shoot competition: a meta-analysis. Journal of Ecology 101, 12981312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong, AYY and Six, J (2010) Tracing root vs. Residue carbon into soils from conventional and alternative cropping systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74, 12011210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, S, Sainju, UM and Jellum, EJ (1997) Winter cover crop effects on soil organic carbon and carbohydrate in soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61, 145152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzyakov, Y and Schneckenberger, K (2004) Review of estimation of plant rhizodeposition and their contribution to soil organic matter formation. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 50, 115132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livesley, SJ, Stacey, CL, Gregory, PJ and Buresh, RJ (1999) Sieve size effects on root length and biomass measurements of maize (Zea mays) and Grevillea robusta. Plant and Soil 207, 183193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, J, Marschner, P and Rengel, Z (2012) Chapter 13—Effect of Internal and External Factors on Root Growth and Development. Marschner's mineral nutrition of higher plants, 3rd Edn. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 331346.Google Scholar
Maul, J and Drinkwater, L (2010) Short-term plant species impact on microbial community structure in soils with long-term agricultural history. Plant and Soil 330, 369382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzilli, SR, Kemanian, AR, Ernst, OR, Jackson, RB and Piñeiro, G (2015) Greater humification of belowground than aboveground biomass carbon into particulate soil organic matter in no-till corn and soybean crops. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 85, 2230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murrell, EG, Schipanski, ME, Finney, DM, Hunter, MC, Burgess, M, LaChance, JC, Baraibar, B, White, CM, Mortensen, DA and Kaye, JP (2016) Achieving diverse cover crop mixtures: effects of planting date and seeding rate. Agronomy Journal 109, 259271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ort, SB, Ketterings, QM, Czymmek, KJ, Godwin, GS, Swink, SN and Gami, SK (2013) Carbon and nitrogen uptake of cereal cover crops following corn silage. What's Cropping Up? 23, 56.Google Scholar
Poeplau, C and Don, A (2015) Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops—a meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 200, 3341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poffenbarger, HJ, Mirsky, SB, Weil, RR, Maul, JE, Kramer, M, Spargo, JT and Cavigelli, MA (2015) Biomass and nitrogen content of hairy vetch–cereal rye cover crop mixtures as influenced by species proportions. Agronomy Journal 107, 20692082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puget, P and Drinkwater, LE (2001) Short-term dynamics of root- and shoot-derived carbon from a leguminous green manure. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65, 771779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez-Garcia, J, Martens, HJ, Quemada, M and Thorup-Kristensen, K (2015) Intercropping effect on root growth and nitrogen uptake at different nitrogen levels. Journal of Plant Ecology 8, 380389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranells, NN and Wagger, MG (1996) Nitrogen release from grass and legume cover crop monocultures and bicultures. Agronomy Journal 88, 777882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasse, DP, Rumpel, C and Dignac, M-F (2005) Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation. Plant and Soil 269, 341356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Roumet, C, Birouste, M, Picon-Cochard, C, Ghestem, M, Osman, N, Vrignon-Brenas, S, Cao, K-F and Stokes, A (2016) Root structure–function relationships in 74 species: evidence of a root economics spectrum related to carbon economy. New Phytologist 210, 815826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sainju, UM, Singh, BP and Whitehead, WF (1998) Cover crop root distribution and its effects on soil nitrogen cycling. Agronomy Journal 90, 511518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainju, UM, Whitehead, WF and Singh, BP (2005) Biculture legume–cereal cover crops for enhanced biomass yield and carbon and nitrogen. Agronomy Journal 97, 14031412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sangster, A, Knight, D, Farrell, R and Bedard-Haughn, A (2010) Repeat-pulse 13co2 labeling of canola and field pea: implications for soil organic matter studies. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 24, 27912798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schipanski, ME, Barbercheck, M, Douglas, MR, Finney, DM, Haider, K, Kaye, JP, Kemanian, AR, Mortensen, DA, Ryan, MR, Tooker, J and White, C (2014) A framework for evaluating ecosystem services provided by cover crops in agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems 125, 1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sievers, T and Cook, RL (2018) Aboveground and root decomposition of cereal rye and hairy vetch cover crops. Soil Science Society of America Journal 82, 147155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soil Survey Staff (2017) Web soil survey. Retrieved 05/20/2017, from Available at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.Google Scholar
Stewart, CE, Roosendaal, D, Denef, K, Pruessner, E, Comas, LH, Sarath, G, Jin, VL, Schmer, MR and Soundararajan, M (2017) Seasonal switchgrass ecotype contributions to soil organic carbon, deep soil microbial community composition and rhizodeposit uptake during an extreme drought. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 112, 191203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorup-Kristensen, K (2001) Are differences in root growth of nitrogen catch crops important for their ability to reduce soil nitrate-N content, and how can this be measured? Plant and Soil 230, 185195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Noordwijk, M, Brouwer, G, Meijboom, F, do Rosário G. Oliveira, M, Bengough, AG (2000). Trench profile techniques and core break methods. In Smit, AL, Bengough, AG, Engels, C, Noordwijk M, Pellerin S and Geijn SC van de (eds), Root Methods: A Handbook. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 211233.Google Scholar
Vasileva, V (2015) Aboveground to root biomass ratios in pea and vetch after treatment with organic fertilizer. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management 1, 145148.Google Scholar
Voisin, A-S, Salon, C, Munier-Jolain, NG and Ney, B (2002) Effect of mineral nitrogen on nitrogen nutrition and biomass partitioning between the shoot and roots of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plant and Soil 242, 251262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendling, M, Büchi, L, Amossé, C, Sinaj, S, Walter, A and Charles, R (2016) Influence of root and leaf traits on the uptake of nutrients in cover crops. Plant and Soil 409, 419434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, CM, DuPont, ST, Hautau, M, Hartman, D, Finney, DM, Bradley, B, LaChance, JC and Kaye, JP (2017) Managing the trade off between nitrogen supply and retention with cover crop mixtures. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 237, 121133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichern, F, Eberhardt, E, Mayer, J, Joergensen, RG and Müller, T (2008) Nitrogen rhizodeposition in agricultural crops: methods, estimates and future prospects. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40, 3048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, JD, McCool, DK, Reardon, CL, Douglas, CL, Albrecht, SL and Rickman, RW (2013) Root: Shoot ratios and belowground biomass distribution for pacific northwest dryland crops. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68, 349360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Amsili and Kaye supplementary material

Amsili and Kaye supplementary material

Download Amsili and Kaye supplementary material(File)
File 741 KB
5
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Root traits of cover crops and carbon inputs in an organic grain rotation
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Root traits of cover crops and carbon inputs in an organic grain rotation
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Root traits of cover crops and carbon inputs in an organic grain rotation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *