Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-pt5lt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-09T12:36:12.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Do cover crops suppress weeds in the U.S. Southeast? A meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2023

David A. Weisberger
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Plant Sciences and Entomology, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA
Leonardo M. Bastos
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
Virginia R. Sykes
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
Nicholas T. Basinger*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Nicholas T. Basinger, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Miller Plant Sciences Building, 3111 Carlton Street, Athens, GA 30602. (Email: Nicholas.Basinger@uga.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cover crops (CCs) have shown great potential for suppressing annual weeds within agronomic cropping systems across the United States. However, the weed suppressive potential of CCs may be moderated by environmental and management factors that are specific to certain geographic areas and their associated characteristics. This may be particularly true within the U.S. Southeast, where higher mean annual temperature and precipitation generate favorable conditions for both CC and weed growth. To understand the effects of this regional context on CCs and weeds, a meta-analysis examining paired comparisons of weed biomass and/or weed density under CC and bare ground conditions from studies conducted within the Southeast was conducted. Data were identified and extracted from 28 journal articles in which weed biomass and/or weed density were measured along with cash crop yield data, if they were provided. Fourteen studies provided 142 comparisons for weed biomass; 23 studies provided 139 comparisons for weed density; and 22 studies, pooled over both weed response variables, provided 144 comparisons for cash crop yield. CCs had a negative effect on weed density (P = 0.0016) but no effect on either weed biomass (P = 0.16) or cash crop yield (P = 0.88). The mean relative reduction in weed density under CCs was 44%. Subsequent analyses indicated that CC biomass was the key factor associated with this reduction. Weed density suppression was linearly related to CC biomass; a 50% decrease in weed density was associated with 6,600 kg ha−1 of CC biomass. Edaphic, geographic, and other management factors had no bearing on this suppressive effect. This highlights the importance of generating adequate CC biomass if weed suppression is the primary objective of CC use and the potential for CCs to reduce weed density over diverse soil, climate, and farm management conditions.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America

Introduction

The U.S. Southeast is a geographically and edaphically diverse region typified by high relative temperatures and humidity coupled with mild winter conditions that are favorable to plant growth (Konrad and Fuhrmann Reference Konrad, Fuhrmann, Ingram, Dow, Carter and Anderson2013). From an agronomic perspective, the Southeast region comprises widely grown field crops such as corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max [L.] Merr.], in addition to those that are predominantly grown in this region, such as cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) (Asseng Reference Asseng, Ingram, Dow, Carter and Anderson2013; Knox et al. Reference Knox, Fuhrmann and Konrad2014). Given the biophysical context of the region, weeds are ubiquitous, and infestations can be severe. Weed management in agronomic crops in the Southeast is based almost exclusively on herbicide-centric approaches (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Ward, Shaw, Llewellyn, Nichols, Webster, Bradley, Frisvold, Powles, Burgos, Witt and Barrett2012; Price et al. Reference Price, van Santen, Sarunaite and Abdurakhmonov2016b). While herbicides are a highly effective management tool, their efficacy is continually threatened by the potential for selecting herbicide-resistant weed biotypes (Menalled et al. Reference Menalled, Peterson, Smith, Curran, Páez and Maxwell2016; Neve et al. Reference Neve, Busi, Renton and Vila-Aiub2014). The likelihood of this phenomenon is proportional to weed population size and the selection pressure imposed by herbicide (Menalled et al. Reference Menalled, Peterson, Smith, Curran, Páez and Maxwell2016; Neve et al. Reference Neve, Busi, Renton and Vila-Aiub2014). Using ancillary practices that both limit selection pressure and maintain small population size are essential to the ongoing challenge of weed management in the Southeast region (Hand et al. Reference Hand, Randell, Nichols, Steckel, Basinger and Culpepper2021; Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Ward, Shaw, Llewellyn, Nichols, Webster, Bradley, Frisvold, Powles, Burgos, Witt and Barrett2012; Price et al. Reference Price, Monks, Culpepper, Duzy, Kelton, Marshall, Steckel, Sosnoskie and Nichols2016a). The deliberate use of varied practices that differ in the selection pressure that they impose on weeds is a central tenet of integrated weed management (IWM) approaches (Harker Reference Harker2013; Menalled et al. Reference Menalled, Peterson, Smith, Curran, Páez and Maxwell2016; Neve et al. Reference Neve, Busi, Renton and Vila-Aiub2014).

One such practice, the use of cover crops (CCs), has been studied extensively as a cultural tactic to limit weed germination, emergence, and growth (Teasdale Reference Teasdale and Zimdahl2018). CCs have been shown to alter these processes by altering light quantity and quality, providing a physical barrier, and increasing seed predation, among others (Teasdale Reference Teasdale and Zimdahl2018). CC use has steadily increased in the Southeast region, particularly in the last 10 to 15 yr (Wallander et al. Reference Wallander, Smith, Bowman and Claassen2021). While much of this recent uptick in adoption may be related to potential CC-based improvements around soil erosion and moisture retention, research has shown that the weed suppression–related benefits of this practice are important features of sustained CC use by farmers (Hancock et al. Reference Hancock, Liu, Smith and Plastina2020). This has become increasingly true in the Southeast region, given the ongoing difficulty in managing several highly problematic weed species that have developed resistance to many commonly used herbicide sites of action. However, understanding if CCs provide weed-suppression benefits and what key factors either attenuate or amplify their ability to do so is critical to their success and continued adoption as a weed management practice.

Both global and regional meta-analyses on the effect of CCs on weeds have supported their potential as a weed management practice, but results have differed based on management and study scope (Nichols et al. Reference Nichols, Martinez-Feria, Weisberger, Carlson, Basso and Basche2020; Osipitan 2018; Osipitan et al. Reference Osipitan, Dille, Assefa, Radicetti, Ayeni and Knezevic2019). For example, Osipitan et al. (Reference Osipitan, Dille, Assefa, Radicetti, Ayeni and Knezevic2019) found little to no difference in the suppressive ability of different CC species when looking at studies on a global basis across both agronomic and horticultural production systems, while Nichols et al. (Reference Nichols, Martinez-Feria, Weisberger, Carlson, Basso and Basche2020) found that only grass CC species had a significant effect on the reduction of weed biomass within agronomic cropping systems of the U.S. Midwest.

Given the potential for context dependencies, we were interested in understanding how well CCs suppress weeds within agronomic cropping systems of the Southeast, focusing on weed biomass and weed density as response variables. We conducted a meta-analysis to explore the effects of CCs on weeds in the Southeast region and the moderating effect of a variety of factors on potential CC-based weed suppression. Specifically, we sought to answer the following questions: (1) Do CCs suppress weed biomass and/or weed density? (2) What is the magnitude of this effect? (3) Under which contexts is this effect greatest? (4) To what extent do trade-offs exist between weed suppression and cash crop yield?

Materials and Methods

Literature Search and Data Extraction

A systematic search of the literature was conducted using the Web of Science Core Collection, CAB Abstracts, and BIOSIS databases. The search was conducted from June through August of 2020 using the following Boolean string: (“weed management” OR “weed control” OR “weed science” OR “weed suppression”) AND “cover crop” OR “catch crop” OR “green manure”. An initial selection criterion required that all literature be peer reviewed and that studies were conducted in one of the nine U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agriculture Research Service Southeast (USDA-ARS SE) states within the contiguous United States; this region includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee (https://www.ars.usda.gov/southeast-area). Further filtering was based on identifying journal articles that measured the response variable weed biomass (WBIO) or weed density (WDEN) and measured said response variables in the same crop, at the same time point, with all management activities being identical, save for the presence of a fall-planted CC. The specifics of the literature search are documented in a PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram detailing the literature search.

Paired comparisons of WBIO or WDEN were extracted from tables and/or figures within our selected journal articles. When data were presented solely in figure format, the GetData graph digitizer (http://getdata-graph-digitizer.com) was used to extract relevant data. For WDEN, if measurements were taken at multiple time points in a season, we either extracted data from the final WDEN measurement, if that value represented a cumulative seasonal total, or summed all values to generate a value for the cumulative seasonal total. For each comparison, we also extracted data for cash crop yield (CY), if provided. Relevant study information was extracted and assessed as potential moderator variables. Examples of relevant information include study duration and experimental design, geographic and pedological specifics, CC management details (CC species, type, planting method, termination method, termination date, biomass at termination), and the type of weeds present in a study.

Data Analysis

The response variables WBIO, WDEN, and CY were transformed into the natural log of the ratio between response value with CCs (numerator) and response value without CCs (denominator); that is, the log response ratio (LRR). This is a common practice to address the high degree of variance from studies given the spatial and temporal differences across selected publications (Philibert et al. Reference Philibert, Loyce and Makowski2012). In 11 comparisons of 281 total comparisons, either the treatment or control variable value was zero, so those comparisons were removed before analysis. Previous work has shown that adding an arbitrary small value to both numerator and denominator in order to compute an LRR can lead to unrealistic values and can even change values from negative to positive (Verret et al. Reference Verret, Gardarin, Pelzer, Médiène, Makowski and Valantin-Morison2017; Weisberger et al. Reference Weisberger, Nichols and Liebman2019). Also, fewer than 20% of all studies reported measures of intra-study variance (e.g., standard deviation or standard error).

To minimize potential for unrealistic values during transformation, each response variable in a given study was weighted using a nonparametric method following the formula (n × n)/(n + n), where n is sample size (Lajeunesse Reference Lajeunesse, Koricheva, Gurevitch and Mengersen2013). Studies reporting greater sample size for a given response variable receive a greater weight than studies with lower sample size. The overall effect of a CC relative to no CC on each of the three response variables (LRRWBIO, LRRWDEN, LRRCY) was assessed using random-effect models, with publication as the random effect and the weights calculated on the previous step, testing whether the overall mean was different than zero. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias were both assessed following statistical procedures from Nichols et al. (Reference Nichols, Martinez-Feria, Weisberger, Carlson, Basso and Basche2020). Respectively, these analyses did not indicate the presence of studies that had a disproportionate effect on response variables of interest, nor did they indicate the presence of publication-level bias.

Conditional inference trees (CIT) were used as an analytical approach to explore potential interactions among our dependent variables. CIT have been increasingly used in agronomic studies to explore complex interactions among multiple independent variables and identify management effects on productivity and environmental quality (Bastos et al. Reference Bastos, Rice, Tomlinson and Mengel2021; Jaenisch et al. Reference Jaenisch, Munaro, Bastos, Moraes, Lin and Lollato2021; Lollato et al. Reference Lollato, Ruiz Diaz, DeWolf, Knapp, Peterson and Fritz2019; Vann et al. Reference Vann, Drake-Stowe, Buol and Dunphy2021). CIT have also been used in the context of meta-analyses, where they are a particularly good fit when dealing with unbalanced data sets, missing data, and both categorical and continuous variables (Philibert et al. Reference Philibert, Loyce and Makowski2012; Pittelkow et al. Reference Pittelkow, Linquist, Lundy, Liang, van Groenigen, Lee, van Gestel, Six, Venterea and van Kessel2015). CIT do not rely on parametric statistical assumptions, limiting bias and overfitting issues that are common in other regression tree approaches, and were specifically developed to identify interactions within complex data sets to facilitate interpretation (Hothorn et al. Reference Hothorn, Hornik and Zeileis2006; Nembrini Reference Nembrini2019). Operationally, CIT use an algorithm that implements multiple null hypothesis tests between a chosen response variable (e.g., LRRWBIO, LRRWDEN, LRRCY) and each independent variable (e.g., soil type or CC species). It then selects the independent variable with the strongest association to the response variable, determined by the lowest P-value, and performs a binary split in the data set at this juncture. This process is repeated recursively, resulting in a “tree” with multiple intermediate and terminal nodes (Mourtzinis et al. Reference Mourtzinis, Edreira, Grassini, Roth, Casteel, Ciampitti and Conley2018).

The significance of our overall model of the CC effect on our three response variables guided the implementation of CIT. Consequently, a significant effect of CC occurred solely with respect to weed density (LRRWDEN), and CIT analysis was performed only on this specific response variable. Tree terminal node means were further compared using a mixed-effect model, with LRRWDEN as the response variable and terminal node membership (fixed effect) and publication (random effect) as the explanatory variables. Based on insights from Vann et al. (Reference Vann, Drake-Stowe, Buol and Dunphy2021), and P-values, ≥20% of total observations were present at intermediate nodes, and ≥5% of total observations were present at terminal nodes to ensure adequate power (n = 139).

CIT identified CC biomass as an important moderator of LRRWDEN; thus we further explored this relationship by regressing LRRWDEN against CC biomass. A variety of linear and nonlinear relationships were fit to this relationship, and Akaike and Bayesian information criteria values were used to determine the best fit for the selection of a specific model (Müller et al. Reference Müller, Scealy and Welsh2013). Finally, all paired values of LRRWBIO or LRRWDEN and LRRCY were categorized as win (CC either decreased weed density/biomass or increased grain yield) or lose (CC either increased weed density/biomass or decreased grain yield), creating four quadrants. The number of observations in each win–lose quadrant was counted to assess the frequency of the concurrent effects of a CC on weed suppression and crop yield.

Data wrangling, statistical analysis, and visualization were performed in R software v. 3.6.2 (R Core Team 2021). Random- and mixed-effect models were run using the lmer function from the lme4 package (Bates et al. Reference Bates, Mächler, Bolker and Walker2015). Fixed-effect models were run using the lm function from the stats package. CIT were run using the ctree function from the partykit package (Hothorn and Zeileis Reference Hothorn and Zeileis2015; Hothorn et al. Reference Hothorn, Hornik and Zeileis2006). Statistical significance of all model results was evaluated using alpha = 0.10.

Results and Discussion

Literature Search

After removal of duplicates and application of the filtering criteria described earlier, 219 abstracts were screened, leading to the selection of 68 peer-reviewed publications that met our initial selection criteria. These were read, and 28 papers were identified based on meeting all criteria, including proper comparisons of treatment (CC) and control (bare ground) groups, and were used for data extraction and analysis (Tables 1 and 2). The final studies meeting all criteria were published between 1985 and 2018. This generated a total of 281 paired comparisons; 142 comparisons were extracted from 14 papers for WBIO, and 139 comparisons from 23 papers for WDEN. While recent studies have looked at CC effects on weeds at a global scale (Osipitan 2018; Osipitan et al. Reference Osipitan, Dille, Assefa, Radicetti, Ayeni and Knezevic2019) and in cotton production systems specifically (Toler et al. Reference Toler, Augé, Benelli, Allen and Ashworth2019), the results of our literature search indicated the presence of only four and five shared publications, respectively. This limited amount of overlap highlights the novelty of our data set and analyses. All 15 categorical and continuous moderator variables, with associated sample size, moderator levels, and summary statistics, are presented in Table 1. All 28 studies and the associated LRRs are presented in Table 2. Studies represented all states from the USDA-ARS SE region, except for Louisiana. Given that this meta-analysis is specific to both region and production practices incorporating CCs, the number of papers is limited compared with meta-analyses addressing broader research questions. However, the papers included in the analysis are representative of the CCs and weeds prevalent in the region. Studies varied in the number of comparisons conducted at each site, with most sites associated with between one and five comparisons used in our analysis (Figure 2).

Table 1. List of moderators, levels, associated sample sizes, and summary statistics for categorical and continuous independent variables across all 28 studies. a

a Abbreviations: CC, cover crop; OM, organic matter.

b Austrian winter pean (Pisum sativum L.), Cahaba vetch (Vicia sativa L.), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth), narrow leaf lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), oat (Avena sativa L.), rapeseed (Brassica napus L.), subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L.), triticale [×Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus (Secale × Triticum)], wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.), winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Table 2. List of publications and associated natural log response ratios (LRR) for weed biomass (WBIO), weed density (WDEN), and crop yield (CY).

Figure 2. Map of study locations used in the meta-analysis. Triangles are colored according to the number of paired comparisons from each location.

Overall Effects and the Role of CC Biomass

CCs reduced WDEN (P < 0.0001), but had no significant effect on WBIO (21% reduction, P = 0.16) (Figure 3). Over all studies, CCs reduced WDEN by an average of 44% (Figure 3). The results of CIT for LRRWDEN returned five nodes, including three terminal nodes and two explanatory variables selected (Figure 4). An initial split in the data set occurred as a function of publication date, where data were aggregated into comparisons that occurred before and after 2002 (Figure 4). A second split resulted in an intermediate node that split all comparisons after 2002 based on a CC biomass threshold of 3,300 kg ha−1 (Figure 4). LRRWDEN was greatest under study conditions published before 2002 (0.36, representing a 34% increase in LRRWDEN, node 2); intermediate under study conditions published after 2002 and having less than 3,300 kg ha−1 CC biomass (−0.53, representing a 42% decrease in LRRWDEN, node 4); and lowest under study conditions published after 2002 and having more than 3,300 kg ha−1 CC biomass (−0.87, representing a 58% decrease in LRRWDEN, node 5). These results indicate that for studies conducted after 2002, CC biomass was the fundamental moderator associated with decreased WDEN; increased biomass above a 3,300 kg ha−1 threshold was associated with the greatest suppression on this response variable. The authors believe that changes could in LRRWDEN could be due to a changing weed spectrum in the region during this time. Larger-seeded weed species became less troublesome during this period, while other smaller-seeded weed species became more prevalent (Webster and Nichols Reference Webster and Nichols2012). This divergence was around the time of the development and expansion of glyphosate-resistant weeds throughout the region (Reddy and Norsworthy Reference Reddy, Norsworthy and Nandula2010). Given that smaller-seeded weed species are more responsive to CC biomass, LRRWDEN may have been reduced as a result.

Figure 3. Overall mean effect of cover crop (CC) on weed biomass, weed density, and crop yield. The blue dotted line, purple bar, and green solid line represent the mean response, 95% confidence interval, and no response, respectively. Statistical difference (mean response is significantly different than zero) was assessed with α = 0.10.

Figure 4. Conditional inference tree for weed density log response ratio (LRRWDEN). Mean response for box and whisker plot followed by the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.10). pub_year is the publication year; cc_bio_kgha is the cover crop biomass in kg ha−1.

Our results indicate that CC biomass was the key driver in reducing WDEN. CC biomass was linearly correlated with increased suppression of WDEN (decreased LRRWDEN). Results of regression analysis found that a 50% relative reduction in WDEN was associated with 6,600 kg ha−1 of CC biomass (Figure 5). Analyses did not indicate the importance of any additional moderators, suggesting that the relative suppressive effect of CCs on WDEN is present across a wide range of edaphic conditions (e.g., soil texture and pH) and management choices (e.g., CCs and cash crop species selection, tillage system, and herbicide use). Both recent meta-analyses and experimental work have come to similar conclusions, particularly with respect to the effect of CC biomass (Baraibar et al. Reference Baraibar, Mortensen, Hunter, Barbercheck, Kaye, Finney, Curran, Bunchek and White2018; MacLaren et al. Reference MacLaren, Swanepoel, Bennett, Wright and Dehnen-Schmutz2019; Nichols et al. Reference Nichols, Martinez-Feria, Weisberger, Carlson, Basso and Basche2020; Osipitan 2018; Osipitan et al. Reference Osipitan, Dille, Assefa, Radicetti, Ayeni and Knezevic2019). Nichols et al. (Reference Nichols, Martinez-Feria, Weisberger, Carlson, Basso and Basche2020), who conducted an analogous meta-analysis of CC effects on weeds in the U.S. Midwest, also found that the relative effect of CC biomass was an important moderator of weed suppression, and this suppressive effect was unaffected by varied geographic environments, tillage and crop planting decisions, and herbicide use.

Figure 5. Weed density log response ratio (LRRWDEN) as a function of cover crop (CC) biomass (kg ha−1). Points are colored based on conditional inference tree (CIT) threshold: green values are those represented in the <3,300 kg ha−1 terminal node; yellow values are those represented in the >3,300 kg ha−1 terminal node. The white dotted line represents a 50% reduction in LRRWDEN at an associated CC biomass value of 6,600 kg ha−1.

However, the results of Nichols et al. (Reference Nichols, Martinez-Feria, Weisberger, Carlson, Basso and Basche2020) differed from ours in two important ways. First, within the Midwest context, CCs exhibited a suppressive effect on WBIO and not WDEN. Furthermore, CC type (grass, legume, forb) was an important moderator of this effect. That work found that grass CC (predominantly cereal rye [Secale cereale L.]) was associated with a significant mean WBIO reduction of 68%, while the 33% reduction associated with other CC types was not significant. In that study, the quantity of CC biomass associated with a 75% reduction of WBIO was 5,000 kg ha−1. Conversely, our results only demonstrate a suppressive effect of CC biomass on WDEN; and neither CC species nor type were significant moderators. While the response variables were different across meta-analyses, these contrasting findings point to the importance of factors, such as heat-unit accumulation, that regulate CC biomass accumulation and CC persistence. Both field studies and modeling work have substantiated the effect of heat-unit accumulation on CC biomass and its potential impact on weeds (Baraibar et al. Reference Baraibar, Mortensen, Hunter, Barbercheck, Kaye, Finney, Curran, Bunchek and White2018; Nichols et al. Reference Nichols, Martinez-Feria, Weisberger, Carlson, Basso and Basche2020). To further quantify these regional differences, the maximum values for CC biomass in our study exceeded those recorded in Nichols et al. (Reference Nichols, Martinez-Feria, Weisberger, Carlson, Basso and Basche2020) by approximately 3,500 kg ha−1, highlighting the favorable climatic conditions of the Southeast to generate substantial biomass irrespective of CC type or species. However, not all biomass is created equal when it comes to weed suppression. Environmental factors not only affect CC biomass accumulation but also affect CC decomposition rates, which affects season-long weed suppression by the CC during the cropping season (Thapa et al. Reference Thapa, Tully, Reberg-Horton, Cabrera, Davis, Fleisher, Gaskin, Hitchcock, Poncet, Schomberg, Seehaver, Timlin and Mirsky2022). This could explain the ability of the CC to suppress weed density but allow for increased weed biomass due to greater heat units and rainfall in the cropping season.

The key determinants in generating sufficient CC biomass to suppress weeds are planting and termination dates; these two “windows” determine the cumulative amount of heat units to which a CC is exposed (Nichols et al. Reference Nichols, Martinez-Feria, Weisberger, Carlson, Basso and Basche2020; Price et al. Reference Price, van Santen, Sarunaite and Abdurakhmonov2016b). A study conducted across sites in Alabama and Florida examining the effects of four planting and four termination dates found that CC biomass values for cereal rye and crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.), unsurprisingly, were greatest at the earliest planting date and latest termination date (i.e., the largest possible growth window). Conversely, CC biomass values for cereal rye and crimson clover were reduced by factors of eight and ten, respectively, when planting was latest and termination earliest (i.e., the smallest possible growth window) (Price et al. Reference Price, van Santen, Sarunaite and Abdurakhmonov2016b). While heat-unit accumulation is clearly the determinant in generating adequate CC biomass, this can be highly constrained by cash crop production practices requiring termination based on timing of cash crop planting, which may restrict CC biomass accumulation. This often entails the use of crop varieties that optimize the use of heat units and solar radiation. Practically speaking, this means that planting dates have become earlier and harvest dates later over time, which has become increasingly possible because of climate change (Cammarano and Tian Reference Cammarano and Tian2018; Knox et al. Reference Knox, Fuhrmann and Konrad2014).

Due to these agronomic and economic realities, research has increasingly explored ways to establish CCs earlier and terminate them later without requiring wholesale changes in the adoption of shorter-season cash crop varieties. Establishment methods have made use of aerial CC seeding via planes and helicopters, as well as ground-driven equipment such as “highboy” applicators that do not damage the growing crop (Bergtold et al. Reference Bergtold, Ramsey, Maddy and Williams2019). However, these methods require higher CC seeding rates, due to greater seed and seedling losses (Bergtold et al. Reference Bergtold, Ramsey, Maddy and Williams2019). Additionally, the use of drill interseeding has been explored to combine earlier seeding (during cash crop vegetative development) and the benefits of a drill, namely good seed–soil contact (Curran et al. Reference Curran, Hoover, Mirsky, Roth, Ryan, Ackroyd and Pelzer2018). Findings on CC biomass via drill interseeding have been mixed and appear to be highly contingent on in-season weather patterns (Moore and Mirsky Reference Moore and Mirsky2020; Stanton and Haramoto Reference Stanton and Haramoto2021). Drill interseeding also requires specialized equipment and may impact in-season herbicide management (Curran et al. Reference Curran, Hoover, Mirsky, Roth, Ryan, Ackroyd and Pelzer2018; Stanton and Haramoto Reference Stanton and Haramoto2021). Later termination of CCs has also been researched, and one method in particular, “planting green,” has been receiving increasing research attention following from farmer experimentation (Grint et al. Reference Grint, Arneson, Oliveira, Smith and Werle2022; Quinn et al. Reference Quinn, Poffenbarger, Leuthold and Lee2021; Reed et al. Reference Reed, Karsten, Curran, Tooker and Duiker2019). Planting green entails planting a cash crop into a living CC and terminating the CC at the time of planting or shortly after to optimize the benefits of the CC (Reed and Karsten Reference Reed and Karsten2022). Research in Kentucky demonstrated that postplant CC termination of cereal rye, associated with a 21-d difference from standard CC termination practices, resulted in approximately twice as much CC biomass (Quinn et al. Reference Quinn, Poffenbarger, Leuthold and Lee2021). The relative merits and trade-offs of these warrant further investigation, particularly within the Southeast states upon which our analyses are based.

While greater CC biomass at planting is more effective at suppressing the germination and emergence of weed seedlings, particularly during the earlier part of the growing season, the ability of CC biomass to suppress the growth and development of WBIO in the Southeast may be constrained by the very same factors that make it successful in reducing WDEN. For example, faster accumulation of heat units and high relative humidity levels like those of the Southeast are equated with expedited rates of CC biomass decomposition, as well as weed growth and development (Reinhardt Piskackova et al. Reference Reinhardt Piskackova, Reberg-Horton, Richardson, Jennings, Franca, Young and Leon2021; Thapa et al. Reference Thapa, Tully, Reberg-Horton, Cabrera, Davis, Fleisher, Gaskin, Hitchcock, Poncet, Schomberg, Seehaver, Timlin and Mirsky2022). Simply put, decreased CC biomass covering the soil over the course of the season coupled with a favorable environment for WBIO accumulation suggests a successful trajectory for any weeds that evade chemical or physical control. This is compounded by the fact that many of the most prevalent weed species in agronomic cropping systems of the Southeast are those that possess a C4 photosynthetic pathway, which provides them a relative advantage over most crops in the region. Salient examples include annual and perennial grasses such as broadleaf signalgrass [Urochloa platyphylla (Munro ex C. Wright) R.D. Webster] and johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.], in addition to the broadleaf Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson), as well as nutsedge species (Cyperus spp.) (Rojas-Sandoval Reference Rojas-Sandoval2015; Sage Reference Sage2017; Travlos et al. Reference Travlos, Montull, Kukorelli, Malidza, Dogan, Cheimona and Peteinatos2019; Wallace et al. Reference Wallace, Grey, Webster and Vencill2013; Ward et al. Reference Ward, Webster and Steckel2013).

Given this fact, finding ways of reducing WDEN levels even further and dealing with escapes is paramount. Coupling CC use with herbicide best management practices is an essential part of this equation; particularly the use of overlapping residual chemistries, rotation of diverse herbicide sites of action, and the use of postemergence direct application (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Ward, Shaw, Llewellyn, Nichols, Webster, Bradley, Frisvold, Powles, Burgos, Witt and Barrett2012). However, despite a reduction in WDEN by approximately 50% relative to bare ground, we did not find evidence of a strong moderating effect of herbicide. Specifically, herbicide use did not surface as a node in our CIT analysis, suggesting that the suppressive effect of CCs on WDEN was the same across both herbicide-treated and untreated comparisons. Consequently, additional work will be necessary to optimize CC–herbicide interactions. While the study of CC–herbicide interactions is not new (Teasdale Reference Teasdale1996), more recent work has elucidated the mechanisms behind how CCs and herbicides may synergistically limit weed seed germination and seedling survival (Bunchek et al. Reference Bunchek, Wallace, Curran, Mortensen, VanGessel and Scott2020; Wallace et al. Reference Wallace, Curran and Mortensen2019).

Additionally, studies within the Southeast have shown that few residual herbicides negatively impact the postharvest growth and establishment of CCs in the fall, suggesting that CC integration as an IWM tactic is not impeded by the current spectrum of active ingredients (Palhano et al. Reference Palhano, Norsworthy and Barber2018b; Rector et al. Reference Rector, Pittman, Beam, Bamber, Cahoon, Frame and Flessner2020). Further integration of novel management practices may augment CC–herbicide synergies. One recent example involves the idea of “weed priming” (Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Osipitan, Begcy and Werle2020). Authors from that study hypothesized that the use of plant hormones could either synchronize weed seed germination patterns or induce higher levels of dormancy. In either case, coupled with preemergence herbicide and CC use, this could be a highly effective practice to both increase the efficacy of preemergence herbicides and potentially limit selection pressure by minimizing the heavy reliance on postemergence herbicides. Empirical work is needed to substantiate these hypotheses, but this presents a creative approach to CC-based IWM.

Crop Yield and Weed Management Trade-Offs

Crop yield comparisons were pooled over our WBIO and WDEN comparisons, resulting in 144 comparisons across 22 publications. Our results indicated that LRRCY was not significantly different from zero (8% increase, P = 0.88) (Figure 3). While CC-driven gains in soil conservation and moisture retention have been seen across varied sites within the Southeast, improvements to these properties may only improve crop yields in growing seasons when precipitation amounts may be limited or with the inclusion of a legume CC (Farmaha et al. Reference Farmaha, Sekaran and Franzluebbers2022). LRR values for crop yield and both weed responses were graphed together to quantify the number of comparisons where both crop yield responses were above zero and weed responses were below zero, leading to the characterization of “win” and “lose” scenarios (Figure 6). The best possible outcome for increased yield and reduced weeds (win–win, or W-W) occurred across 38% of comparisons. These data also indicate that while 70% of all weed response comparisons were less than zero, only 47% of yield comparisons were above zero (Figure 5). This may be an artifact of the studies included in our analyses, as most were designed to evaluate the suppressive effect of CCs on weeds, but it may also suggest trade-offs around optimizing crop yield under CCs. Additionally, because crop yield response from comparisons was taken from broad temporal, geographic and management gradients, this may mask benefits accrued during years of precipitation deficit or nitrogen limitation.

Figure 6. Crop yield and weed response log response ratio (LRR) plotted against each other. The distribution of LRR for crop yield and weeds is presented to the right of and above the graph. Circles and distribution curves correspond to weed biomass (orange) and weed density (blue) values, respectively. W-W, L-W, W-L, and L-L are win/lose quadrants where the first letter represents weed biomass/density (win if negative LRR, lose if positive LRR) and the second letter represents yield (win if positive LRR, lose if negative LRR). Comparisons where cover crop suppressed weed and improved yield (W-W) comprised 38% of all points.

Given the challenges of weed management in the Southeast region, CCs have an important role to play in IWM systems. While our results strongly highlight the role of CC biomass in reducing WDEN, we recognize the challenge of achieving certain thresholds given current agronomic and economic objectives and concerns stemming from farmers themselves. Increased interest and study around CC establishment and termination options show promise for balancing crop production and weed-suppression goals. This interest and excitement appear consistent across industry, farmer, and university stakeholders, suggesting that balancing multiple objectives in CC-based systems is a high priority that is drawing on a diversity of experience and knowledge. However, we end by cautioning that without proper support in the form of education and policy to both increase adoption and ensure best management practices, these collaborations and shared efforts will be impeded.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jared Baker for his assistance in paper retrieval. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency or the commercial or not-for-profit sectors. No conflicts of interest have been declared.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Carlene Chase, University of Florida

References

Asseng, S (2013) Agriculture and climate change in the Southeast USA. Pages 128164 in Ingram, KT, Dow, K, Carter, L, Anderson, J, eds. Climate of the Southeast United States. NCA Regional Input Reports. Washington, DC: Island Press. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-509-0_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aulakh, J, Price, AJ, Enloe, S, Wehtje, G, Patterson, M (2013) Integrated Palmer amaranth management in glufosinate-resistant cotton: II. Primary, secondary and conservation tillage. Agronomy 3:2842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aulakh, JS, Price, AJ, Enloe, SF, Van Santen, E, Wehtje, G, Patterson, MG (2012) Integrated Palmer amaranth management in glufosinate-resistant cotton: I. Soil-inversion, high-residue cover crops and herbicide regimes. Agronomy 2:295311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baraibar, B, Mortensen, DA, Hunter, MC, Barbercheck, ME, Kaye, JP, Finney, DM, Curran, WS, Bunchek, J, White, CM (2018) Growing degree days and cover crop type explain weed biomass in winter cover crops. Agron Sustain Dev 38:65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastos, LM, Rice, CW, Tomlinson, PJ, Mengel, D (2021) Untangling soil-weather drivers of daily N2O emissions and fertilizer management mitigation strategies in no-till corn. Soil Sci Soc Am J 85:14371447 10.1002/saj2.20292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B, Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergtold, JS, Ramsey, S, Maddy, L, Williams, JR (2019) A review of economic considerations for cover crops as a conservation practice. Renew Agric Food Syst 34:6276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, SM, Whitwell, T (1985) Weed control programs for minimum-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 33:843847 10.1017/S0043174500083478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunchek, JM, Wallace, JM, Curran, WS, Mortensen, DA, VanGessel, MJ, Scott, BA (2020) Alternative performance targets for integrating cover crops as a proactive herbicide-resistance management tool. Weed Sci 68:534544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cammarano, D, Tian, D (2018) The effects of projected climate and climate extremes on a winter and summer crop in the southeast USA. Agric For Meteorol 248:109118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, WS, Hoover, RJ, Mirsky, SB, Roth, GW, Ryan, MR, Ackroyd, VJ, Pelzer, CJ (2018) Evaluation of cover crops drill interseeded into corn across the Mid-Atlantic region. Agron J 110:435443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVore, JD, Norsworthy, JK, Brye, KR (2012) Influence of deep tillage and a rye cover crop on glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) emergence in cotton. Weed Technol 26:832838 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVore, JD, Norsworthy, JK, Brye, KR (2013) Influence of deep tillage, a rye cover crop, and various soybean production systems on Palmer amaranth emergence in soybean. Weed Technol 27:263270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmaha, BS, Sekaran, U, Franzluebbers, AJ (2022) Cover cropping and conservation tillage improve soil health in the southeastern United States. Agron J 114:296316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grint, KR, Arneson, NJ, Oliveira, MC, Smith, DH, Werle, R (2022) Cereal rye cover crop terminated at crop planting reduces early-season weed density and biomass in Wisconsin corn–soybean production. Agrosyst Geosci Environ 5:e20245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, G, Liu, Y, Smith, AR, Plastina, A (2020) Motivations and challenges of cover crop utilization for Georgia crop production. J Am Soc Farm Manag Rural Appraisers 2020:122128 Google Scholar
Hand, LC, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Stanley Culpepper, A (2019) Cereal rye cover crop and herbicide application method affect cotton stand, Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control, and cotton yield. Weed Technol 33:794799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hand, LC, Randell, TM, Nichols, RL, Steckel, LE, Basinger, NT, Culpepper, AS (2021) Cover crops and residual herbicides reduce selection pressure for Palmer amaranth resistance to dicamba-applied postemergence in cotton. Agron J 113:53735382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, KN (2013) Slowing weed evolution with integrated weed management. Can J Plant Sci 93:759764 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T, Hornik, K, Zeileis, A (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J Comp Graph Stat 15:651674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T, Zeileis, A (2015) partykit: a modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. J Mach Learn Res 16:39053909 Google Scholar
Jaenisch, BR, Munaro, LB, Bastos, LM, Moraes, M, Lin, X, Lollato, RP (2021) On-farm data-rich analysis explains yield and quantifies yield gaps of winter wheat in the US central Great Plains. Field Crops Res 272:108287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, P, Fuhrmann, C, Konrad, C (2014) Challenges and opportunities for southeast agriculture in a changing climate: perspectives from state climatologists. Southeastern Geo 54:118136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, CH, Reddy, KN (2005) Effects of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) cover crop and banded herbicides on weeds, grain yield, and economic returns in corn (Zea mays). J Sustain Agric 26:107124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, CH, Reddy, KN, Shaw, DR (2002) Effects of rye cover crop residue and herbicides on weed control in narrow and wide row soybean planting systems. Weed Biol Manag 2:216224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konrad, CE, Fuhrmann, CM (2013) Climate of the Southeast USA: past, present, and future. Pages 842 in Ingram, KT, Dow, K, Carter, L, Anderson, J, eds. Climate of the Southeast United States. NCA Regional Input Reports. Washington, DC: Island Press. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-509-0_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lajeunesse, MJ (2013) Recovering missing or partial data from studies: a survey of conversions and imputations for meta-analysis. Pages 195206 in Koricheva, J, Gurevitch, J, Mengersen, K, eds. Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Google Scholar
Lassiter, BR, Jordan, DL, Wilkerson, GG, Shew, BB, Brandenburg, RL (2011) Influence of cover crops on weed management in strip tillage peanut. Weed Technol 25:568573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lollato, RP, Ruiz Diaz, DA, DeWolf, E, Knapp, M, Peterson, DE, Fritz, AK (2019) Agronomic practices for reducing wheat yield gaps: a quantitative appraisal of progressive producers. Crop Sci 59:333350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLaren, C, Swanepoel, P, Bennett, J, Wright, J, Dehnen-Schmutz, K (2019) Cover crop biomass production is more important than diversity for weed suppression. Crop Sci 59:733748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, MS, Norsworthy, JK, Culpepper, AS, Riley, MB, Bridges, W (2008) Use of wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) and rye cover crops for weed suppression in sweet corn. Weed Sci 56:588595 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menalled, FD, Peterson, RKD, Smith, RG, Curran, WS, Páez, DJ, Maxwell, BD (2016) The eco-evolutionary imperative: revisiting weed management in the midst of an herbicide resistance crisis. Sustainability 8:1297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, VM, Mirsky, SB (2020) Cover crop biomass production across establishment methods in mid-Atlantic corn. Agron J 112:47654774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mourtzinis, S, Edreira, JIR., Grassini, P, Roth, AC, Casteel, SN, Ciampitti, IA, Conley, SP (2018) Sifting and winnowing: analysis of farmer field data for soybean in the US North-Central region. Field Crops Res 221:130141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S, Scealy, JL, Welsh, AH (2013) Model selection in linear mixed models. Stat Sci 28:135167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nembrini, S (2019) Prediction or interpretability? Emerg Themes Epidemiol 16:13 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neve, P, Busi, R, Renton, M, Vila-Aiub, MM (2014) Expanding the eco-evolutionary context of herbicide resistance research. Pest Manag Sci 70:13851393 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nichols, V, Martinez-Feria, R, Weisberger, D, Carlson, S, Basso, B, Basche, A (2020) Cover crops and weed suppression in the U.S. Midwest: a meta-analysis and modeling study. Agric Environ Lett 5:e20022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Frederick, JR (2005) Integrated weed management strategies for maize (Zea mays) production on the southeastern coastal plains of North America. Crop Prot 24:119126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Korres, NE, Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2016) Integrating herbicide programs with harvest weed seed control and other fall management practices for the control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 64:540550 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60:3162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, MC, Osipitan, OA, Begcy, K, Werle, R (2020) Cover crops, hormones and herbicides: priming an integrated weed management strategy. Plant Sci 301:110550 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osipitan (2018) Cover crop for early-season weed suppression in crops: systematic review and meta-analysis. Agron J 110:22112221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osipitan, OA, Dille, JA, Assefa, Y, Radicetti, E, Ayeni, A, Knezevic, SZ (2019) Impact of cover crop management on level of weed suppression: a meta-analysis. Crop Sci 59:833842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palhano, MG, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T (2018a) Cover crops suppression of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton. Weed Technol 32:6065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palhano, MG, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T (2018b) Sensitivity and likelihood of residual herbicide carryover to cover crops. Weed Technol 32:236243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philibert, A, Loyce, C, Makowski, D (2012) Assessment of the quality of meta-analysis in agronomy. Agric Ecosyst Environ 148:7282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pittelkow, CM, Linquist, BA, Lundy, ME, Liang, X, van Groenigen, KJ, Lee, J, van Gestel, N, Six, J, Venterea, RT, van Kessel, C (2015) When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res 183:156168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Duzy, LM, Kelton, JA (2012) Herbicide and cover crop residue integration for Amaranthus control in conservation agriculture cotton and implications for resistance management. Weed Technol 26:490498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Monks, CD, Culpepper, AS, Duzy, LM, Kelton, JA, Marshall, MW, Steckel, LE, Sosnoskie, LM, Nichols, RL (2016a) High-residue cover crops alone or with strategic tillage to manage glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in southeastern cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J Soil Water Conserv 71:111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, van Santen, E, Sarunaite, L (2016b) Cover-crop management influences residue biomass and subsequent weed suppression in a conservation agriculture corn and cotton rotation. Pages 99120 in Abdurakhmonov, IY, ed. Cotton Research. InTechOpen.10.5772/61914Google Scholar
Quinn, DJ, Poffenbarger, HJ, Leuthold, SJ, Lee, CD (2021) Corn response to in-furrow fertilizer and fungicide across rye cover crop termination timings. Agron J 113:33843398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rector, LS, Pittman, KB, Beam, SC, Bamber, KW, Cahoon, CW, Frame, WH, Flessner, ML (2020) Herbicide carryover to various fall-planted cover crop species. Weed Technol 34:2534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN (2001) Effects of cereal and legume cover crop residues on weeds, yield, and net return in soybean (Glycine max) Weed Technol 15:660668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN (2003) Impact of rye cover crop and herbicides on weeds, yield, and net return in narrow-row transgenic and conventional soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:2835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN, Koger, CH (2004) Live and killed hairy vetch cover crop effects on weeds and yield in glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol 18:835840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN, Norsworthy, JK (2010) Glyphosate-resistant crop production systems: impact on weed species shifts. Pages 165184 in Nandula, VK, ed. Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds: History, Development, and Management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN, Zablotowicz, RM, Locke, MA, Koger, CH (2003) Cover crop, tillage, and herbicide effects on weeds, soil properties, microbial populations, and soybean yield. Weed Sci 51:987994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, HK, Karsten, HD, Curran, WS, Tooker, JF, Duiker, SW (2019) Planting green effects on corn and soybean production. Agron J 111:23142325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, HK, Karsten, HD (2022) Does winter cereal rye seeding rate, termination time, and N rate impact no-till soybean? Agron J 114:13111323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt Piskackova, TA, Reberg-Horton, SC, Richardson, RJ, Jennings, KM, Franca, L, Young, BG, Leon, RG (2021) Windows of action for controlling palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) using emergence and phenology models. Weed Res 61:188198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rojas-Sandoval, J (2015) Urochloa platyphylla (broadleaf signalgrass). In CABI Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. doi: 10.1079/cabicompendium.9669 Google Scholar
Sage, RF (2017) A portrait of the C4 photosynthetic family on the 50th anniversary of its discovery: species number, evolutionary lineages, and Hall of Fame. J Exp Bot 68:e11e28 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, AN, Reberg-Horton, SC, Place, GT, Meijer, AD, Arellano, C, Mueller, JP (2011) Rolled rye mulch for weed suppression in organic no-tillage soybeans. Weed Sci 59:224231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, VL, Haramoto, ER (2021) Biomass potential of drill interseeded cover crops in corn in Kentucky. Agron J 113:12381247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR (2018) The use of rotations and cover crops to manage weeds. Pages 227260 in Zimdahl, R, ed. Integrated Weed Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, UK: Burleigh Dodds Science Google Scholar
Teasdale, JR (1996) Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agriculture systems. J Prod Agric 9:475479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thapa, R, Tully, KL, Reberg-Horton, C, Cabrera, M, Davis, BW, Fleisher, D, Gaskin, J, Hitchcock, R, Poncet, A, Schomberg, HH, Seehaver, SA, Timlin, D, Mirsky, SB (2022) Cover crop residue decomposition in no-till cropping systems: insights from multi-state on-farm litter bag studies. Agric Ecosyst Environ 326:107823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timper, P, Davis, RF, Webster, TM, Brenneman, TB, Meyer, SLF, Zasada, IA, Cai, G, Rice, CP (2011) Response of root-knot nematodes and Palmer amaranth to tillage and rye green manure. Agron J 103:813821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toler, HD, Augé, RM, Benelli, V, Allen, FL, Ashworth, AJ (2019) Global meta-analysis of cotton yield and weed suppression from cover crops. Crop Sci 59:12481261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travlos, IS, Montull, JM, Kukorelli, G, Malidza, G, Dogan, FMN, Cheimona, N, Peteinatos, G (2019) Key aspects on the biology, ecology and impacts of Johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers] and the role of glyphosate and non-chemical alternative practices for the management of this weed in Europe. Agronomy 9:717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vann, RA, Drake-Stowe, K, Buol, GS, Dunphy, EJ (2021) Production practices that maximize soybean yield: What we have learned from the North Carolina soybean yield contest. Agron J 113:33993417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vann, RA, Reberg-Horton, SC, Edmisten, KL, York, AC (2018) Implications of cereal rye/crimson clover management for conventional and organic cotton producers. Agron J 110:621631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verret, V, Gardarin, A, Pelzer, E, Médiène, S, Makowski, D, Valantin-Morison, M (2017) Can legume companion plants control weeds without decreasing crop yield? A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res 204:158168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, JM, Curran, WS, Mortensen, DA (2019) Cover crop effects on horseweed (Erigeron canadensis) density and size inequality at the time of herbicide exposure. Weed Sci 67:327338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, RD, Grey, TL, Webster, TM, Vencill, WK (2013) Increased purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) tuber sprouting with diurnally fluctuating temperatures. Weed Sci 61:126130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallander, S, Smith, D, Bowman, M, Claassen, R (2021) Cover Crop Trends, Programs, and Practices in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, EIB-222. 31 pGoogle Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:1227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Nichols, RL (2012) Changes in the prevalence of weed species in the major agronomic crops of the Southern United States: 1994/1995 to 2008/2009. Weed Sci 60:145157 Google Scholar
Webster, TM, Scully, BT, Grey, TL, Culpepper, AS (2013) Winter cover crops influence Amaranthus palmeri establishment. Crop Prot 52:130135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberger, D, Nichols, V, Liebman, M (2019) Does diversifying crop rotations suppress weeds? a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14:e0219847 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, MS, Reberg-Horton, SC, Mirsky, SB (2016) Planting date impacts on soil water management, plant growth, and weeds in cover-crop-based no-till corn production. Agron J 108:162170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, MS, Reberg-Horton, SC, Smith, AN, Grossman, JM (2013) The reduction of plant-available nitrogen by cover crop mulches and subsequent effects on soybean performance and weed interference. Agron J 105:539545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, MS, Hayes, RM, Nichols, RL, Steckel, LE (2017) Cover crop and postemergence herbicide integration for Palmer amaranth control in cotton. Weed Technol 31:348355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yenish, JP, Worsham, AD, York, AC (1996) Cover crops for herbicide replacement in no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 10:815821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zotarelli, L, Avila, L, Scholberg, JMS, Alves, BJR (2009) Benefits of vetch and rye cover crops to sweet corn under no-tillage. Agron J 101:252260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram detailing the literature search.

Figure 1

Table 1. List of moderators, levels, associated sample sizes, and summary statistics for categorical and continuous independent variables across all 28 studies.a

Figure 2

Table 2. List of publications and associated natural log response ratios (LRR) for weed biomass (WBIO), weed density (WDEN), and crop yield (CY).

Figure 3

Figure 2. Map of study locations used in the meta-analysis. Triangles are colored according to the number of paired comparisons from each location.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Overall mean effect of cover crop (CC) on weed biomass, weed density, and crop yield. The blue dotted line, purple bar, and green solid line represent the mean response, 95% confidence interval, and no response, respectively. Statistical difference (mean response is significantly different than zero) was assessed with α = 0.10.

Figure 5

Figure 4. Conditional inference tree for weed density log response ratio (LRRWDEN). Mean response for box and whisker plot followed by the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.10). pub_year is the publication year; cc_bio_kgha is the cover crop biomass in kg ha−1.

Figure 6

Figure 5. Weed density log response ratio (LRRWDEN) as a function of cover crop (CC) biomass (kg ha−1). Points are colored based on conditional inference tree (CIT) threshold: green values are those represented in the <3,300 kg ha−1 terminal node; yellow values are those represented in the >3,300 kg ha−1 terminal node. The white dotted line represents a 50% reduction in LRRWDEN at an associated CC biomass value of 6,600 kg ha−1.

Figure 7

Figure 6. Crop yield and weed response log response ratio (LRR) plotted against each other. The distribution of LRR for crop yield and weeds is presented to the right of and above the graph. Circles and distribution curves correspond to weed biomass (orange) and weed density (blue) values, respectively. W-W, L-W, W-L, and L-L are win/lose quadrants where the first letter represents weed biomass/density (win if negative LRR, lose if positive LRR) and the second letter represents yield (win if positive LRR, lose if negative LRR). Comparisons where cover crop suppressed weed and improved yield (W-W) comprised 38% of all points.