Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/wiley/sugarbeet-response-to-interactions-between-fall-seeded-cover-crop-and-Zh7kyenffA
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Copyright
- © 2022 Crop Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy.
- eISSN
- 2639-6696
- DOI
- 10.1002/agg2.20278
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
AbbreviationsGDDgrowing degree daysNDREnormalized difference red edgeNDVInormalized difference vegetation indexSLMsugar loss to molassesINTRODUCTIONWind and water erosion are responsible for significant soil loss in the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota (DeJong‐Hughes et al., 2014). Intensive tillage operations in the fall and spring accelerate the soil erosion processes particularly during early spring (prior to stand establishment) and after harvest (Fryrear & Skidmore, 1985; Nordstrom & Hotta, 2004). Fields with crops having minimal residue cover like sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.), or soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] after harvest, are particularly prone to erosion (Hansen et al., 2012). Cover crops have the potential to improve soil health and nutrient use efficiency by reducing erosion and nutrient losses (Kaye & Quemada, 2017). Korucu et al. (2018) found that the living rye cover crop delayed surface runoff and reduced total runoff over plots without a cover crop, resulting in a significant reduction in sediment loss and even greater reductions in loss of fertilizer nutrients.However, competition for resources could influence the yield and quality of the main crop. Cover crops particularly rye can scavenge significant residual soil N (Dabney et al., 2001). Moreover, cover crop planting dates, shoot biomass, and precipitation are potential drivers for the extent of N uptake by nonleguminous cover crops (Thapa et al., 2018). Without applying fertilizer N, cover crop reduced corn (Zea mays L.) grain yield by 11.8–14.2%, suggesting cover crop can reduced N availability in a loam soil (Rutan & Steinke, 2019). Corn canopy sensing indicated more N stress, reduced plant‐stand, and slower growth with rye (Secale cereale L.) cover crop (Muñoz et al., 2014). For the successful use of cover crops for N management, N immobilized during cover crop growth should be available for crop uptake at critical growth stages (Rutan & Steinke, 2019).Release of N from cover crop residues might increase the soil carbon (C) mineralization or carbon dioxide (CO2) flux rather than supplementing the crop N demand (Muhammad et al., 2019). Reicks et al. (2021) found that rye did not influence CO2–C emissions the period prior to corn emergence. On the contrary, researchers like Nilahyane et al. (2020) and Muhammad et al. (2019) reported that cover crop species increased CO2 emissions and cover crop biomass explained 63% of variability in increased CO2 emissions.Sugarbeet is grown across the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota, contributing to half of the nation's production. Fertilizer N is an essential consideration in sugarbeet production (Draycot & Christenson, 2003). Low soil N availability can reduce the root yield, and excessive N availability can reduce the sugar concentration by increasing impurity or sugar loss to molasses (SLM) (Chatterjee et al., 2019). Canopy reflectance sensor has been successfully applied to monitor sugarbeet tissue N concentration during the growing season (Olson et al., 2019; Van Eerd et al., 2021). Active sensor reading during the growing season showed promise to predict the root yield and recoverable sugar (Gehl & Boring, 2011). In season petiole tissue NO3 concentration have limited success in predicting root yield and sugar. Canopy reflectance data can be used to predict the sugarbeet response to the interaction between cover crop interseeding and fertilizer N application timing.Cover crops have a direct influence on soil N dynamics. Cover crops can reduce N losses by N uptake during growth and they can increase N availability through mineralization of cover crop biomass after their termination (Chatterjee & Clay, 2016). A 4‐yr field experiment revealed that planting sugarbeet with living mulch of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.), and camelina [Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz.] had positive impacts on sugarbeet root quality, probably due to partial uptake of soil N by the companion plants and less N availability at later growth stages (Afshar et al., 2018).Selection of cover crop species (Sigdel et al., 2021) and fertilizer N application time (Rutan & Steinke, 2019) had a significant influence on cover crop biomass and sugarbeet growth, yield, and quality due to variations in C and N mineralization. The main objectives of the on‐farm experiment in this paper were to determine the influences of fall‐seeded cover crops (winter wheat and cereal rye) and fertilizer N application time (fall, spring, and split [50% of recommended N in fall, and rest in spring]) on (a) changes in canopy reflectance, (b) variations in soil CO2 efflux during the growing season, (c) soil NO3–N concentration, (d) cover crop biomass production and biomass N removal, and (e) sugarbeet root yield and quality.Core IdeasFall‐seeded cover crops did not affect sugarbeet yield.Cereal rye had 15% more biomass than winter wheat.Cover crop plots had lower canopy reflectance than control.Fall N had higher canopy reflectance than spring N treatment.MATERIALS AND METHODSThis field experiment was conducted at Ada, MN (47.3198° lat., −96.3856° long.). Initial soil properties were analyzed using the Agvise soil testing laboratory (Northwood, ND), and more experiment details are provided in Table 1. Soils of this site are very deep, formed in silty glacial lacustrine sediments and delta sediments on glacial lake plains (coarse silty, mixed, superactive, frigid Aeric Calciaquolls). The previous crop was spring wheat. In fall 2020, initial soil samples were collected and analyzed for inorganic N (0–15 cm, 15‐to‐60‐cm depths), Olsen‐phosphorus (P), and available potassium (K), both for 0‐to‐15‐cm depth only. Recommended fertilizer N (adjusted for soil available N), ‐P, and ‐K were applied in the forms of urea, monoammonium phosphate, and muriate of potash, respectively (Table 1).1TABLESoil properties, fertilizer and crop management information for the field experiment conducted at Ada, MN, during the 2021 growing seasonParametersValuesLocation47.3198° lat., −96.3856° long.ClassificationGlyndon loamSoil organic matter, g kg−121Soil pH8.4Soil nitrogen (N), kg ha−111Olsen‐phosphorus (P), mg kg−16Soil potassium (K), mg kg−150Cover crop planting date4 Sept. 2020Cover crop biomass collection and termination22 Apr. 2021Fertilizer N applied, kg ha−1135Fertilizer P2O5 applied, kg ha−162Fertilizer K2O applied, kg ha−1101Sugarbeet seeding rate, ha−1148,260Sugarbeet planting date29 Apr.Sugarbeet harvest date28 Sept.The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with factorial arrangement of three cover crop treatments, fall‐seeded winter wheat, cereal rye and control (no cover crop), and three fertilizer N application time treatments, (a) 100% recommended fertilizer N in fall, (b) 100% recommended fertilizer N in fall–spring before planting, and (c) 50% recommended in fall and 50% recommended N in spring. Nine treatments were replicated four times. Each plot measured 3.35 m wide and 9.14 m long, containing six rows spaced 0.6 m apart.On 4 Sept. 2020, cover crop seeds, cereal rye (cultivar ND Dylan), and winter wheat (cultivar Jerry) were broadcast at the rate of 45 kg ha−1. On the same day, fall fertilizer N treatments were also broadcast. A good cover crop stand was established before the ground became frozen. On 22 Apr. 2021, cover crop biomass was collected from a 0.61‐m by 0.61‐m quadrat per plot and on the same day, glyphosate [isopropylamine salt of N‐(phosphomethyl) glycine] was applied at the rate of 0.74 kg a.i. ha−1, to terminate the cover crop. Cover crop biomass was clipped in a brown bag, and dried at 60 ℃, and weighed for the dry biomass. Dried biomass was ground using a Wiley Mill (Thomas Scientific) and analyzed for total N. Ground tissue samples were digested with a sulfuric acid–salicylic acid mixture, and N was determined using the Kjeldahl distillation method.On 29 Apr. 2021, spring fertilizer N treatments with recommended P and K were broadcast and incorporated into the soil with a field cultivator before planting. A glyphosate‐tolerant cultivar of sugarbeet (Crystal 572) was planted to a 5‐cm depth with a six‐row John Deere row crop planter. Three applications of glyphosate were applied for weed control, and recommended fungicides were applied to control Cercospora leafspot (Cercospora beticola Sacc.). On 29 September, two middle rows of the six‐row plots were mechanically defoliated, and a scale‐mounted harvester was used to excavate and weigh the sugarbeet roots from the center two rows. A subsample of 15–20 sugarbeet roots was analyzed to determine sucrose concentration and SLM at the American Crystal Sugar Quality Tare Laboratory, East Grand Forks, MN.During 7 June–20 July, canopy reflectance was collected on a weekly basis using a handheld active light optical sensor (Rapid‐SCAN CS‐45, Holland Scientific) by walking along two middle rows for the whole plot length at a constant pace and handheld at a constant height. Gehl and Boring (2011) found that midseason 1,200–1,400 growing degree days (GDD), 1,900–2,300 GDD, and harvest normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) values were strongly related to sugarbeet sucrose yield. To be consistent, sensor reading was collected around solar noon. The active sensor has an internal GPS and a polychromatic light source with spectral bands 670, 730, and 780 nm. Data were downloaded by RapidTALK software (Holland Scientific); each plot had approximately 250 readings, and the average value was used for further calculations. For GDD calculations, air temperature data from the nearest weather station were collected using North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network (https://ndawn.ndsu.nodak.edu/). The cumulative GDD was calculated by subtracting the threshold temperature of 10 °C from the average daily air temperature from the planting date to the particular observation date. Vegetation indices NDVI and red‐edge normalized vegetation index (NDRE) of the active sensor were calculated using the following equations: NDVI = (near infrared – red)/(near infrared + red) and NDRE = (near infrared – red edge)/(near infrared + red edge).Soil CO2 flux data were collected on a weekly basis from 24 May to 20 July. Flux measurements were made using polyvinyl chloride collars (10‐cm diameter and 5‐cm height) installed in between rows. Flux measurements were done using a soil respiration chamber (SRC‐2) attached to EGM‐4 infrared gas analyzer (PP Systems). Flux measurements were made in between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. For each measurement, the chamber was automatically flushed with ambient air. After placing the collar, the chamber was equilibrated, and CO2 exchange was measured for 120 s. Flux values were corrected for pressure and temperature. Soil CO2 flux was expressed in μmol CO2 m−2 s−1.For all plots, soil samples within 0‐to‐15‐cm depth were collected to determine nitrate (NO3–)‐N concentration on 13 Oct. 2020 (before the ground freeze), or “fall 2020”; 21 Apr. 2021 (before terminating cover crops), or “spring 2021”; and on 9 Sept. 2021 (before harvest), or “fall 2021.” Soil samples were extracted with 2 M potassium chloride, and NO3– concentration was analyzed using a Timberline Ammonia Analyzer (TL‐2800, Timberline Instruments).All parameters were analyzed using the general linear model of SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute). Probabilities ≤0.05 were considered significant for main effects, and cover crop and fertilizer N application time and interactions. Mean separation was conducted using the LSD test. Canopy reflectance and soil CO2 flux data were analyzed for each observation day.RESULTSWeatherThe growing season was hot, dry, and windy (Figure 1). Rainfall was below average throughout the growing season. The monthly rainfall of the site from April to September 2021 was 35.7 mm (−84 mm), 14.5 mm (−230 mm), 38.4 mm (−304 mm), 14.9 mm (−478 mm), 111 mm (−413 mm), and 88.5 mm (365 mm), respectively; values in parentheses indicates the departure from the 5‐yr average.1FIGUREMonthly rainfall (mm) during the 2021 growing season and 5‐yr average (mm) monthly rainfall for Ada, MN, collected from North Dakota Agriculture Weather Network website (https://ndawn.ndsu.nodak.edu). *Values indicate percent departure from 5‐yr averageCanopy reflectance during sugarbeet growthChanges in canopy reflectance in response to cover crop and fertilizer N application during the growing season are presented in Table 2. During the growing season, NDVI values increased from 0.23 to 0.78, and NDRE values increased from 0.12 to 0.31, indicating increasing biomass and tissue N concentration, respectively. Cover crop treatment had a significant effect on NDVI for all observation dates and NDRE values from 7 June to 8 July. The fertilizer N application had a significant effect on NDVI from 7 June to 8 July and NDRE values from 14 June to 8 July.2TABLEChanges in mean red normalized vegetation index (NDVI) and red edge normalized vegetation index (NDRE) in response to cover crop (CC) and fertilizer nitrogen application time (Fert. Appl. Time) for sugarbeet production during the 2021 growing season7 June14 June23 June28 June8 July15 July20 JulyFactorsNDVINDRENDVINDRENDVINDRENDVINDRENDVINDRENDVINDRENDVINDREGDD, °C5316828399361,1391,2761,385CCControl0.27A0.13A0.42A0.17A0.63A0.24A0.75A0.28A0.77A0.29A0.77AB0.31A0.79A0.27ACereal rye0.21C0.11B0.29B0.13C0.45B0.17C0.63B0.24B0.69B0.25B0.74B0.29A0.74B0.30AWinter wheat0.25B0.12A0.39A0.16B0.59A0.22B0.74A0.27A0.77A0.29A0.78A0.31A0.79A0.28AFert. Appl. TimeFall0.25A0.12A0.39A0.16A0.59A0.22A0.73A0.27A0.76A0.29A0.76A0.29A0.78A0.27ASpring0.23B0.12A0.34B0.14B0.51B0.20A0.68B0.26A0.72B0.26B0.76A0.29A0.76A0.31ASplit0.24AB0.12A0.38A0.16A0.57A0.21A0.71AB0.25B0.75A0.28A0.76A0.30A0.78A0.27ACV9.618.3311.37.099.715.826.173.414.374.405.618.293.5130.1P valueCC<.01.01<.01<.01<.01<.01<.01<.01<.01<.01.06.13.01.69Fert. Appl. Time.11.50.02.01.01.01.03.03.02.01.90.55.22.37 CC × Fert. Appl. Time.95.98.94.80.61.62.81.47.37.49.04.62.94.34Note. Different capital letters indicate significant difference between mean for the same main effect at 95% significance level.For cover crop treatments, the control treatment had a higher NDVI value than cereal rye for all observations except on 15 July. The control plots had higher NDVI than winter wheat only on 7 June, similar for the remainder of the growing season. Plots with cereal rye had significantly lower NDVI than winter wheat for all observations. Control and winter wheat had a higher NDRE value than the cereal rye from 7 June to 8 July. Winter wheat had significantly lower NDRE than control only on 14 and 23 June. The fertilizer N application had a significant influence on NDVI values from 7 June to 8 July and on NDRE values from 14 June, 28 June, and 8 July. The fall N application had higher NDVI values than spring N, but similar to split N from 7 June to 8 July. Fall and split N application had higher NDRE values than spring N, similar to the split on 14 June and 8 July; an opposite trend was observed only on 28 June. Over time, NDVI and NDRE both increased from 0.20 to 0.79 and 0.11 to 0.31, respectively. Across cover crop treatments, control plots showed higher NDVI and NDRE than cereal rye, similar to winter wheat. Fall fertilizer N application had higher NDVU and NDRE than spring N application.Spring soil CO2 fluxCover crop influenced soil CO2 flux only once; on 24 May, when cereal rye treatment had significantly higher CO2 flux than control but similar CO2 flux to winter wheat (Table 3). Fertilizer N application time did not influence soil CO2 flux.3TABLEChanges in soil CO2 flux in response to cover crop (CC) and fertilizer nitrogen application time (Fert. Appl. Time) from soils under sugarbeet production during 2021 growing seasonFactors24 May1 June7 June23 June1 July8 July15 July20 Julyμmol CO2 m−2 s−1CCControl0.66B0.30A0.24A0.48A0.70A0.37A0.45A0.33ACereal rye1.30A0.38A0.31A0.39A0.63A0.39A0.41A0.41AWinter wheat0.98AB0.29A0.29A0.52A0.61A0.40A0.45A0.40AFert. Appl. TimeFall0.99A0.29A0.28A0.48A0.65A0.37A0.42A0.37ASpring1.09A0.31A0.25A0.38A0.64A0.39A0.43A0.39ASplit0.86A0.38A0.31A0.53A0.65A0.40A0.46A0.39ACV40.233.431.140.318.224.415.219.2P valueCC.01.13.25.33.26.70.35.08Fert. Appl. Time.47.18.38.29.98.76.32.75CC × Fert. Appl. Time.09.22.73.52.94.94.25.09Note. Different capital letters indicate significant difference between mean for the same main effect at 95% significance level.Soil NO3––NThe cover crop treatment had significantly reduced the surface soil NO3––N only in spring 2021, and fertilizer N application time had a significant effect for soils sampled in fall 2020 and spring 2021 (Table 4). In spring 2021, soils without cover crop had significantly higher NO3–N concentrations than soils under cover crops. Winter wheat had higher soil inorganic N than cereal rye. In fall 2020 and spring 2021, fall fertilizer N application had significantly higher soil NO3–N than split and spring application of N. Moreover, for soils in spring 2021, the split application had higher soil NO3–N than the spring N application. Interaction between cover crop and fertilizer application time had significant effect on spring soil NO3–N concentration (Figure 2). This soil was sampled before fertilizer‐N application in spring. Spring treatment plot did not receive any fertilizer N application and split treatment received half of N rate. Treatment without cover crop and received fertilizer N in fall had the highest NO3–N. Winter rye biomass reduced soil NO3–N to a level that all three fertilizer N application treatment had similar soil NO3–N.4TABLEEffect of fall seeded cover crops and nitrogen application time on soil nitrate (NO3––N) availability within 0‐to‐15‐cm soil depth during fall 2020 (13 Oct. 2020), spring 2021 (21 Apr. 2021), and fall 2021 (9 Sept. 2021)FactorsFall 2020Spring 2021Fall 2021mg NO3–N kg−1CCControl19.7 (18)27.7 (14)A5.33 (2.9)Cereal rye23.2 (26)3.08 (1.7)C5.46 (1.3)Winter wheat21.7 (18)13.6 (18)B4.75 (1.2)Fert. Appl. TimeFall39.0 (24)A24.2 (18)A5.17 (2.9)Spring6.54 (3.0)B6.58 (6.4)C5.58 (1.3)Split19.0 (13)B13.7 (11)B4.79 (1.3)CV78.741.139.2P valueCC.88<.01.66Fert. Appl. Time.01<.01.64CC × Fert. Appl. Time.78.01.53Note. Values in parentheses indicate the standard deviation on mean. Different capital letters indicate significant difference between mean for the same main effect at 95% significance level.2FIGUREInteractive effect of fall‐seeded cover crops (CC) and fertilizer‐nitrogen application time on soil nitrate concentration (mg NO3–N kg−1) for surface soils sampled in spring 2021Cover crop biomassCover crop and fertilizer N application time significantly affected cover crop biomass production but not on biomass N concentration and removal (Table 5). Cereal rye produced 15% more biomass than winter wheat. Spring fertilizer N application treatment had higher biomass than fall but similar to split application.5TABLEEffect of fall‐seeded cover crops and nitrogen application time on cover crop biomass production, biomass nitrogen (N) concentration, and biomass N removalFactorsBiomassBiomass N concentrationBiomass N removalMg ha−1g kg−1kg ha−1CCCereal rye3.68 (0.6)A20.6 (5.7)73.8 (14)Winter wheat3.13 (0.7)B25.1 (6.9)76.0 (18)Fert. Appl. TimeFall2.95 (0.5)B26.6 (6.6)77.0 (18)Spring3.73 (0.8)A18.9 (5.0)79.9 (17)Split3.54 (0.5)AB23.1 (6.4)67.7 (12)CV17.126.322.0P valueCC0.030.080.75Fert. Appl. Time0.030.060.32CC × Fert. Appl. Time0.790.970.69Note. Values in parentheses indicate the standard deviation on mean. Different capital letters indicate significant difference between mean for the same main effect at 95% significance level.Sugarbeet root yield and qualityCover crop and fertilizer N time had a significant effect on SLM but did not affect sugarbeet root yield and sugar concentration (Table 6). Sugarbeet plots fall‐seeded to cereal rye had significantly lower SLM concentration than control treatment (without any cover crop), but the same concentration as winter wheat treatment. Fall application of fertilizer N had lower SLM concentration than spring application of N but did not differ from split application.6TABLEEffect of two fall‐seeded cover crops (CC) and fertilizer‐nitrogen application time (Fert. Appl. Time) on sugar beet yield and quality parameters at Ada, MN, during the 2021 growing seasonFactorsRoot yieldSugarSLMMg ha−1g kg–1CCControl52.9 (8.8)134 (11)15.3 (1.5)ACereal rye46.8 (11)144 (9.3)13.9 (1.2)BWinter wheat58.2 (12)139 (9.7)14.9 (1.4)ABFert. Appl. TimeFall53.4 (12)140 (11)14.2 (1.6)BSpring49.2 (8.6)134 (8.6)15.5 (1.1)ASplit55.3 (12)142 (11)14.4 (1.4)ABCV20.96.978.62P valueCC.05.06.04Fert. Appl. Time.39.11.02CC × Fert. Appl. Time.85.40.44Note. Values in parentheses indicate the standard deviation on mean. Split, 50% of recommended fertilizer‐nitrogen in fall and rest in spring at planting; SLM, sugar loss to molasses. Different capital letters indicate significant difference between mean for the same main effect at 95% significance level.DISCUSSIONThe main effects of cover crop selection and fertilizer N application time had significant consequences on cover crop biomass production, sugarbeet production, and soil N availability, but not their interactions. Canopy reflectance values suggest that sugarbeet growth for treatments with cover crop was stressed as indicated by lower NDVI and NDRE, and lower values for spring N application over fall N application.Cover crop biomass, particularly rye, might immobilize N to reduce the supply of N during the early growing season. In addition, lack of precipitation in the early growing season might slow down the N release from fertilizer. In contrast, Snapp and Surapur (2018) observed rye cover crop midseason N availability relative to fallow plots (90 kg N ha−1 vs. 57 kg N ha−1) and consistently high corn SPAD readings by 1.5 units. Thus, the slow growth of sugarbeet under cover crop and spring N application might be specific for the particular dry growing conditions.Lack of moisture reduced the cover crop biomass decomposition, and soil CO2 flux did not vary too much across treatments. However, a meta‐analysis found that cover crops increased CO2 emissions, and cover crop biomass explained 63% of variability in CO2 emissions (Muhammed et al., 2019). In our study, only on 23 May, a slight rain event (6.5 mm) might have triggered decomposition of cereal rye biomass, resulting in significantly higher CO2 flux than without cover crop treatment (Figure 1). Seasonal changes in CO2 flux varied with cover crops and peaked as soil temperature and soil moisture after precipitation events (Nilahyane et al., 2020).Cereal rye was more successful in producing significant stand biomass than winter wheat. Ruis et al. (2019) reported that rye was among the highest biomass producing species in most temperate regions and cropping systems, producing around 2–4 Mg ha−1 biomass under semiarid temperate conditions. Fourth, cereal rye was more efficient than wheat in sequestering fertilizer N, evident from spring soil NO3––N sampling. Wagger et al. (1998) also noted that rye demonstrated a superior performance, to scavenge soil inorganic N, recovering 45% of fertilizer N compared with crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) (8%) in spring. It is surprising that higher cover crop biomass was found under spring N application over fall application; it might be due to an increase in tissue N concentration under fall N application compared with spring application. On the contrary, Balkcom et al. (2019) observed a linear response of cover crop biomass and N content increase to fertilizer N application.Cover crop adoption did not have any negative effect on root yield; moreover, it could reduce the SLM and increase recoverable sugar. Based on the 3‐yr study on the same site, Sigdel et al. (2021) showed cover crop interseeding had no negative effect on root yield and sucrose concentration. Cover crop biomass had sequestered significant soil available N and fertilizer N, reducing the supply of N at the late growing season, and lack of N supply promotes sugar production (Draycott & Christenson, 2003). Afshar et al. (2018) also reported positive impacts of living mulch (barley) on root quality traits including lower root impurities and greater percentage of sucrose recovery at the extraction. Increase in SLM for spring N application might be due to slow N mineralization under dry and warm condition and increased N availability at the late growing season.CONCLUSIONSThis 1‐yr study shows fall‐seeded cover crops might be a viable option in the sugarbeet production system. Recording of canopy reflectance, soil CO2 flux, and inorganic N could explain the differences in C and N dynamics under the sugarbeet production system. Outcomes from this research might be different under a growing season with normal precipitation, and a multiple‐year study will ensure these findings under variable weather conditions over time. Due to increasing concern over erosion during fall and on the advent of spring, fall‐seeded cover crops, cereal rye, or winter wheat before sugarbeet could be included in rotation without a compromise in yield and sugar production.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSFunding for this project was provided by the Sugarbeet Research and Education Board of Minnesota and North Dakota. The author is thankful to N. Cattanach, Jane F. Mathew, and Karter Wasberg for help with the field experiment. Any opinions, finding, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity employer.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSAmitava Chatterjee: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.CONFLICT OF INTERESTAuthor has no conflict of interest.REFERENCESAfshar, R. K., Chen, C., Eckhoff, J., & Flynn, C. (2018). Impact of a living mulch cover crop on sugarbeet establishment, root yield and sucrose purity. Field Crops Research, 223, 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.04.009Balkcom, K. S., Duzy, L. M., Price, A. J., & Kornecki, T. S. (2019). Oat, rye, and ryegrass response to nitrogen fertilizer. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.2134/cftm2018.09.0073Chatterjee, A., & Clay, D. E. (2016). Cover crops impacts on nitrogen scavenging, nitrous oxide emissions, nitrogen fertilizer replacement, erosion, and soil health. In A. Chatterjee & D. E. Clay (Eds.), Soil fertility management in agroecosystems (pp. 76–89). ASA, CSSA, and SSSA.Chatterjee, A., Sims, A. L., Franzen, D., & Cattanach, A. (2019). Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) response to inorganic fertilizer‐nitrogen in North Dakota and Minnesota during the last 40 years. Journal of Sugar Beet Research, 56(3 & 4), 3–21.Dabney, S. M., Delgado, J. A., & Reeves, D. W. (2001). Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 32(7–8), 1221–1250. https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS‐100104110DeJong‐Hughes, J., Franzen, D., & Wick, A. (2014). Reduce wind erosion for long term productivity. University of Minnesota Extensions and North Dakota State University Extension. https://www.ndsu.edu/soilhealthDraycott, A. P., & Christenson, D. R. (2003). Nitrogen. In A. P. Draycott & D. R. Christenson (Eds.), Nutrients for sugarbeet production: soil‐plant relationships (pp. 7–33). CABI Publishing.Fryrear, D. W., & Skidmore, E. L. (1985). Methods for controlling wind erosion. In R. F. Follett & B. A. Stewart (Eds.), Soil erosion and crop productivity (pp. 443–457). ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. https://doi.org/10.2134/1985.soilerosionandcrop.c24Gehl, R. J., & Boring, T. J. (2011). In‐season prediction of sugarbeet yield, quality, and nitrogen status using an active sensor. Agronomy Journal, 103(4), 1012–1018. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2011.0040Hansen, N. C., Allen, B. L., Baumhardt, R. L., & Lyon, D. J. (2012). Research achievements and adoption of no‐till, dryland cropping in semi‐arid U.S. Great Plains. Field Crops Research, 132, 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.02.021Kaye, J. P., & Quemada, M. (2017). Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593‐016‐0410‐xKorucu, T., Shipitalo, M. J., & Kaspar, T. C. (2018). Rye cover crop increases earthworm populations and reduces losses of broadcast, fall‐applied, fertilizers in surface runoff. Soil and Tillage Research, 180, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.03.004Muhammad, I., Sainju, U. M., Zhao, F., Khan, A., Ghimire, R., Fu, X., & Wang, J. (2019). Regulation of soil CO2 and N2O emissions by cover crops: A meta‐analysis. Soil and Tillage Research, 192, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.04.020Muñoz, J. D., Steibel, J. P., Snapp, S., & Kravchenko, A. N. (2014). Cover crop effect on corn growth and yield as influenced by topography. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 189, 229–239.Nilahyane, A., Ghimire, R., Thapa, V. R., & Sainju, U. M. (2020). Cover crop effects on soil carbon dioxide emissions in a semiarid cropping system. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment, 3(1), e20012. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20012Nordstrom, K. F., & Hotta, S. (2004). Wind erosion from cropland in the USA: A review of problems, solutions and prospects. Geoderma, 121, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2003.11.012Olson, D., Chatterjee, A., & Franzen, D. W. (2019). Can we select sugarbeet harvesting dates using drone‐based vegetation indices? Agronomy Journal, 111(5), 2619–2624. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2019.03.0219Reicks, G. W., Clay, D. E., Clay, S. A., Joshi, D. R., Moriles‐Miller, J., Westhoff, S., Daigh, A. L. M., & Bruggeman, S. A. (2021). Winter cereal rye cover crop decreased nitrous oxide emissions during early spring. Agronomy Journal, 113(5), 3900–3909. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20658Ruis, S. J., Blanco‐Canqui, H., Creech, C. F., Koehler‐Cole, K., Elmore, R. W., & Francis, C. A. (2019). Cover crop biomass production in temperate agroecozones. Agronomy Journal, 111(4), 1535–1551. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.08.0535Rutan, J., & Steinke, K. (2019). Corn nitrogen management following daikon radish and forage oat cover crops. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 83(1), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2018.07.0269Sigdel, S., Chatterjee, A., Berti, M., Wick, A., & Gasch, C. (2021). Interseeding cover crops in sugar beet. Field Crops Research, 263, 108079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108079Snapp, S., & Surapur, S. (2018). Rye cover crop retains nitrogen and doesn't reduce corn yields. Soil and Tillage Research, 180, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.02.018Thapa, R., Mirsky, S. B., & Tully, K. L. (2018). Cover crops reduce nitrate leaching in agroecosystems: A global meta‐analysis. Journal of Environmental Quality, 47(6), 1400–1411. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.03.0107Van Eerd, L. L., Macfarlane, J. M., & Chahal, I. (2021). Optical sensors to predict sugarbeet yield, quality, and fertilizer nitrogen application rate. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 101(6), 984–998. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjps‐2021‐0101Wagger, M. G., Cabrera, M. L., & Ranells, N. N. (1998). Nitrogen and carbon cycling in relation to cover crop residue quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 53(3), 214–218.
Journal
"Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment" – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2022