Search

Previous literature has shown that cover crops have the potential to provide large-scale environmental benefits by reducing soil erosion, preventing nutrient leaching, sequestering carbon (C), and providing habitat for beneficial insects and pollinators (Snapp et al. 2005; Laloy and Bielders 2010; Castellano et al. 2012; Poeplau and Don 2015). In addition, cover crops can potentially generate private benefits to the farm operation by helping boost soil productivity (and subsequent cash crop yields), suppressing weeds, reducing fertilizer needs, and improving nutrient cycling (Bergtold et al. 2019; Myers and Watts 2015; Wittwer et al. 2017). Given the potential economic and environmental benefits of cover crop adoption, cover crop acreage in the US grew from about 10.3 million ac (4.2 Mha) in 2012 to about 15.4 million ac (6.23 Mha) in 2017 (i.e., a 50% increase), based on data from the US Census of Agriculture (LaRose and Myers 2019). Nonetheless, even in light of these adoption increases, acres planted to cover crops only equal 3.9% of all US cropland in 2017 (Zulauf and Brown 2019) (figure 1). Although there are several possible reasons that overall cover crop adoption rates in the US remain relatively low, one of the main factors that influences the cost of adopting cover crops is cover crop …

C over crop management can sequester soil carbon (C), but the potential of cover crops to do so across the United States has not been clearly quantified. With concern about the rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth's atmosphere, solutions that sequester atmospheric CO2 are being sought. The soil has significant potential to store C (Batjes 1996), and the potential contribution of agricultural practices like cover crops to sequestering C in the soil is of particular interest to farmers, scientists, and policy-makers across the globe (Lal 2015). Though several studies have shown the ability of cover crops to sequester C on experimental plots and across the globe (Franzluebbers 2010; Lal 2015; Lal et al. 1998; Poeplau and Don 2015; Ruis and Blanco-Canqui 2017), research is still needed that addresses the regional and national impact cover crops can have on C sequestration across cropland in the United States. The United States surpassed 4 × 106 ha (10 × 106 ac) of cover crops in 2012, and farmers are projected to plant 8.1 × 106 ha (20 × 106 ac) or more of cover crops by 2020 (USDA 2014; CTIC 2016). This publication summarizes the results of a literature review and…

Soil health indicator values vary based on parent material, native vegetation, and other soil forming factors; therefore, useful interpretations require consideration of inherent soil characteristics. Our objective was to evaluate the distribution of soil health indicators across soil and climate gradients throughout the state of Missouri through a statewide cover crop cost‐share program. Soil samples (0–7 cm) were collected from 5,300 agricultural fields and analyzed for several soil health indicators. Comparisons were made among six regions in the state based on Major Land Resource Area and county boundaries. Results varied for soil organic carbon (C), active C, potentially mineralizable nitrogen, water stable aggregates, and cation exchange capacity by region and corresponded with soil forming factors. Interpretation of soil health indicators must account for regional factors, recognizing that areas with different inherent values have a different potential for soil health.

There is evidence that cover crops can bring both environmental and yield benefits to a farm operation, yet according to the USDA9s Census of Agriculture, in 2012 less than 5% of the nation9s total row crop land was planted to cover crops. In 2014, the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) and the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) collected data on cover crop use from producers across the United States. Using data from early adopters of the practice, we examine the factors associated with higher percentage of land planted to cover crops and reliance on cost-share assistance. In addition, we provide rare insight into the number of producers discontinuing their use of cover crops and examine whether this group is distinguishable from continuous users. By understanding how producers use and finance cover crops, and identifying those most likely to continue their use, we provide insights into how policymakers and conservation staff can modify their strategies and increase the number of long-term cover crop users. Continuous use among early adopters is associated with a willingness to self-learn and experiment through trial and error, whereas the small number of producers in our sample discontinuing the practice typically operate large farms and perceive adoption to be limited in their area by the increased difficulties and costs cover crops bring to farm management. Promoters of cover crops should attempt to combat these perceptions by showcasing local examples where limitations have successfully been overcome. Despite evidence of concerns over the cost of cover crops, many current users are continuing to expand their cover crop land without the use of cost-share funding.