Plant–pollinator interactions are mediated by floral signals and by the quantity and quality of floral rewards. Biotic and abiotic disturbances can influence plant reproductive success through both direct effects on plant performance and indirect effects on pollinator attraction. In this study, we examined the effects of drought on buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moensch), a globally cultivated plant that is prone to drought stress, dependent on insect pollinators for reproduction, and increasingly utilized in on‐farm conservation. Between drought‐stressed and control plants, we compared: nectar quantity and chemical composition, pollen quantity, floral volatile emissions, visits by both managed and wild pollinators, and plant reproductive success. Drought‐stressed plants produced significantly fewer flowers and less nectar per flower, though pollen quantity per flower was unaffected. Nectar from drought‐stressed plants had a lower proportion of sucrose relative to total sugars, though overall sugar concentration was unaffected. Significantly fewer bumble bees, honey bees, and flies were recorded on drought‐stressed plants. While there was no significant difference in the quantity of total floral volatile emissions, volatile compositions differed, with drought‐stressed plants having higher emissions of (Z)‐3‐hexenol, isobutyraldehyde, 2‐methylbutanal, and 3‐methylbutanal. Finally, drought stress had negative effects on seed set and total seed mass per plant. Our results show that drought stress can have significant effects on floral traits and pollinator attraction, reducing plant reproductive success, and the nectar resources available to pollinators. Thus, the potential value of this plant in pollinator conservation and as a honey plant may be reduced under drought stress.

Forage crops have the potential to serve multiple functions, providing an ecological framework to sustainably intensify food production, i.e., ecological intensification. We review three categories of forages (annual forages, perennial forages, and dual-use perennial crops/forages) we believe hold the greatest promise for ecologically intensifying food production. Annual cover crops can provide additional forage resources while mitigating nutrient losses from agricultural fields when they are intercropped with, interseeded into, or following an annual crop, for instance. The integration of perennial forages either temporally, such as annual crop rotations that include a perennial forage phase, or spatially, such as the intercropping of perennial forages with an annual cash crop, provide weed suppression, soil quality, and yield and crop quality benefits. Dual-use crops/forages can provide forage and a grain crop in a single year while providing multiple ecological and economic benefits. However, tradeoffs in balancing multiple functions and limitations in reducing the risks associated with these practices exist. Advancing our understanding of these systems so we can overcome some of the limitations will play a critical role in increasing food production while promoting positive environmental outcomes.

Cover crops are a critical component of sustainable agroecosystems, yet their performance in semi‐arid environments with short growing seasons and highly variable precipitation is inconsistent. To evaluate productivity and stability of single species vs. multi‐species cover crop plantings with variable water input, cover crops were evaluated at two sites in North Dakota under dryland and dryland plus irrigation conditions. Cover crop treatments consisted of three warm‐season monocultures, a three warm‐season species mixture (MIX3), and a three warm‐season and three cool‐season species mixture (MIX6). Averaged across year and water regime, biomass production was not greater for mixtures (8,693 kg ha^–1, MIX3; 10,212 kg ha^–1, MIX6) than for the most productive monoculture (11,295 kg ha^–1, sunflower [Helianthus annuus L.]) at the West site. The same held true at the East site (7,486 kg ha^–1, MIX3; 8,603 kg ha^–1, MIX6), with cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] producing the most biomass, 10,886 kg ha^–1, of all monocultures. At the West site, variability in production was lowest for MIX6 when pooled across year and water regime (CV = 25%) compared to monocultures (CV ≥ 49%). At the East site, cowpea had the lowest CV (24%) while mixtures averaged 35%. Pooled across sites, production in the MIX6 plots had the lowest variability (29%). Grasses consistently contributed to high proportions of total biomass production compared to other functional types. Multi‐species cover crop mixtures are more versatile than single species plantings across climates, and resilient cover crop mixtures integrated into semi‐arid crop rotations as full‐ season plantings should include warm and cool season grasses.

Forage sorghum is an alternative source for biofuel feedstock production and may also provide forage for livestock operations. Introducing biofuel feedstock as a dual-use forage to livestock operations has the potential to increase the adoption of biofuel feedstock production. However, additional technical agronomic information focusing on tillage, row arrangement, and harvest date for forage sorghum planted into pasturelands intended for dual use is needed. Three tillage treatments, disking and rototilling (RT), chisel plow (CP), and no tillage (NT), and two row arrangement treatments, single-row planting with 76.2 cm rows and twin rows of 17.8 cm on 76.2 cm centers, were tested for effects on forage sorghum yield in a 3-cut system. This study tested two sites in Booneville, AR, from 2010 to 2012. Several interactions with year were detected, likely due to large precipitation differences within and among years. The year greatly affected the yield, with greater (p < 0.05) yields in year 1 compared to years 2 and 3 in both locations. No till resulted in lower yields in some years and harvest dates, though no clear trend was detected among tillage treatments over years. Twin rows generally did not improve yield, except for the third harvest date at one location. No strong trends for tillage or row arrangement effects were observed in this study. Inconsistencies may have resulted from the strong influence of year or interactions of multiple factors, which may challenge producers interested in utilizing forage sorghum for biofuels and livestock feed.