There are many environmental benefits to incorporating cover crops into crop rotations, such as their potential to decrease soil erosion, reduce nitrate (NO₃) leaching, and increase soil organic matter. Some of these benefits impact other agroecosystem processes, such as greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, there is not a consensus in the literature regarding the effect of cover crops on nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions. Compared to site-specific studies, meta-analysis can provide a more general investigation into these effects. Twenty-six peer-reviewed articles including 106 observations of cover crop effects on N₂O emissions from the soil surface were analyzed according to their response ratio, the natural log of the N₂O flux with a cover crop divided by the N₂O flux without a cover crop (LRR). Forty percent of the observations had negative LRRs, indicating a cover crop treatment which decreased N₂O, while 60% had positive LRRs indicating a cover crop treatment which increased N₂O. There was a significant interaction between N rate and the type of cover crop where legumes had higher LRRs at lower N rates than nonlegume species. When cover crop residues were incorporated into the soil, LRRs were significantly higher than those where residue was not incorporated. Geographies with higher total precipitation and variability in precipitation tended to produce higher LRRs. Finally, data points measured during cover crop decomposition had large positive LRRs and were larger than those measured when the cover crop was alive. In contrast, those data points measuring for a full year had LRRs close to zero, indicating that there was a balance between periods when cover crops increased N₂O and periods when cover crops decreased emissions. Therefore, N₂O measurements over the entire year may be needed to determine the net effect of cover crops on N₂O. The data included in this meta-analysis indicate some overarching crop management practices that reduce direct N₂O emissions from the soil surface, such as no soil incorporation of residues and use of non-legume cover crop species. However, our results demonstrate that cover crops do not always reduce direct N₂O emissions from the soil surface in the short term and that more work is needed to understand the full global warming potential of cover crop management.

The Midwestern United States, a region that produces one-third of maize and one-quarter of soybean grain globally, is projected to experience increasing rainfall variability. One approach to mitigate climate impacts is to utilize crop and soil management practices that enhance soil water storage and reduce the risks of flooding as well as drought-induced crop water stress. While some research indicates that a winter cover crop in maize-soybean rotations increases soil water availability, producers continue to be concerned that water use by cover crops will reduce water for a following cash crop. We analyzed continuous in-field soil water measurements from 2008 to 2014 at a Central Iowa research site that has included a winter rye cover crop in a maize-soybean rotation for thirteen years. This period of study included years in the top third of the wettest on record (2008, 2010, 2014) as well as drier years in the bottom third (2012, 2013). We found the cover crop treatment to have significantly higher soil water storage at the 0–30cm depth from 2012 to 2014 when compared to the no cover crop treatment and in most years greater soil water content on individual days analyzed during the cash crop growing season. We further found that the cover crop significantly increased the field capacity water content by 10–11% and plant available water by 21–22%. Finally, in 2013 and 2014, we measured maize and soybean biomass every 2–3 weeks and did not see treatment differences in crop growth, leaf area or nitrogen uptake. Final crop yields were not statistically different between the cover and no cover crop treatment in any of the seven years of this analysis. This research indicates that the long-term use of a winter rye cover crop can improve soil water dynamics without sacrificing cash crop growth in maize-soybean crop rotations in the Midwestern United States

Cover crops are known to promote many aspects of soil and water quality, yet estimates find that in 2012 only 2.3% of the total agricultural lands in the Midwestern USA were using cover crops. Focus groups were conducted across the Corn Belt state of Iowa to better understand how farmers confront barriers to cover crop adoption in highly intensive agricultural production systems. Although much prior research has focused on analyzing factors that help predict cover crop use on farms, there is limited research on how farmers navigate and overcome field-level (e.g. proper planting of a cover crop) and structural barriers (e.g. market forces) associated with the use of cover crops. The results from the analysis of these conversations suggest that there is a complex dialectical relationship between farmers' individual management decisions and the broader agricultural context in the region that constrains their decisions. Farmers in these focus groups shared how they navigate complex management decisions within a generally homogenized agricultural and economic landscape that makes cover crop integration challenging. Many who joined the focus groups have found ways to overcome barriers and successfully integrate cover crops into their cropping systems. This is illustrated through farmers' descriptions of their ‘whole system’ approach to cover crops management, where they described how they prioritize the success of their cover crops by focusing on multiple aspects of management, including changes they have made to nutrient application and modifications to equipment. These producers also engage with farmer networks to gain strategies for overcoming management challenges associated with cover crops. Although many participants had successfully planted cover crops, they tended to believe that greater economic incentives and/or more diverse crop and livestock markets would be needed to spur more widespread adoption of the practice. Our results further illustrate how structural and field-level barriers constrain individual actions, as it is not simply the basic agronomic considerations (such as seeding and terminating cover crops) that pose a challenge to their use, but also the broader economic and market drivers that exist in agriculturally intensive systems. Our study provides evidence that reducing structural barriers to adoption may be necessary to increase the use of this conservation practice to reduce environmental impacts associated with intensive agricultural production.

Identifying agricultural practices that enhance water cycling is critical, particularly with increased rainfall variability and greater risks of droughts and floods. Soil infiltration rates offer useful insights to water cycling in farming systems because they affect both yields (through soil water availability) and other ecosystem outcomes (such as pollution and flooding from runoff). For example, conventional agricultural practices that leave soils bare and vulnerable to degradation are believed to limit the capacity of soils to quickly absorb and retain water needed for crop growth. Further, it is widely assumed that farming methods such as no-till and cover crops can improve infiltration rates. Despite interest in the impacts of agricultural practices on infiltration rates, this effect has not been systematically quantified across a range of practices. To evaluate how conventional practices affect infiltration rates relative to select alternative practices (no-till, cover crops, crop rotation, introducing perennials, crop and livestock systems), we performed a meta-analysis that included 89 studies with field trials comparing at least one such alternative practice to conventional management. We found that introducing perennials (grasses, agroforestry, managed forestry) or cover crops led to the largest increases in infiltration rates (mean responses of 59.2 ± 20.9% and 34.8 ± 7.7%, respectively). Also, although the overall effect of no-till was non-significant (5.7 ± 9.7%), the practice led to increases in wetter climates and when combined with residue retention. The effect of crop rotation on infiltration rate was non-significant (18.5 ± 13.2%), and studies evaluating impacts of grazing on croplands indicated that this practice reduced infiltration rates (-21.3 ± 14.9%). Findings suggest that practices promoting ground cover and continuous roots, both of which improve soil structure, were most effective at increasing infiltration rates.

Core Ideas: Meta‐analysis compared soil hydrology in perennial‐ and annual‐based crop systems. Continuous living cover practices significantly increased porosity, field capacity. There may be a greater effect in drier environments and sandier soils. Experiments in place longer than ten years also tended to increase the properties. Results suggest how continuous living cover can negate rainfall variability impacts. Increased rainfall variability due to climate change threatens the efficacy of critical soil ecosystem services. One strategy to negate effects of too much or not enough rainfall is to improve soil water properties. Practices that offer “continuous living cover” can enhance soil water storage and other soil hydrologic properties relative to annual crop systems, but to what extent such benefits can accrue, under different conditions, remains under‐quantified. To address these uncertainties, we conducted a meta‐analysis that included 27 studies representing 93 paired observations measuring two soil hydrologic properties: porosity and the water retained at field capacity. All experiments compared the impact of continuous living cover practices (cover crops, perennial grasses, agroforestry and managed forestry) to annual crop controls. Continuous living cover significantly increased total porosity (8.0 ± 2.2%) and the water retained at field capacity (9.3 ± 2.7%). There was some evidence indicating improved effects in relatively drier environments (<900 mm annual rainfall) and in regions with sandier soils. There was no evidence of publication bias, and a sensitivity analysis indicated that overall effects were robust. The similar direction and magnitude of improvements in both properties could be evidence of similar physical and chemical processes impacted by the continuous presence of living roots. Overall, our findings suggest that continuous living cover practices may be a potential adaptation strategy to combat rainfall variability. Furthermore, properties such as porosity and field capacity may serve as proxies to determine how management influences soil water and heath more broadly.