Drainage N Loads Under Climate Change with Winter Rye Cover Crop in a Northern Mississippi River Basin Corn-Soybean Rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To help reduce future N loads entering the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River 45%, Iowa set the goal of reducing non-point source N loads 41%. Studies show that implementing winter rye cover crops into agricultural systems reduces N loads from subsurface drainage, but its effectiveness in the Mississippi River Basin under expected climate change is uncertain. We used the field-tested Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM) to estimate drainage N loads, crop yield, and rye growth in central Iowa corn-soybean rotations. RZWQM scenarios included baseline (BL) observed weather (1991–2011) and ambient CO2 with cover crop and no cover crop treatments (BL_CC and BL_NCC). Scenarios also included projected future temperature and precipitation change (2065–2085) from six general circulation models (GCMs) and elevated CO2 with cover crop and no cover crop treatments (CC and NCC). Average annual drainage N loads under NCC, BL_NCC, CC and BL_CC were 63.6, 47.5, 17.0, and 18.9 kg N ha−1. Winter rye cover crop was more effective at reducing drainage N losses under climate change than under baseline conditions (73 and 60% for future and baseline climate), mostly because the projected temperatures and atmospheric CO2 resulted in greater rye growth and crop N uptake. Annual CC drainage N loads were reduced compared with BL_NCC more than the targeted 41% for 18 to 20 years of the 21-year simulation, depending on the GCM. Under projected climate change, average annual simulated crop yield differences between scenarios with and without winter rye were approximately 0.1 Mg ha−1. These results suggest that implementing winter rye cover crop in a corn-soybean rotation effectively addresses the goal of drainage N load reduction under climate change in a northern Mississippi River Basin agricultural system without affecting cash crop production.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".