Do Cover Crops Increase Subsequent Crop Yield in Temperate Climates? A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cover crops (CCs) are a promising strategy for maintaining and enhancing agroecosystem sustainability, yet CCs’ effects on the subsequent crop yield are highly variable. To quantitatively synthesize the effects of CCs on subsequent crop yield, a meta-analysis of 672 observations collected from 63 recent studies (2015 to 2021) in temperate climates was conducted. Legume CC species increased subsequent crop yield significantly more than grass (by 14%), nonlegume broadleaves (by 7%), and mixtures (by 2%). Incorporation of CC residue into soil increased crop yield by approx. 15% compared to leaving the CC residue on the soil surface. Relative to the no-CC control, the adoption of grass and legume CC species in non-organic vegetable cropping systems enhanced crop yield by 14% and 19%, respectively. Likewise, crop yield with legume CCs in coarse and medium textured soil, and under high precipitation conditions (>700 mm), was significantly greater than the no-CC control by 18%, 4%, and 11%, respectively. Cover crops significantly increased vegetable crop yields and decreased the silage corn yield; however, grain corn, soybean, and winter wheat yield did not decrease with CC. Adoption of CC in no-tillage and plow tillage systems contributed to an increase in crop yield compared to the no-CC control. Our meta-analysis highlights that crop yield response to CC might become more robust when pedo-climatic conditions and agronomic factors are considered.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".