Are cover crop mixtures better at suppressing weeds than cover crop monocultures?
Abstract
Cover crops are increasingly being used for weed management, and planting them as diverse mixtures has become an increasingly popular strategy for their implementation. While ecological theory suggests that cover crop mixtures should be more weed suppressive than cover crop monocultures, few experiments have explicitly tested this for more than a single temporal niche. We assessed the effects of cover crop mixtures (5- or 6-species and 14-species mixtures) and monocultures on weed abundance (weed biomass) and weed suppression at the time of cover crop termination. Separate experiments were conducted in Madbury, NH, from 2014 to 2017 for each of three temporal cover-cropping niches: summer (spring planting–summer termination), fall (summer planting–fall termination), and spring (fall planting–subsequent spring termination). Regardless of temporal niche, mixtures were never more weed suppressive than the most weed-suppressive cover crop grown as a monoculture, and the more diverse mixture (14 species) never outperformed the less diverse mixture. Mean weed-suppression levels of the best-performing monocultures in each temporal niche ranged from 97% to 98% for buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) in the summer niche and forage radish (Raphanus sativus L. var. niger J. Kern.) in the fall niche, and 83% to 100% for triticale (×Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus [Secale × Triticum]) in the winter–spring niche. In comparison, weed-suppression levels for the mixtures ranged from 66% to 97%, 70% to 90%, and 67% to 99% in the summer, fall, and spring niches, respectively. Stability of weed suppression, measured as the coefficient of variation, was two to six times greater in the best-performing monoculture compared with the most stable mixture, depending on the temporal niche. Results of this study suggest that when weed suppression is the sole objective, farmers are more likely to achieve better results planting the most weed-suppressive cover crop as a monoculture than a mixture.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The most diverse cover crop mixtures (more than 5 to 10 species) were never the best performing.
“These studies showed that the most diverse mixtures (more than 5 to 10 species) were never the best performing.”
From Performance of innovative cropping systems diversified with oilseeds and protein crops: identification and resolution of methodological issues, using the Syppre experimental network as a case study (2024) · cites this paper as Smith et al., 2020
Smith et al. (2020) explained that the more diverse the mixture, the more the share of the best performing species is reduced, at the expense of the overall performance of the mixture.
“Smith et al. (2020) explained these results by the fact that the more diverse the mixture, the more the share of the best performing species is reduced, at the expense of the overall performance of the mixture.”
From Performance of innovative cropping systems diversified with oilseeds and protein crops: identification and resolution of methodological issues, using the Syppre experimental network as a case study (2024) · cites this paper as Smith et al. (2020)
Numerous studies have failed to show any benefit of species diversification in cover crops to the average performance of a range of criteria, or even on the stability of that performance.
“Numerous studies have failed to show any benefit of species diversification in cover crops to the average performance of a range of criteria, or even on the stability of that performance (Florence et al., 2019;Florence and McGuire, 2020;Smith et al., 2020).”
From Performance of innovative cropping systems diversified with oilseeds and protein crops: identification and resolution of methodological issues, using the Syppre experimental network as a case study (2024) · cites this paper as Smith et al., 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 89
- Authors
- Smith, R. G., Warren, N. D., & Cordeau, S.
- Affiliations
- University of New Hampshire (US)
- Université de Bourgogne (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Smith, Richard G.
- Venue
- Weed Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020-01-28
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 186-194
- ISSN
- 0043-1745 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-2759
- OpenAlex
- W3003598553
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7
- FWCI
- 8.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Weed Science (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Weed Control and Herbicide Applications
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Allelopathy and phytotoxic interactions
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
- Keywords
- cover crop mixtures, weed suppression, weed biomass, temporal niche, buckwheat, forage radish, triticale, diversity-stability relationship, coefficient of variation, cover crop termination, weed control
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review