Cited by 44Agronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsPasture and Agricultural SystemsSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics

Catch crop strategy and nitrate leaching following grazed grass‐clover

Hansen, E. M., Eriksen, J., Vinther, F. P.·2007·Soil Use and Management

Abstract

Cultivation of grassland presents a high risk of nitrate leaching. This study aimed to determine if leaching could be reduced by growing spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) as a green crop for silage with undersown Italian ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum Lam.) compared with barley grown to maturity with or without an undersown conventional catch crop of perennial ryegrass ( Lolium perenne L.). All treatments received 0, 60 or 120 kg of ammonium‐N ha −1 in cattle slurry. In spring 2003, two grass‐clover fields (3 and 5 years old, respectively, with different management histories) were ploughed. The effects of the treatments on yield and nitrate leaching were determined in the first year, while the residual effects of the treatments were determined in the second year in a crop of spring barley/perennial ryegrass. Nitrate leaching was estimated in selected treatments using soil water samples from ceramic cups. The experiment showed that compared with treatments without catch crop, green barley/Italian ryegrass reduced leaching by 163–320 kg N ha −1 , corresponding to 95–99%, and the perennial ryegrass reduced leaching to between 34 and 86 kg N ha −1 , corresponding to a reduction of 80 and 66%. Also, in the second growing season, leaching following catch crops was reduced compared with the bare soil treatment. It was concluded that the green barley/Italian ryegrass offers advantages not only for the environment but also for farmers, for whom it provides a fodder high in roughage and avoids the difficulties with clover fatigue increasingly experienced by Danish farmers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2007.00106.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hansen, E. M., Eriksen, J., & Vinther, F. P.
Affiliations
Aarhus University (DK)
Corresponding author
Hansen, E. M.
Venue
Soil Use and Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-09-04
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
348-358
ISSN
  • 0266-0032 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2743
OpenAlex
W2005837301
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Soil Use and Management (publishedVersion)
  • Organic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Keywords
catch crops, nitrate leaching, grass-clover, spring barley, Lolium multiflorum, perennial ryegrass, green manure, cattle slurry, ammonia nitrogen, residual effects, soil water

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