When do cover crops reduce nitrate leaching? A global meta-analysis

Abstract

The global increases in the surface and groundwater nitrate (NO₃ ^- ) concentrations due to synthetic fertilizer input have emerged as major sustainability threats to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Cover crops can reportedly reduce nitrate leaching from croplands. However, the underlying mechanisms and the effectiveness of cover crops in reducing nitrate leaching across species, soil types, agronomic management, and climates remain elusive. We conducted a global meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of cover crops on nitrate leaching and water drainage. A random-effects analysis was established to investigate seven moderating variables in 41 articles. Results showed that globally, cover crops reduced nitrate leaching by 69% compared with fallow while demonstrating no effect on water drainage. Overall, cover crops from Brassicaceae and Poaceae families showed the greatest effect with 75% and 52% reduction in nitrate leaching, respectively. Cover cropping on Ultisols, Histosols, and Inceptisols resulted in the greatest reduction in nitrate leaching (77%, 78%, and 77%, respectively). Greater efficacy of cover crops at reducing nitrate leaching was evident with increasing soil sand content. In general, cover crops appeared to perform better to reduce nitrate leaching in vegetable systems compared to field crops. Cover cropping on conventional tillage resulted in a 63% reduction in nitrate leaching compared with no-tillage (50%) and reduced tillage (38%) systems. The impact of cover crops on water drainage was nonsignificant which implies that nitrate leaching control by cover crops is unlikely exerted through reducing water drainage. This study brings further insight into the intrinsic factors affecting cover crop efficacy and management practices that enhance cover crop potential in reducing nitrate leaching from agricultural systems.

Keywords: brassica; cover crop; grass; legume; nitrate leaching; no-tillage; soil order; soil texture.

FIGURE 1

Graduated symbol map representing the geographic distribution of studies and number of observations (n).

FIGURE 2

Weighted summary effect sizes (ln(R)) and 95% confidence intervals for cover crop effect on nitrate leaching as influenced by cover crop family and suborder plant genus. %Change refers to the effect size differences from the overall mean. n is the number of studies. p‐value <.05 indicates that the summary effect size is different than zero.

FIGURE 3

Weighted summary effect sizes (ln(R)) and 95% confidence intervals for cover crop effect on nitrate leaching as influenced by (a) soil order, (b) soil texture, and (c) main crop. %Change refers to the effect size differences from the overall mean. n is the number of studies. p‐value <.05 indicates that the summary effect size is different than zero.

FIGURE 4

Weighted summary effect sizes (ln(R)) and 95% confidence intervals for cover crop effect on nitrate leaching as influenced by tillage management. %Change refers to the effect size differences from the overall mean. n is the number of studies. p‐value <.05 indicates that the summary effect size is different than zero.

FIGURE 5

Weighted summary effect sizes (ln(R)) and 95% confidence intervals for cover crop effect on water drainage as influenced by cover crop family and suborder plant genus. %Change refers to the effect size differences from the overall mean. n is the number of studies. p‐value <.05 indicates that the summary effect size is different than zero.

FIGURE 6

Weighted summary effect sizes (ln(R)) and 95% confidence intervals for cover crop effect on water drainage as influenced by (a) soil order, (b) soil texture, and (c) main crop. %Change refers to the effect size differences from the overall mean. n is the number of studies. p‐value <.05 indicates that the summary effect size is different than zero.

FIGURE 7

Weighted summary effect sizes (ln(R)) and 95% confidence intervals for cover crop effect on water drainage as influenced by tillage practices. %Change refers to the effect size differences from the overall mean. n is the number of studies. p‐value <.05 is the significance metric at 95% confidence interval.

FIGURE 8

Natural log of the response ratio of CC/NCC as one unit increase in (a) rainfall amount and (b) air temperature.