cover crop phd thesis

Pressure is mounting on policy makers and farmers to improve the sustainability of UK Agriculture. One area of improvement surrounds possible changes within crop rotations to improve soil health in tandem with increasing crop yield. The success of a cash crop, is widely determined by the structure of its growing media. In field crops this is considered as the structure of the soil which is responsible for allowing water and nutrient uptake as well as, particularly for root crops, providing a profile for unimpeded root growth. The effects of cover crops on the soil physical properties and the subsequent crop growth are considered in this thesis. By conducting glasshouse experiments using different cover crop species and soil volumes, the relationship between cover crop root growth, soil moisture and soil aggregation has been tested. This informed the development of a number of field experiments that have investigated the relationship between cover crops, soil structure and subsequent crop growth with typical UK climatic and soil conditions. It was hypothesised that cover crops improve the soil structure, prior to a cash crop, resulting in higher crop yield. Our findings have established that cover crops do influence the soil structure, demonstrated by aggregation in controlled environment experiments and soil porosity as seen in the field. However, this was greatly influenced by factors including soil texture, soil volume, cover crop growth and weather conditions. We fund that the growth of cover crops was most beneficial on soils with a low clay content where sugar beet yield was 10% greater following a cover crop than following stubble. This was as a result of lower water stress in response to greater soil porosity. Results showed that soil with a high clay content is susceptible to changes in soil aggregation. There is a link between soil conductivity and plant growth showing it is a useful proxy for water uptake. There is also a positive effect of cover crops on earthworm population. We found that overall cover crop root growth was directly related to above ground biomass and there was no benefit to combining cover crop species in favour of single species cover crop. It is concluded that the effect of cover crops, is likely to be positive but their efficacy on soil structure and the subsequent crop growth is highly determined by environmental factors.

Actions (Archive Staff Only)

PhD defence

Nurturing Belowground Life: The Role Of Cover Crops in Shaping Soil Microbial Communities in Agroecosystems.

Soil, essential for life on Earth, faces degradation due to intensive agriculture. This thesis explores how cover crops, plants grown not for harvest but to enhance soil quality, impact soil microbial communities, or microbiome, composed of bacteria, fungi, protists and nematodes.

In this thesis, I demonstrated that cover crops alter the community assembly and activity of soil microorganisms around plant roots and in bulk soil after cover crop termination. These persisting changes affect the soil microbiome in a way that can foster more and more active beneficial microbes. These microbes can help the establishment and growth of the succeeding main crop, also by controlling diseases and improving the plant nutrient’s availability.

This thesis showcases the transformative potential of cover crops in shaping the soil microbiome in agroecosystems by boosting microbes related to increased soil health, and crop productivity, paving the way for future research in this field.

Advertisement

The role of cover crops in improving soil fertility and plant nutritional status in temperate climates. A review

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2022
• Volume 42 , article number  93 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Aurelio Scavo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9762-9141 1 ,
• Stefania Fontanazza   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5271-705X 1 ,
• Alessia Restuccia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4256-2231 1 ,
• Gaetano Roberto Pesce   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0768-8162 1 ,
• Cristina Abbate   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7923-3867 1 &
• Giovanni Mauromicale   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0933-9302 1  

18k Accesses

73 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Cover crops (CCs) are a promising and sustainable agronomic practice to ameliorate soil health and crop performances. However, the complex of relationships between CCs, the soil, and the plant nutritional status has been little investigated. In this article, for the first time, we critically review, under a holistic approach, the reciprocal relationships between CCs and the soil physical and hydraulic properties, microbial, and faunal communities, soil nutrient availability, and plant nutritional status in temperate climates. For each of these topics, we report the current state of understanding, the influence of CC management options and suggested strategies, thus including both fundamental and applied aspects. In addition, we provide a detailed focus on the history of CCs and a list of the main temperate CCs. Cover cropping is a helpful practice in improving the physical, chemical, and biological soil properties, optimizing nutrient use efficiency and reducing the dependency of crops on external supplies of nutrients. The interactions between CCs and the nutritional status of soil and plants are complex and dynamic. Their understanding could be useful to set up an appropriate and site-specific management of fertilization. Management options play a key role in developing an effective and context-specific cover cropping.

Similar content being viewed by others

Cover Crop Effects on Soil N Retention and Supply in Fertilizer-Intensive Cropping Systems (A Review)

Cover crops support ecological intensification of arable cropping systems

Cover Crop Farming System

Explore related subjects.

• Environmental Chemistry

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1. Introduction

2. History of cover crops

2.1 Ancient Mediterranean agriculture is anchored in bare fallow

2.2 green manuring in ancient times, 2.3 middle ages, 2.4 use of cultivated plants to control biotic adversities in pre-modern agriculture, 2.5 modern age.

3. Classification of cover crops and cover cropping

4. Choice of cover crop species and management options

5. Cover crops and soil nutritional status

5.1 Influence on the physical and hydraulic soil properties

5.2 influence on soil microbial and faunal communities.

5.3 Influence on soil organic matter and nutrient availability

6. Cover crops and plant nutritional status

7. Conclusive remarks

1 Introduction

Global human population is continuously growing and it is esteemed to reach 9.2 billion in 2050, thus exacerbating the climate change and the loss of natural resources and biodiversity, especially in developing countries (Maja and Ayano 2021 ). Until today, agriculture was called on to maximize yields by dramatically enhancing the use of auxiliary inputs (tillage, mineral fertilizers, and pesticides) to feed the population growth. Among auxiliary inputs, mineral fertilizers and especially nitrogen ones have provided an important contribution to yield increase since World War II. The intensification of agricultural processes, however, has led to the exhaustion of soils (caused by erosion, the depletion of organic matter and nutrients, since cultivated plants have higher nutrient requirements) and to environmental problems such as water pollution and trace gas emissions (Ludwig et al. 2011 ). The loss of soil organic matter (SOM) in agroecosystems, in particular, which is a key factor in affecting the physical, chemical, and biological soil properties, has determined a massive decrease in soil quality. The magnitude of this scenario has reached a critical point in Europe, Northern America, and other temperate climates, where cropping systems have been spatially and temporally simplified in terms of biodiversity to facilitate management operations. According to Rasmussen et al. ( 1998 ), to make the agricultural activity sustainable for future generations, soil quality has to be maintained and improved. For these reasons, in recent years, there has been an increasing interest towards environmentally friendly agricultural practices, as evidenced by the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals and the strategies of the European Commission (EC) Green Deal (EC 2019 ; United Nation (UN) 2015 ).

The inclusion of cover crops (CCs) into farming systems is well-recognized to ensure many ecosystem services including soil erosion control, carbon sequestration, regulation of water infiltration, reduction of nutrient leaching and improvement of nutrient availability, degradation of agrochemicals, increase of biodiversity, pollinator attraction, limitation of pests, weeds, etc. (Adetunji et al. 2020 ; Blanco-Canqui et al. 2015 ; Sharma et al. 2018 ;). Cover crops are broadly defined as non-harvested crops grown in addition to the primary cash crop with the aim of improving soil fertility and enhancing yields. According to the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), CCs are “close-growing crops that provide soil protection, and soil improvement between periods of normal crop production, or between trees and vines in vineyard” (Fageria et al. 2005 ). The agronomic technique to realize a CC is known as cover cropping (Fig. 1 ).

Experimental field with Trifolium subterraneum L. cover cropping in central Sicily (Italy). Photograph by S. Fontanazza.

Fertilization is commonly adopted to improve plant nutrition and crop productivity. Organic fertilizers typically enhance the soil nutrient status and the SOM content, while mineral fertilizers mainly aim at improving the crop nutritional status (Francioli et al. 2016 ). Mineral fertilization has indirect and negative long-term effects on soil quality deriving from soil pH modification, enhanced soil nutrient unavailability, and decrease of soil physical fertility (Barak et al. 1997 ). On the contrary, other field trials indicate that mineral fertilization may increase microbial biomass in agroecosystems depending on pedo-climatic conditions and crop management (Geisseler and Scow 2014 ). Francioli et al. ( 2016 ) found that organic fertilizers, thanks to their composition in terms of macro- and micro-nutrients, different from that of mineral fertilizers, not only greatly increase the biomass and diversity of soil microorganisms, but also favor some beneficial taxa while hindering the harmful ones. Plant nutritional status is closely linked to soil quality and crop fertilization. For many crops, especially arboreal plants, the nutritional status is considered as a guide for fertilization (Menesatti et al. 2010 ). Hence, knowing the nutritional status allows identifying possible nutrient disorders and serves to manage fertilization programmes.

In order to use CCs as an effective tool for improving crop nutrition, it is necessary to clearly understand their interactions with the nutritional properties of both the soil and plants. Among other things, CCs are a pillar of the “Rethinking the management paradigm,” aimed at avoiding chronic surplus additions of inorganic nutrients directly to crops for improving yield performances. This perspective change is in favor of an ecosystem-based approach at multiple scales founded on plant diversity and their associated microorganisms, which can regulate the biogeochemical cycling of nutrients, thus reducing the need for surplus nutrient supply (Drinkwater and Snapp 2007 ). The interactions between CCs, soil quality, and the crop nutritional status are complex and dynamic. Understanding these relationships in the field is difficult, but their prediction could be useful to set up an appropriate and site-specific management of fertilization, especially in low-input and conservative agricultural systems. This review collects and discusses published papers on CCs and their influence on the soil and plant nutritional status, with the aim of helping farmers and stakeholders in optimizing a context-specific cover cropping and fertilization management. The role of cover cropping typology (single vs mixed, seeding period, intercropping, mulching, green manure, termination method and termination stage) has been also investigated in order to suggest context-specific criteria for CC choice and management options for maximizing the benefits. Moreover, a detailed section on the history of CCs is provided for the first time. The literature review was performed using a systematic bibliographic search on the Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases with the topic keywords. The bibliographic search on the history of CCs was conducted by directly consulting historical sources and documents. Overall, 158 items were examined, of which 106 research papers, 31 reviews (including meta-analyses), 2 websites, and 20 books or book chapters. Only case studies of temperate zones have been selected due to their high consistency with cover cropping. To be included in the review, papers had to be written in English and involve at least three replications.

2 History of cover crops

Although the concept of CCs, as we understand it today, was probably initially coined at the end of the 19th century, cover cropping, in several undertones and meanings, has deep roots in the past history and can be found in civilizations distant from each other both in space and time.

In ancient Mediterranean agriculture, physical soil fertility was ensured by tillage, while chemical fertility was generally improved with manure. At that time, fallow was a widespread agronomic practice aimed at improving physical and chemical soil fertility and at restoring soil moisture (Semple 1928a ). The uncultivated fields were constantly tilled to remove weeds and make the soil softer and wetter (Semple 1928a ). The fields were regularly left fallow in alternate years, but, according to Theophrastus (371–287 BCE) and Varro (116–27 BCE), the exception to this fallow system was only when a cereal crop was followed by a legume, which was ploughed after early harvest. Varro, in De re rustica (37 BCE), touched on the notion of cover cropping, writing that legumes should be seeded in light soil for their positive effects on succeeding crops. Virgil (70–19 BCE) seemed to be against the idea of a crop aimed at covering the soil. In fact, in the Georgica (29 BCE), he advised against the planting of other crops between the rows of vines, as they would interfere with soil tillage. According to the author, the vines would have had more soil moisture and more nutrients available by frequent tillage and, thus, without the competition of other plants (Semple 1928b ). Columella (4–70 CE) did not specifically debate the fallow, but from his writings its importance in the 1st century Roman agriculture emerges. Reading the work of the Iberian agronomist, Saltini ( 1984 ) deduced an eight-year cultivation cycle characterized by the alternation of cereals, leguminous plants, and trash fallow covering an area of 200 jugera (about 50 hectares) (Fig. 2 ). What is relevant, for the purposes of this discussion, is that a long period of trash fallow is contemplated (today we would say "natural cover cropping") in this cultivation method. The lengthy period of the trash fallow (5 years), however, is not only linked to the restoration of soil fertility, but also and above all to the breeding of livestock.

Eight-year rotation scheme taken from Columella's De agri cultura . An area of 200 jugera is divided into 8 lots of 25 jugera . In each lot, the cultivation of wheat is preceded by a tilled fallow. A winter legume comes after wheat. After the winter legume, on each lot, there are 5 years of fallow, interrupted only by a spring cycle crop grown on about half of the lot (12 jugera ).

Yueh Ling or fourth book of Liji or Book of Rites , a kind of encyclopedia written during the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE), reports that using weeds and grasses as green manure was known in China under the Zhou dynasty (from 12th to 3rd century BCE). Chia Szu Hsieh, a Chinese writer who lived sometime in the 5th century BCE, talked about green manuring by using plants belonging to the genus Vigna (Pieters 1927 ). Starting from 400 BCE or even earlier, the ancient Mediterranean farmers developed systems of green manure crops, which represented an improvement in the older fallow system (Semple 1928a ). Xenophon (430–355 BCE), in his Oeconomicus , stated that green manure enriches the soil just as manure does, although he did not specify the green manure plant. In the Historia Plantarum , Theophrastus reported that the peasants of Thessaly and Macedonia cultivated the broad bean ( Vicia faba var. major ) to bury it at blooming. Again Theophrastus, in the Causa Plantarum , attributes to almost all legumes the capacity of reinvigorating the soil. Picking up from Theophrastus, Cato in his De agri cultura (160 BCE), indicated the field bean ( V. faba var. minor ), lupine, and vetch as the best green manure plants for cereals. Columella, in De re rustica , indicated the importance of intercropping a short-lived green manure crop to be ploughed in vineyards. Columella considered lupines, faba beans, vetches, lentils, chickpeas, and peas as renewing crops when they were buried immediately after the forage was cut. The same author wrote that clover and alfalfa, after producing forage for an adequate number of years, had to be buried when their productivity started to decline. Many authors considered lupine as the best green manure crop due to its numerous benefits: (i) adaptability on dry, sandy, or gravelly soil; (ii) dual purpose food for humans and animals; (iii) rapid growth and prolonged flowering. More generally, the ancients, through a long experience, exploited legumes to make the soil softer and more porous, thanks to their thick and deep roots. Furthermore, they understood that incorporating legumes into the soil leaves more nutrients than removing their residues, and their cultivation represented an economically viable alternative to fallow. Pliny the Elder, in the Naturalis Historia (77 CE), reported the practice of planting garlic and onion in the middle of snail medick, anticipating the intercropping between legumes and vegetables.

In the Middle Ages, biennial crop rotations were widespread in southern Europe, whereas northern Europe largely adopted three-year rotations. In both systems, a one-year fallow with repeated ploughing was expected and the meadows and pastures were out of the rotation. In this period, the common pastures outside the villages were the scene of the most important manifestations of civil life: fairs, gatherings, and even duels (Grand and Delatouche 1968 ). Here, the use of a green cover not only for income purposes — for providing food for livestock — but also for the lift that turf gives to the soil, is evident.

Nowadays, CCs are also grown for weed control. The ancients observed that some cultivated plants such as legumes have a particular ability to compete with weeds. Indeed, Theophrastus, in the Historia Plantarum , reported how chickpea destroys weeds (πόαν ἐξαπόλλυσι), in particular the tribulus ( Tribulus terrestris L.). Palladius (4th century CE), in his Opus Agriculturae , referred to the benefits of lupine in controlling weeds without the intervention of a worker. In Geoponics (10th century CE), it is recommended to sow lupines in soils pervaded by many roots, then to mow and bury them at blooming. It would appear that the buried biomass of lupine was thought to be useful in containing weeds (Zadoks 2013 ). Pietro de' Crescenzi (1233–1320), in the Ruralium Commodorum libri XII , recommended sowing broad beans or lupines for ferns control. The ability of some plants to act as repellents or baits for the parasitic insects of food plants did not go unnoticed. Here then is what Theophrastus had suggested, namely sowing vetch among radishes to save them from parasite attacks. This concept is reiterated in the Geoponics , where it is possible to read about the use of rocket among cabbages as a trap plant.

In the 18th century, the idea of using meadows and pastures instead of fallow as a means of conserving and restoring soil fertility began to spread. In one of the largest English treatises of the 18th century, The whole Art of Husbandry , John Mortimer (1656-1736) attested to the great importance of forage crops, and in particular clover, in English agriculture. Mortimer recognized an important agronomic significance to the clover, but did not take the next step, that is towards conceiving the replacement of the bare fallow with forage. It would be precisely the costs of the frequent work entailed by fallow to push Mortimer’s successors to consider the possibility of replacing the fallow forage to restore fertility. Jethro Tull (1674-1741), although starting from an erroneous postulate, in his Horse-hoeing husbandry , proposed the surmounting of fallow as a means of restoring soil fertility. The same did the Hungarian scholar Mitterpacher (1734-1814), who clearly took a stand against fallow. Arthur Young (1741-1820), in his A Course of Experimental Agriculture , observed that clover produces more if cut and hay, rather than left to graze freely. The explanation provided by the English agronomist was that the vegetation cover forming between one mowing and the other protects the soil from the sun, helping to conserve its humidity. In this use of plant cover to conserve soil moisture, it is possible to see the concept of cover cropping. François Rozier (1734–1793), in the wake of Weston (1591-1652), Tull, Young, Duhamel (1700-1782), in the entry “alterner” of his Cours complet , summarized the reasons why the alternation of crops improves the soil, thus setting the basis for the theory of rotations. However, the three-year rotation typical of the Middle Ages, characterized by a bare fallow year, was difficult to surmount. Albrecht Thaer (1752-1828) was aware of this and identified the various stages of evolution from three-year cultivation to continuous succession, in which the soil is never left bare. Thaer focused on the covering function of some species such as peas, vetches, and clovers, stating that one of the reasons why they are considered enhancers is the shade created by their leaves. A striking example of soil erosion due to its indiscriminate exploitation is represented by the so-called Dust Bowl, a series of huge sandstorms that swept the central part of the USA in the 1930s. A few years earlier, the United States Department of Agriculture had sounded an alarm — which went unheard — about the dangers related to the massive adoption of deep tillage and the non-use of crop rotation. However, farmers and the public opinion became sensitive to the issue of soil conservation and related practices, including the use of CCs (Hartwig and Ammon 2002 ), only once the “Dust Bowl” had occurred. Between the 1950s and 1960s of the last century, agricultural productivity increased considerably thanks to mineral fertilizers, pesticides, and fossil fuels. Conservative practices, therefore, were increasingly abandoned, until the energy crisis of 1973, which required reflection on a more careful use of inputs in agriculture. Today, the considerable attention paid by the public and decision-makers to the environmental issue has sparked interest in the use of CCs as a means of conserving soil fertility while respecting the environment.

3 Classification of cover crops and cover cropping

Different criteria can be adopted to classify CCs and cover cropping (Table 1 ). The species are commonly grouped according to the climate (temperate, sub-tropical, and tropical species). They can also be grouped in relation to their life span cycle into annuals (winter or summer) and perennials, to the botanical family (most of the species belong to Brassicaceae, Fabaceae, and Poaceae) and cover typology ( ad hoc seeded species and spontaneous flora, also referred to as artificial and natural cover cropping, respectively) (Mauro et al. 2013 ). Given that any plant could be a CC, Table 2 shows a detailed list of the most common CCs cultivated in temperate climates. Most of them are annual therophytes belonging to the Fabaceae and Poaceae families.

Cover cropping can be realized over the entire field area or localized between rows, depending mainly on the soil water availability. Moreover, a CC can be composed of a single species or a mixture of complementary species. In this regard, it is recognized that an appropriate mixture is more effective than a single species in controlling weeds (Baraibar et al. 2018 ). Mixtures are often used in advanced cropping systems such as fruit orchards, while self-reseeding species, together with species well adapted to the growing environment, are suitable as single CCs. Cover crops can be used as living mulches when intercropped with the cash crop, as dead mulches by leaving their plant residues on the soil surface and as green manures by incorporating their residues into the soil (Scavo and Mauromicale 2020 ). Generally, the management of plant residues is adopted to reduce their competition with the crop, especially in areas with low availability of natural resources (Hammermeister 2016 ).

4 Choice of cover crop species and management options

The choice of CC species should be based on their adaptation to local climate, soil properties, agronomic practices, expected results, and available resources. Although many CCs have been evaluated in a wide range of agroecosystems (Table 2 ), their performances are closely climate- and soil-dependent. Climate is the first criterion for CC choice that should be considered, especially in temperate regions characterized by four distinct seasons and marked climatic heterogeneity. According to Koppen-Geiger’s classification, in fact, warm temperate climate includes several smaller climatic zones, based on rainfall pattern: dry summer, dry winter, and fully humid (Peel et al. 2007 ). Most cool temperate CCs may not survive the hot dry summers and, vice versa, warm temperate CCs have a very limited winter survival in continental climates. Cover crops are generally associated to major improvements of subsequent crop yields and higher conservation of soil water in humid habitats than in semiarid and water-limited regions (Unger and Vigil 1998 ). Annual rainfall amount and evapotranspiration rates are the leading factors affecting CC performances. For example, cultivating oat and rye CCs across four years in a region with a mean annual rainfall of 1030 mm under conventional tillage improved maize yields by ~6% compared to no CC (Maughan et al. 2009 ). On the contrary, in a 6-years field experiment conducted by Nielsen and Vigil ( 2005 ) in a site with mean annual rainfall of 428 mm, legume green fallow CC under conventional tillage reduced soil water and wheat yields (about -33%) respect to no CC. Reduction of subsequent crop yields is commonly associated to both direct and pre-emptive competition of CCs, especially for soil water and N (Thorup-Kristensen et al. 2003 ). This issue, however, could be overcome by acting on planting date and termination stage, as reported for instance by Alonso-Ayuso et al. ( 2018 ), who adopted the WAVE (Water and Agrochemicals in the soil and Vadose Environment) model. Also, the rooting depth of the succeeding crop may affect pre-emptive competition, which is indicated to be lower when the CC is followed by a fibrous-rooted crop than by a dicotyledonous crop with tap root system (Thorup-Kristensen et al. 2003 ).

Furthermore, climate conditions not only affect emergence and termination stage of CCs, but can be used to assess optimal emergence dates. Using a metamodel based on the soil-crop model STICS predictions with nitrate leaching in a large-scale assessment over 20 years, Constantin et al. ( 2015 ) extrapolated optimal emergence and termination stages for CCs in France. The authors found that mean optimal dates were closely correlated to climatic characteristics, with earlier optimal emergence dates in Northern France (cold and rainy) than in the south (warm and dry) and optimal destruction dates between October and December. Moreover, optimal emergence dates were earlier for vetch (late July) than for ryegrass (early August) and white mustard (late August). Tribouillois et al. ( 2018 ) indicated that water availability influences emergence the most, with the number of consecutive days without water input after sowing as the most significant variable in the STICS model. Concerning CC species, they recommended brassicaceae for late summer sowing due to their fast germination after rainfall, in contrast to legume CCs and phacelia ( Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth.) that have longer emergence durations caused by their large seeds. In agreement with these results, in another space-replicated field experiment carried out in France with varied soil and weather conditions, Dorsainvil et al. ( 2005 ) reported that emergence duration of white mustard lasted from 3 days to several weeks in relation to soil water content, temperature, and sowing depth, with reduced tillage that gave as good results as ploughing with lower costs, provided that rainfall occurred.

Soil conditions (especially texture, pH and active lime content) also play a strong influence on CC adaptation. For instance, crimson clover is reported to adapt better on poorly drained soils and on well-limed soils than hairy vetch, while the latter and subterranean clover were more tolerant of soil acidity (Reeves 1994 ). Further, Moncada and Sheaffer ( 2010 ) indicated that winter rye and ryegrass are more suitable for sandy or loamy soils, and that rapeseed and mustard prefer neutral soils. In general, Poaceae CCs are suitable in clayey-alkaline soils, where Fe-insolubilization phenomena are common, because of their ability in enhancing Fe availability.

The choice of CCs is closely related to the intended benefit provided. In fact, CCs with high biomass production and growth rate are commonly more indicated for weed control, protection of soil erosion, and increase of SOM, but they could compete with the cash crop for water, light, and nutrients, thus decreasing crop yields. In this matter, a useful guide for CC choice in relation to the pursued goal is provided by Blanco-Canqui et al. ( 2015 ). Reinbott et al. ( 2004 ) reported significant differences between CC species in a 3-year experiment under a no-till system, with Austrian winter pea better performing than hairy vetch, hairy vetch + oat, winter pea + oat, and fallow soil in increasing both maize and sorghum grain yield. The benefit level may also vary within the same species, such as in the case of clovers and grasses. Ramírez-García et al. ( 2015 ) applied a multicriteria decision analysis (ground cover, biomass production, N uptake, N-fixation, C/N ratio, dietary fiber content and residue quality) on 5 CC species and 20 varieties for targeted CC selection. They found that grasses were the most suitable as a cover crop, catch crop, and fodder, while the vetches were the best for green manuring, especially those varieties with aptitudes as cover and catch crop. Overall, the ideal characteristics of a CC include quick soil coverage and easy establishment, complementary biological characteristics with the main crop, the ability to thrive without input supply and to suppress weeds and pests, the resistance to diseases, the capacity to not act as hosts for pathogens, and the easy termination (Lemessa and Wakjira 2015 ; Reeves 1994 ). Mixtures of CCs are recommended when a multifunctional effect is desired, since each species can deliver a specific function. For example, in legume–brassica mixtures, brassicaceae CCs can reduce pest pressure or disease while legumes can fix atmospheric N. Legume–brassica mixtures were found to be more stable and productive than the same species alone (Wortman et al. 2012 ). Mixing legume and grasses CCs is another common practice in temperate climates, because legumes can increase plant available N and grasses the soil organic carbon (Ball et al. 2020 ). However, CC mixture do not provide always a benefit in terms of yield increase, at least in the short-term period, as found by Andraski and Bundy ( 2005 ) for oat, triticale and rye CCs in maize under conventional tillage, in which significant yield increases were observed after two and, even more, three years. In addition, the economic return of this practice should be considered prior to its adaptation since challenges in planting (e.g., differences in densities or seed size between CC species) and increased seed costs are frequent.

A proper and site-specific management (i.e., species or varieties choice, seeding rate, seeding period, termination stage, and termination methods) is crucial to overcome the adverse effects of CCs on the cash crop (i.e., competition, allelopathy, disease transfer) and optimize their benefits (Adetunji et al. 2020 ). Table 3 reports several effects of management options on CC efficiency. Choosing appropriate CC species or mixtures, as well as suitable termination stages and methods, can determine the success of cover cropping. About termination stage, its timing is a key factor affecting CC performance and varied based on pursued goal. For example, in water -limited or semiarid regions of temperate climates, CCs strongly compete with the cash crop for water and negatively influence subsequent crop yields (Nielsen and Vigil 2005 ), thus limiting often their adoption. However, these adverse effects on soil water availability can be reduced by anticipating the termination stage of CCs, as suggested by Krueger et al. ( 2011 ) for rye CC on maize. An early termination stage of CCs is also recommended in dry years of humid regions to increase the soil water content and subsequent crop yields (Blanco-Canqui et al. 2011 ). On the contrary, several authors suggested a delayed termination stage, especially with legume CCs, to attain a sufficient biomass build-up, decrease weed biomass (Mirsky et al. 2011 ), and increase soil organic C content (Hirpa 2013 ) and N use efficiency (Alonso-Ayuso et al. 2014 ). The topic of termination method is strictly associated to CC-based no tillage systems, where CCs are commonly annual species that reached an appropriate growth stage and are terminated without herbicides. In these situations, generally CCs are killed mechanically by using roller-crimpers, sickle bar mowers and flail choppers, or physically by flaming (Vincent-Caboud et al. 2019 ). According to Vincent-Caboud et al. ( 2019 ), the decision about the termination method should involve the persistence of the CC mulch on the soil surface, the labor, and fuel requirements as well as the level of soil disturbance.

Most of the time, the best choice is a compromise between potential benefits and drawbacks (Ingels and Klonsky 1998 ), but it should be borne in mind that the benefits are often achievable in the medium to long-term. Çerçioğlu et al. ( 2019 ), for example, indicated that the soil hydraulic properties (water content, water retention and hydraulic conductivity) were slightly improved by cover cropping in claypan soils, but it took 5 years after CC establishment for the improvements to be significant. A better understanding of the impact associated to species selection, seeding rate, termination method, etc. should be at the center of future researches in order to guide the farmers in choosing the most suitable CC option to maximize the benefits.

5 Cover crops and soil nutritional status

Cover crops may influence the soil nutritional status — understood as the set of physical, chemical, and biological properties closely related to nutrients availability — in many different ways, both directly and indirectly, positively or negatively (Fig. 3 ). All these aspects are closely linked to each other, determining a multiple cascading effect. If CC species and the management options have been properly chosen, then the negative effects mainly deriving from competitive and allelopathic phenomena are minimized.

Direct and indirect effects of cover crops on the soil nutritional status.

Water availability in the rhizosphere is an important issue in agriculture, especially in mid-latitude agricultural areas characterized by extreme rain events and drought. In Mediterranean agroecosystems, for example, where the evapotranspiration demand exceeds rainfall for long periods of the year, water is a yield limiting factor. Water availability does not depend solely on the soil water balance, but also on the hydraulic properties of the portion of the soil explored by roots. It is well-recognized that CCs have positive effects on the soil physical and hydraulic properties such as bulk density, total porosity and microporosity, water infiltration, water holding capacity, hydraulic conductivity, etc. (Gabriel et al. 2019 ; Haruna et al. 2020 ). In such context, CCs with significant biomass are reported to reduce soil erosion, raindrop impact, and nutrient losses caused by high rainfall intensity (Kaye and Quemada 2017 ). In water-limited regions, CCs can reduce the water available for the next cash crop and this is the main reason for their limited adoption in the semiarid zones of temperate climates. Concerning the impact on the soil water balance and groundwater recharge, CCs lose water through transpiration, thus reducing drainage, i.e., the transfer of water below the zone of the soil explored by crop roots. However, a proper CC management and favorable environmental conditions can lessen, even considerably, the differences in the water balance between covered and bare soils. Meyer et al. ( 2019 ), performing a meta-analysis on the impact of CCs on drainage under temperate climates over 28 published papers, quantified a mean drainage reduction of 27 mm compared to bare soil. However, the reduction of drainage caused by CCs does not always imply a decreased soil water content (SWC), as demonstrated by Meyer et al. ( 2020 ) in a two-year trial in which CCs (sown in July-August) and bare soil were compared in temperate climate conditions (southwestern France, annual rainfall 655 mm). More in detail, three treatments with CCs were carried out as follows: (1) CC crushed in autumn and left as mulch on the soil surface until the following spring; (5) CC crushed in autumn and buried by plowing; (17) CC terminated in April. Under the trial conditions, CCs reduced drainage by 20 to 60 mm, compared to bare soil. The soil texture, field capacity. and wilting point values (120 cm deep) of the soils described in Meyer et al. ( 2020 ) were used in the equations collected by Saxton and Rawls ( 2006 ). These equations were employed to construct the water retention curves shown in Fig. 4 . In the first year (Fig. 4a ), no significant differences in SWC were observed between treatments (with and without CCs) thanks to the more abundant rainfall than in the second year (504 mm vs 343 mm of cumulative rainfall from sowing to termination). Furthermore, rainfall in the first year was better distributed than in the second year. The effect of the treatments, however, clearly emerged in the second year (Fig. 6b ). Among CC treatments, the one in which the CC was crushed in November and subsequently buried by ploughing showed a SWC very close to that of the bare soil (26.4 vs 26.5 %). The lowest SWC resulted from the treatment in which the CC was crushed in April of the following year (Fig. 4b ). In conclusion, in temperate climates, incorporating CCs into the soil in autumn seems to be a good compromise between their benefits and drawbacks (i.e., water consumption). In this regard, according to Kaye and Quemada ( 2017 ), a proper adaptive management could increase the drought resilience of CCs, for instance by choosing a suitable termination stage in order to reduce transpiration rates and improve soil water storage by mulching.

Water retention curves of the two soils described in Meyer et al. ( 2020 ). Graph a refers to the soil of the plot in which the experimentation was carried out in the first year, while Graph b refers to the soil of the plot used in the second year. In both graphs, the blue colored areas represent the plant available water, between matric potential values of -33 kPa (field capacity) and -1500 kPa (wilting point). The values of the matric potential were expressed in the vertical axis in a base 10 logarithmic scale. To construct the curves, the equations collected in Saxton and Rawls ( 2006 ) were used. SWC, soil water content; BS, bare soil; CCM, CC crushed in autumn and left as mulch on the soil surface; CCP, CC crushed in autumn and buried by plowing; CCA, CC destroyed in April. In the first year, thanks to abundant and well distributed rainfall, no significant differences were observed between treatments, unlike in the second year. This means, on the one hand, that the use of CCs does not necessarily result in a reduction of the water content in the soil and, on the other, that an appropriate management can limit water losses caused by CCs in years when rainfall is not abundant.

Many studies demonstrated that CCs improve the amount of soil carbon, enhance the aggregate stability, provide a balanced macropores/micropores ratio, and reduce the bulk density (Adetunji et al. 2020 ; Kaye and Quemada 2017 ). In this respect, there is a linear relationship between the amount of soil carbon and the amount of soil water contained at -10 kPa matric potential (Emerson 1995 ). Analyzing the continuous in-field soil water measurements from 2008 to 2014 in Central Iowa, USA, a site with average annual rainfall of 954 mm and that has included a winter rye cover crop in a maize-soybean rotation for thirteen years, Basche et al. ( 2016 ) found that rye CC not only increased SWC at field capacity by more than 10% as compared to bare soil, but also the plant available water by more than 21%, likely due to the increased amount of SOM (Hudson 1994 ; Huntington 2020 ). These improvements in soil physical properties generally reflect to an increase in water infiltration, faster downward movement of water and enhanced water storage capacity (Haruna et al. 2020 ). In a recent review by Blanco-Canqui and Ruis ( 2020 ), CCs were found to improve aggregate stability by 5% and cumulative infiltration by 43% on average, while negligible effects were observed on SWC at field capacity and plant available water. They also concluded that the positive effects of CCs on the physical and hydraulic soil properties are more evident when combining cover cropping with no-tillage. Most of these effects are clearly observable only in the long-term (Keisling et al. 1994 ), while no significant differences between with and without CCs treatments are commonly observed up to 3-years of continuous cover cropping (Gabriel et al. 2019 ; Villamil et al. 2006 ).

A large body of literature indicates the capacity of CCs in providing a favorable environment for soil microbial communities and earthworm populations (Clapperton et al. 2007 ; Vukicevich et al. 2016 ) (Fig. 5 ). Soil biological fertility, intended here as the capacity of soil biota to contribute to the nutritional requirements of plants and acting as a bridge between physical and chemical fertility, is widely influenced by a suitable habitat. Modifications on soil physical properties (i.e., structure, porosity, moisture, temperature) are the first level of such influence. Cover crops, thanks to root deepening, root exudates, above- and belowground residues, contribute to develop soil structure and a pore network, thus partitioning resource patches and trophic levels (Clapperton et al. 2007 ). The influence of CCs on soil physical properties depends on CC roots traits. Root architecture closely affects the size and density of soil aggregates and pores (Haruna et al. 2020 ); at the same time, rhizodeposition (i.e., release of ions, mucilage and organic acids) promotes the formation and stability of aggregates through the adsorption with colloids (Scavo et al. 2019 ). Moreover, the physical presence of a cover on the soil surface regulates soil moisture and temperature (Haruna et al. 2020 ). By improving soil water infiltration and retention, CCs generally decrease soil temperature in summer and increase it in winter. In a field experiment conducted in the Canadian prairies, Kahimba et al. ( 2008 ) reported that the topsoil subjected to Trifolium alexandrium L. CC was 3 °C warmer in autumn and 4 °C cooler in spring. More in detail, CCs generally reduce the soil temperature fluctuations between day and night by decreasing the maximum soil temperature and increasing the minimum one (Thapa et al. 2021a , b ). The magnitude of this effect depends on CC species, canopy cover, and residue input, as well as on tillage system and season (Blanco-Canqui et al. 2015 ). Plant residues, which act as a physical barrier intercepting solar radiation, regulate the soil temperature fluctuations more efficiently when they are left on the soil surface than when ploughed (Thapa et al. 2021a , b ). In fact, in a meta-analysis conducted by Muhammad et al. ( 2021 ) on 81 studies, it was found that CC residues incorporated into the soil increased phospholipid-derived fatty acids (PLFA), total bacteria, actinomycete, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) root colonization, and spore density compared to surface-placed or removed residues, likely due to an increased residue contact with soil microbes that enhanced C and N substrate availability. Elfstrand et al. ( 2007 ) suggested that direct incorporation of fresh red clover was more effective than both biogas slurry from fermented red clover and composted red clover in enhancing soil microbial biomass and enzyme activity. Studying the soil ecosystem services provided by three different tomato cropping systems (namely, 1, 2, and 3) in a 3-year field experiment in Central Italy, Massaccesi et al. ( 2020 ) found that organic farming with CCs plus conventional tillage (1) and organic coupled with CC mulching and no-tillage (5) showed significantly higher invertebrate biodiversity (carabid beetles and Araneae), microbial biomass (bacterial phospholipid fatty acids and AMF) and total organic C than a conventional integrated system (17). Moreover, CC effects on soil temperature may vary with residue quality and specifically with C/N ratio, in the sense that CCs with low C/N ratios such as legumes decompose more rapidly than non-legume CCs and thus they have a lower efficiency in moderating soil temperature. It should be considered also that the decomposition rates of CC residues may change based on soil texture, since they are higher in coarse-textured soils than in fine-textured ones, which is the reason why clayey soils commonly show a greater microbial biomass (Brennan and Acosta-Martinez 2017 ).

Influence of cover crops either as living mulches or dead mulches on soil microbial and faunal communities.

Along with better habitat conditions for soil biota, CCs attract specific microbial and faunal rhizosphere communities both directly and indirectly (Fig. 5 ). Cover crop exudates (rhizodeposits and C-compounds such as amino acids, proteins, organic acids, sugars, phenolics, secondary metabolites, etc.) provide a continuous energy supply for the organisms living in the rhizosphere. In this regard, Marschner ( 1995 ) estimated that 5 to 21% of all photosynthetically fixed carbon is exudated into the rhizosphere by higher plants. For this reason, the cultivation of CCs is often correlated to an increase of the biomass and diversity of N-fixing bacteria (Scavo et al. 2020 ), plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (Shen and Lin 2021 ), AMF (Morimoto et al. 2018 ) and earthworms (Korucu et al. 2018 ). Cover crop root exudation may vary between plant species and within the same species based on plant age and season (Scavo et al. 2019 ). Given the high chemical heterogeneity of root exudates among CCs, Housman et al. ( 2021 ) indicated an enhanced enzymatic activity and microbial biomass of CC mixtures compared to single-species legume green manure. Shifts in microbial community structure are dependent on CC chemical traits. In general, the growth of fungi is more favored than bacteria by CCs, but fungi thrive better with grass CCs that increase C substrate availability while bacteria and actinomycetes are promoted in the in the N-rich environment of legume CCs (Brennan and Acosta-Martinez 2017 ; Muhammad et al. 2021 ). In addition, not only different fungal communities can be associated to different CC species (Benitez et al. 2016 ), but also CCs can regulate both quantity and chemical composition of their root exudates in order to modulate the rhizosphere microbial communities and establish specific associations (De-la-Peña et al. 2008 ).

Cover crops can also affect rhizosphere organisms indirectly by means of the plant litter left as surface- or incorporated-dead mulching. Depending on the quantity, chemical composition (C/N ratio, dry matter, lignin content, total nutrients, etc.), and biomass management (termination method and stage), CC amendments are another important source of nutrients that regulate the complex soil food webs and the ecological successions (Scow and Werner 1998 ). High-quality plant litters (characterized by low C/N ratio and rapid decomposition) commonly stimulate faster-growing copiotrophic microorganisms, whereas grass residues (with high C/N ratio and persistence on the soil surface) favor oligotrophic microorganisms (Bastian et al. 2009 ). Regarding the ecological successions, the first decomposers are earthworms that, thanks to the fuel provided by C-compounds exuded from living mulches, ingest CC residues, excrete nutrient-rich casts, and accelerate humus formation (Lee 1985 ). Furthermore, earthworms stimulate microbial activity on leaving the decomposition products of plant litter to bacteria, mites, moulds, and actinomycetes (Scow and Werner 1998 ). Each successional change consumes energy and is governed by food source. Hence, adequate quantities of litter need to be maintained to renew the decomposer community.

5.3 Influence on soil organic matter and soil nutrient availability

A wide literature documents the capacity of CCs in significantly improving the SOM and organic C levels across different temperate zones due to the above and belowground biomass produced (Blanco-Canqui et al. 2015 ; Ding et al. 2006 ; Hirpa 2013 ). The use of a mixture of species, rather than a single species, often results in higher biomass production and, consequently, in greater SOM accumulation and C sequestration (Cong et al. 2014 ). The increase in SOM caused by CCs also depends on soil texture, tillage, and time of establishment. Generally, CC benefits are favored under silt-loam than sandy soils (Haruna et al. 2020 ), in no-till systems (Blanco-Canqui et al. 2015 ) and over the long-term (Acuña and Villamil 2014 ). Cover crops can also indirectly improve SOM content and reduce nutrient losses by preventing land degradation caused by wind and water (Mohammed et al. 2021 ). In western Kansas, USA, a region with mean annual precipitation of 426 mm and silt-loam soil, winter triticale CC was found to reduce soil water erosion by 79% if compared to bare soil, and this reduction was more marked than that provided by spring triticale (-61%), winter lentil (-39%) and spring pea (-68%), likely due to its higher biomass production (Blanco-Canqui et al. 2013 ). The management of CCs can also influence the chemical and structural composition of SOM, which is an important characteristic affecting soil nutrient cycling and fertility. In this regard, Ding et al. ( 2006 ) found that different CCs may affect the structure and composition of humic substances in the soil. Using the 13 C NMR and the diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform (DRIFT) spectroscopy to characterize SOM under different CC systems, they found that soils under rye showed more aromatic and less aliphatic humic acids than vetch/rye mixture. On the other hand, the latter showed higher O/R ratios of fulvic acids, which may indicate that SOM in the vetch/rye plots was more chemically and biologically active.

Soil organic matter, together with rhizodeposits released into the rhizosphere by CCs, provides energy for soil microbial activity. Soil microorganisms, in turn, release inorganic nutrients through SOM mineralization, stimulate the soil enzymatic complex, influence plant nutrient acquisition, and drive nutrient cycling (Wagg et al. 2014 ). Cover crops can establish different forms of associations (symbiosis, mutualism, commensalism) with root-associated microorganisms such as AMF, N-fixing bacteria and various endophytic fungi and bacteria (Van der Heijden et al. 2008 ). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are known to be important drivers of P cycling due to the increase of the root area through the extraradical hyphal network, which allows a wider exploration of soil and therefore a better absorption of P (Morimoto et al. 2018 ). Recently, Arruda et al. ( 2021 ) found that CCs increase AMF abundance for the succeeding cash crop and alter P fractions by increasing the organic labile pool in the top-soil compared to fallow, with species-specific effects on P pools. Some CCs, including red clover ( T. pratense ) and cowpea [ Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.], exude strigolactones, especially under P-deficiency, to stimulate the hyphal branching of AMF (Scavo et al. 2019 ; Yoneyama et al. 2008 ). At certain concentrations, however, strigolactones may inhibit AMF shoot branching (Gomez-Roldan et al. 2008 ). Moreover, thanks to their extensive mycelium, AMF contribute to enhance C sequestration (Zhu and Michael Miller 2003 ). In addition to AMF, legume CCs can fix the atmospheric N into plant available ammonium by associations with N-fixing rhizobacteria. These specific symbioses are regulated through the exudation of isoflavonoids by the host plant and lipochitooligosaccharides by rhizobia (Scavo et al. 2019 ). Moller et al. ( 2008 ) reported nearly 60 to 80 kg ha −1 N fixed by CCs. Many CC species such as Pisum sativum L., Medicago sativa L., Trifolium sp., Phaseolus sp., etc. also establish symbiotic relationships with AMF (Wang and Qiu 2006 ), highlighting how AMF can also indirectly contribute to N cycle (Van der Heijden et al. 2008 ).

In soils with severe nutrient deficiencies, CCs can also indirectly enhance the phytoavailability of soil nutrients via root exudation of secondary metabolites (phytosiderophores) or organic acid secretion into the rhizosphere (Bais et al. 2006 ). Phytosiderophores exudation is a well-known mechanism adopted by grasses under metallic micronutrient deficiency (especially Fe-deficiency). Phytosiderophores are chelating agents of metallic nutrients forming organic-phytosiderophore complexes, which can be transported across plasma membranes with YS1/YSL protein transporters (Curie et al. 2001 ). Cesco et al. ( 2006 ) found that Poa pratensis L. and Festuca rubra L., two perennial grasses normally grown as CCs in fruit orchards, were able to improve Fe-nutrition in citrus trees grown on calcareous soils by enhancing 59 Fe-uptake through 2′-deoxymugineic acid exudation. Dicotyledons and non-graminaceous monocotyledons follow a different strategy to improve metallic nutrient acquisition, called strategy I, which is an “acidification/reduction” mechanism consisting of the root exudation of protons and other reducing substances such as phenols (isoflavonoids, coumarins, phenolic acids) and organic and inorganic acids, to bring down the rhizosphere pH and enhance the ferric reduction activity at the root plasma membrane (Kumar et al. 2016 ). This strategy, adopted by legume CCs like alfalfa, cowpea, chickpea, vetches, clovers, etc., is mostly important under P-deficiency and for Al 3+ detoxification (Dakora and Phillips 2002 ; Scavo et al. 2019 ; Valentinuzzi et al. 2016 ).

Concerning the soil N cycle (Fig. 6 ), CCs residues and especially legume species with low C/N ratio can build up N concentrations, improve the available N for the subsequent crops, and reduce N fertilizer requirements (Adetunji et al. 2020 ). In a 4-year field experiment carried out in a Mediterranean apricot orchard, Scavo et al. ( 2021 ) found that subterranean clover cover cropping with the incorporation of dead mulches into the soil increased N–NH 4 + and N–NO 3 – by 194% and 308%, respectively, compared to a fallow soil, as the result of the improved levels of SOM (+ 15%) and the N-fixing bacteria Nitrosomonas europaea and Azotobacter vinelandii . In another 4-year field experiment performed in Northern Europe, De Notaris et al. ( 2018 ) reported that N leaching was positively correlated to N surplus at the rotation scale, with CCs that increased N output (expressed as N yield in crops and N in green manure cuts) and reduced N leaching by 60%, irrespective of conventional and organic management system, without differences between legume and non-legume CCs. Moreover, the rotation with green manure was the system with the highest risk of N leaching, which was closely correlated to growing degree days and biomass of the main cereal crop. Generally, CC residues are characterized by lower losses of nitric N and lower emissions of N 2 O than inorganic N fertilizers, thus showing a higher N efficiency (Delgado et al. 2010 ). Unfortunately, knowing the amount of plant-available N from decomposing CC residues is very difficult in the field, given that residue decomposition is affected by multiple factors including chemical traits (C:N ratio, N content), residue placement (surface vs incorporated), environmental conditions, and soil characteristics (Cabrera et al. 2005 ). In this regard, several computer simulation models have been proposed to estimate the N mineralization from CC residue decomposition both under controlled conditions (Thapa et al. 2021a , b ) and in the field (Melkonian et al. 2017 ), but they still need large-scale studies over a broader range of soils and climate. Seo et al. ( 2000 ) estimated an amount of 50–155 kg ha –1 of N fertilizer equivalent provided by hairy vetch in maize. According to Doran and Smith ( 1991 ), CCs with C/N ratios <20 have higher N fertilizer equivalents than CCs with C/N ratios >35 because legume CCs commonly show a higher decomposition and N mineralization rate than grass CCs. In general, legume CCs decrease N fertilizer requirements due to fixed N while non-legume CCs increase N fertilizer requirements due to N immobilization (Williams et al. 2018 ). Grass-legume CC mixtures, such as the barley–vetch mixture in Mediterranean conditions, are more effective than pure stands in reducing NO 3 - leaching risk, assuring a stable N accumulation and adjusting the N efficiency (Tosti et al. 2014 ). The ‘microbial N mining’ theory states that the N mineralization rate and the activity of N-degrading enzymes are positively correlated to root exudate rates due to the induced microbial growth in the rhizosphere provided by readily useable C (Kuzyakov and Blagodatskaya 2015 ). The microbial hot moment, i.e., the critical period for soil microbes to actively decompose residue and mineralize N, corresponding to the peaks of soil microbial abundance and N mineralization, can vary from few days up to 50 days after input (Kuzyakov and Blagodatskaya 2015 ). During the hot moments, soil fungi and bacteria cooperate in the processes of decomposition and N mineralization (Chinta et al. 2021 ). During hotpots of microbial activity within the rhizosphere and detritusphere, CCs induced the strongest priming effect to accelerate SOM decomposition and nutrient release, mainly mineralizing organic N (Kuzyakov 2010 ). This priming effect can be either positive or negative (i.e., reduction in SOM decomposition and N immobilization), depending on the amount and quality of CC exudates.

Effects of CCs on soil N dynamics. Nitrogen can directly enter into the soil via biological N-fixation of legume CCs and decomposition of plant litter. Also, N can indirectly enter by increasing the soil organic matter (SOM) content caused by the release of C compounds. Carbon serves as a feed for the microorganisms involved in soil N cycle (ammonia-oxidizing and N-fixing bacteria) that, combined with the enhanced SOM content, contribute to increase the N mineral forms. Part of mineral N is removed by plants. Moreover, on the one side CCs reduce NO 3 – leaching and, on the other side, regulate denitrification and nitrification dynamics by exuding biological nitrification inhibitors (BNIs) into the rhizosphere, thus increasing the N-use efficiency.

Cover crops are also effective at scavenging nutrients and reducing their leaching losses (Justes et al. 2012 ), particularly those of post-harvest soil nitrate (NO 3 – ) which is highly susceptible to losses during high drainage events of temperate zones. With reference to soil N, CCs can scavenge and convert NO 3 – into organic forms, thus retaining N in the root zone and releasing it gradually during residue decomposition, which in turn reduced NO 3 – leaching and increases N-use efficiency (Blanco-Canqui et al. 2015 ). Growing vetch, rye, and rye-vetch CCs in large packed soil cores, Rosecrance et al. ( 2000 ) found that vetch and rye-vetch cores showed net N mineralization combined with high denitrification and potential leaching, while net N immobilization was observed in rye cores. This study suggests that, although CCs reduce NO 3 – leaching compared to fallow soils (Kaspar and Singer 2011 ), the degree of such reduction is species-dependent since it is higher in legume than in non-legume CCs (Quemada et al. 2013 ). Other field trials supported that non-legume CCs such as wheat, oat, ryegrass, or mustard are more effective than legume CCs at reducing NO 3 – leaching losses (Kaspar and Singer 2011 ). In a 2-year study conducted in no-till upland soils in Mississippi (USA) and cultivated with cotton, winter wheat CC reduced both and P losses than winter fallow (Adeli et al. 2021 ). Indeed, increased inorganic P levels due to cover cropping under no-tillage conditions (Scavo et al. 2021 ; Varela et al. 2017 ). However, in some cases, CCs can uptake highly soil P 2 O 5 and convert it into organic forms, thus reducing soil available P (Villamil et al. 2006 ). Increased levels of soil exchangeable K 2 O and microelements (Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu) have also been found in Mediterranean semiarid agroecosystems (Scavo et al. 2021 ).

Combining legume and non-legume CCs could be an efficient option to further enhance the benefits of cover cropping on soil N cycling due to the optimization of C/N balance. Latati et al. ( 2019 ), in a two-year field experiment with durum wheat and chickpea, cultivated both in intercropping and in a sole crop, observed that on the one hand intercropping significantly enhanced the use-efficiency of rhizobial symbiosis in chickpea and, on the other, increased N and P availability in durum wheat rhizosphere and grain yields as well as N nutrition in chickpea shoots compared to sole cropping. Improved N uptake were also observed in maize/faba bean (+20%) (Li et al. 2003 ), maize/soybean (+32%) (Zhang et al. 2021 ), and wheat/maize (+93%) (Liu et al. 2020 ) intercropping, among others, due to the plasticity and complementary of root architecture among different crops. When the soil N is not abundant, the roots can avoid each other or enhance density and depth to increase the competitiveness. In legume/non-legume mixtures, the increased N uptake of the non-legume can be attributable to the higher root length densities in the mixtures compared with the legume and thus to the improved soil N competitive ability of the non-legume (Corre-Hellou et al. 2007 ). Generally, non-legumes are dominating in intercropping systems, especially with higher N levels. For instance, Ramirez-Garcia et al. ( 2015 ), studying the barley/vetch intercropping under greenhouse conditions, found that barley outcompeted the vetch for N uptake in the deepest soil layer, and that the intercropped barley plants produced more roots and twice the root length of the monocropped barley plants, thus inducing an increased N uptake of barley and decreased one of vetch, compared to monocrops. In intercropped systems, therefore, each species can maximize the ecosystem services compared to sole crop due to the principle of niche separation, which depends on the degree of complementary of the mixture (Tribouillois et al. 2016 ).

Cover crops can also improve N-recovery and the agronomic N-use efficiency by mitigating the nitrification and denitrification dynamics driven by soil microorganisms (Fig. 6 ). In a 4-year field trial performed in a dry sub-humid zone with average annual rainfall of 1000 mm, Gitari et al. ( 2018 ) reported that potato/dolichos ( Lablab purpureus L.) intercropping increased the N-use efficiency and the P-use efficiency by 30 and 21%, respectively than stand of potato. In contexts where the loss of N following nitrification is significant, some CCs release biological nitrification inhibitors (BNIs) into the rhizosphere to counter the ammonia monooxygenase and hydroxylamine oxidoreductase pathways of ammonium- and nitric-oxidizing bacteria (Coskun et al. 2017 ). The BNI capacity is closely related to plant species and varieties, and it was found to be a widespread phenomenon in tropical pasture grasses such as Brachiaria humidicola (Rendle) Schweick and B. decumbens (Subbarao et al. 2007 ). Rocha et al. ( 2020 ) indicated that the abundance of microorganisms related to ammonification, nitrification and nitrogen fixing, and ammonia-oxidizing Archaea is affected by CC species and development stage. Biological nitrification-inhibiting substances are allelochemicals of a broad spectrum of chemical classes including phenols, terpenoids, alkaloids, carbohydrates, etc. Soil incubation experiments demonstrated that the incorporation of Plantago lanceolata L. leaf materials suppressed soil N mineralization and nitrification due to their leached allelochemicals, the polyphenol verbascoside and the iridoid glycosides aucubin, aucubigenin and catalpol (Dietz et al. 2013 ). In soils amended with Brassicaceae ( Isatis tinctoria L., Brassica napus L., B. juncea , and Sinapis alba L.) residues, Brown and Morra ( 2009 ) detected a positive correlation between NH 4 + and NO 2 − accumulation and glucosinolate concentration, thus demonstrating the BNI capacity of glucosinolates. A comprehensive review on the role of BNIs in the soil system and their physiological effects on plants is provided by Coskun et al. ( 2017 ). Regulating denitrification (N losses as N 2 + N 2 O) is another strategy adopted by CCs to improve the N-use efficiency. Legume CCs are generally indicated to stimulate soil denitrification rates, especially during soil saturation (Shelton et al. 2000 ). The enhanced denitrification associated to CCs is attributable to the supply with available C from CC root exudation and dead mulches for denitrifiers (Aulakh et al. 1991 ).

Cover crops can also indirectly enhance the soil nutrient availability for the cash crop or the subsequent crops through weed management, which entails a lesser competition for soil nutrients. Weed control operated by CCs is a well-documented aspect of cover cropping (Lemessa and Wakjira 2015 ; Osipitan et al. 2019 ; Scavo and Mauromicale 2021 ), both as a single technique or within an integrated management strategy (Bhaskar et al. 2021 ; Scavo and Mauromicale 2020 ), especially in the long-medium term (Restuccia et al. 2020 ). However, the role of CCs for weed management in agroecosystems is beyond the scope of this review.

6 Cover crops and plant nutritional status

Plant nutritional status is commonly detected through the analysis of nutrients (minerals, carbohydrates, secondary metabolites, etc.) in foliar tissues or fruits and by comparing the results to well-established standard values (Bianco et al. 2015 ). However, other rapid and non-destructive analytical methodologies have been proposed for the prediction of the plant nutritional status, such as the visible-near infrared spectrophotometric analysis (Menesatti et al. 2010 ), the diagnosis and recommendation integrated system (DRIS) (Römheld 2012 ), portable spectrometers, and the SPAD chlorophyll meter.

Results on the influence of CCs on the crop nutritional status contradict each other, since both positive and negative effects are reported in the literature (Table 4 ). The positive effects of CCs on the physical, chemical, and biological soil properties as indicators of soil quality are often associated to benefits (e.g., nutrient transfer) for the cash crops. Hence, especially in fruit orchards, cover cropping may provide additional indirect benefits to the crops, such as the enhancement of root development, tree vigor, yield, and fruit quality (Tahir et al. 2015 ). The incorporation of subterranean clover ( T. subterraneum ) dead mulches into the soil, compared to a spontaneous flora cover cropping, a conventional management and the optimal ranges reported in the literature, was found to increase the content of minerals (K, N, Ca, Fe, Mn) in apricot leaves and fruits and to balance the nutritional status of the trees (ΣDOP index) (Lombardo et al. 2021 ). In organic kale ( B. oleracea var. acephala ), CCs provided a considerable increase of proteins, minerals, and prebiotic carbohydrates, especially when using faba bean ( V. faba ), with results highly dependent on the CC species × kale cultivars interaction (Thavarajah et al. 2019 ). Mauro et al. ( 2015 ) reported an increased content of minerals (Ca, Mg, and N) and chlorophylls in orange [ Citrus x sinensis (L.) Osbeck] leaves when subjected to a Medicago-Avena-Lolium CC sequence. In accordance with these results, Jahanzad et al. ( 2017 ), studying the effect of forage radish ( Raphanus sativus L.) and winter pea ( P. sativum ) CCs on potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.), documented that CCs significantly increased potato yield, reduced N fertilizers supply, and enhanced tuber mineral concentrations compared to no CC. After observing in the field more severe Fe-deficiency chlorosis symptoms in peanut grown in sole cropping compared to that intercropped with maize, Zuo et al. ( 2000 ) carried out rhizobox experiments and pointed out that, thanks to the rhizosphere interactions between peanut and maize, the peanut–maize intercropping improved the peanut Fe nutrition, as demonstrated by the increase in the chlorophyll and HCl-extractable Fe concentrations in young leaves.

Concerning the negative effects of CCs, several studies indicate a decreased root and shoot growth, reduced fruit quality, and delayed fruit maturity in response to CCs (Atucha et al. 2013 ; Marsh et al. 1996 ). This is more common for CCs characterized by rapid initial growth, high biomass production and vigor, exerting a strong competitive effect on the cash crop for light, water and nutrients, in the case of direct competition; also, pre-emptive competition phenomena for N between CCs and cash crop play a key role in this process (Thorup-Kristensen et al. 2003 ). For instance, Pérez-Álvarez et al. ( 2013 ) found that barley CC decreased the availability of nitric soil N on one side, while on the other reduced the grapevine N nutritional status and vigor. Rodrigues et al. ( 2013 ) reported that the soil incorporation of legume CC dead mulches did not increase the levels of inorganic mineral N into the soil, most likely because most of N present in the legume biomass was lost without having entered the soil.

The influence of CCs on the crop nutritional status is closely correlated to the management options, with species selection, termination stage, and termination method being the most relevant factors. In the study conducted by Lombardo et al. ( 2021 ), for example, subterranean clover showed a better performance than spontaneous flora CC, but the best results were obtained by incorporating subterranean clover dead mulches into the soil, probably due to their more rapid decomposition which on one hand allowed a higher release of nutrients and, on the other, created a favorable environment for nutrients absorption. In another study, faba bean was found to be the most suitable CC for improving the nutrient composition of organic kale, whereas ryegrass CC determined a higher kale biomass production, thus highlighting the importance of species selection (Thavarajah et al. 2019 ). Gatsios et al. ( 2021 ), comparing the effects of two different mobile green manures in organic greenhouse tomatoes, indicated that faba bean green manure is more effective than alfalfa pellets in increasing the plant available soil N and tomato leaf N concentration. Faba bean green manure also proved to be economically advantageous, since it enhanced yield, fruit number per plant and mean fruit weight more than alfalfa pellets. Evaluating the effect of soil management system in an organic apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) orchard, Tahir et al. ( 2015 ) reported that the combination between tillage and a living mulch of mixed grasses (i.e., sandwich system for the whole year) provided a higher weed control, tree vigor, yield, fruit weight, and fruit quality compared to other soil management systems including living mulch alone. Studying the influence of intercropping and its relationships with N fertilization, de Araujo et al. ( 2020 ) found that common bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) – castor bean ( Ricinus communis L.) intercropping caused lower levels of leaf macro- and micro-elements in both crops due to competitive effects between plants. However, according to the authors, this issue could be overcome by adopting the most suitable cultivars selection (Pérola and Energia, respectively) and N fertilization (a coverage split of 30:70 kg N ha –1 applied at 25 and 35 days after emergence). Cereal–legumes intercropping is a common agronomic practice for regulating the N use efficiency but, in addition to technical difficulties related to grain separation, it is often difficult to optimize the interspecific competition. A field experiment carried out in an organic farming by Tosti and Guiducci ( 2010 ) indicated that durum wheat–faba bean temporary row-intercropping is a valid method for improving the cereal N status and the grain protein content regardless of wheat variety. This was due to the competitive effect of faba bean that was limited to the initial wheat phenological stages and, after incorporating faba bean into the soil, the wheat was able to recover solar radiation even if the legume was the dominant component of the intercrop, contrariwise to what generally happens in permanent intercropping systems. It is therefore clear how the impact of a CC on crop yields and product quality may be regulated by choosing appropriate managing options (i.e., species or cultivars selection, seeding rate to avoid competitive effects, termination stage and methods, fertilization supply, etc.).

7 Conclusive remarks

The inclusion of CCs into various agricultural systems has been proven to be a consolidated agronomic practice for enhancing the physical, chemical, and biological soil properties, thus increasing nutrient availability and reducing mineral fertilizers supply. In turn, these benefits are commonly reflected in the crop with an enhanced nutritional status. Knowing the reciprocal relationships between CCs, soil and plant nutritional status will allow improving soil fertility and crop productivity both qualitatively and quantitatively while at the same time limiting the adoption of auxiliary inputs. However, an effective cover cropping is closely related to suitable and context-specific management options (choice of species, seeding period, termination stage and termination method). Unfortunately, some of these aspects are still unknown, as well as several ecophysiological effects of CCs on soil and plant nutrition. It is therefore vital that the both scientific community and government policies increase their efforts in the next future to fill such gap. In particular, the set-up of large-scale and long-term studies conducted under a multidisciplinary approach would appear imperative for future researches.

Data availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Acuña J, Villamil MB (2014) Short-term effects of cover crops and compaction on soil properties and soybean production in Illinois. Agron J 106:860–870. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj13.0370

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Adeli A, Brooks JP, Read JJ, Miles DM, Shankle MW, Jenkins JN (2021) Impact of cover crop on nutrient losses in an upland soil. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 52:536–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2020.1862154

Adetunji AT, Ncube B, Mulidzi R, Lewu FB (2020) Management impact and benefit of cover crops on soil quality: a review. Soil Tillage Res 204:104717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104717

Article   Google Scholar  

Alonso-Ayuso M, Gabriel JL, Quemada M (2014) The kill date as a management tool for cover cropping success. PLoS One 9(10):e109587. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109587

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alonso-Ayuso M, Quemada M, Vanclooster M, Ruiz-Ramos M, Rodriguez A, Gabriel JL (2018) Assessing cover crop management under actual and climate change conditions. Sci Total Environ 621:1330–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.095

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Andraski TW, Bundy LG (2005) Cover crop effects on corn yield response to nitrogen on an irrigated sandy soil. Agron J 97:1239–1244. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0052

Arruda B, Herrera WFB, Rojas-García JC, Turner C, Pavinato PS (2021) Cover crop species and mycorrhizal colonization on soil phosphorus dynamics. Rhizosphere 19:100396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2021.100396

Atucha A, Merwin IA, Brown MG, Gardiazabal F, Mena F, Adriazola C, Goebel M, Bauerle T (2013) Root distribution and demography in an avocado ( Persea americana ) orchard under groundcover management systems. Funct Plant Biol 40:507–515. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP12317

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aulakh MS, Doran JW, Walters DT, Power JF (1991) Legume residue and soil water effects on denitrification in soils of different textures. Soil Biol Biochem 23:1161–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(91)90029-J

Bais HP, Weir TL, Perry LG, Gilroy S, Vivanco JM (2006) The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu Rev Plant Biol 57:233–266. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105159

Ball KR, Baldock JA, Penfold C, Power SA, Woodin SJ (2020) Soil organic carbon and nitrogen pools are increased by mixed grass and legume cover crops in vineyard agroecosystems: detecting short-term management effects using infrared spectroscopy. Geoderma 379:114619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114619

Baraibar B, Hunter MC, Schipanski ME, Hamilton A, Mortensen DA (2018) Weed suppression in cover crop monocultures and mixtures. Weed Sci 66:121–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2017.59

Barak P, Jobe BO, Krueger AR, Peterson LA, Laird DA (1997) Effects of long-term soil acidification due to nitrogen fertilizer inputs in Wisconsin. Plant Soil 197:61–69. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004297607070

Basche AD, Kaspar TC, Archontoulis SV, Jaynes DB, Sauer TJ, Parkin TB, Miguez FE (2016) Soil water improvements with the long-term use of a winter rye cover crop. Agric Water Manag 172:40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.006

Bastian F, Bouziri L, Nicolardot B, Ranjard L (2009) Impact of wheat straw decomposition on successional patterns of soil microbial community structure. Soil Biol Biochem 41:262–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.10.024

Benitez M-S, Taheri WI, Lehman RM (2016) Selection of fungi by candidate cover crops. Appl Soil Ecol 103:72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.03.016

Bhaskar V, Westbrook AS, Bellinder RR, DiTommaso A (2021) Integrated management of living mulches for weed control: a review. Weed Technol 35:856–868. https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2021.52

Bianco MS, Cecílio Filho AB, de Carvalho LB (2015) Nutritional status of the cauliflower cultivar ‘Verona’ grown with omission of out added macronutrients. PLoS One 10(4):e0123500. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123500

Blanco-Canqui H, Holman JD, Schlegel AJ, Tatarko J, Shaver T (2013) Replacing fallow with cover crops in a semiarid soil: effects on soil properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1026–1034. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.01.0006

Blanco-Canqui H, Mikha MM, Presley DR, Claassen MM (2011) Addition of cover crops enhances no-till potential for improving soil physical properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 75:1471–1482. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0430

Blanco-Canqui H, Ruis SJ (2020) Cover crop impacts on soil physical properties: a review. Soil Sci Soc Am J 84:1527–1576. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20129

Blanco-Canqui HB, Shaver TM, Lindquist JL, Shapiro CA, Elmore RW, Francis CA, Hergert GW (2015) Cover crops and ecosystem services: insights from studies in temperate soils. Agron J 107:2449–2474. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj15.0086

Brennan EB, Acosta-Martinez V (2017) Cover cropping frequency is the main driver of soil microbial changes during six years of organic vegetable production. Soil Biol Biochem 109:188–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.01.014

Brown PD, Morra MJ (2009) Brassicaceae tissues as inhibitors of nitrification in soil. J Agric Food Chem 57:7706–7711. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf901516h

Cabrera ML, Kissel DE, Vigil MF (2005) Nitrogen mineralization from organic residues: research opportunities. J Environ Qual 34:75–79. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0075

Çerçioğlu M, Anderson SH, Udawatta RP, Alagele S (2019) Effect of cover crop management on soil hydraulic properties. Geoderma 343:247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.02.027

Cesco S, Rombolà AD, Tagliavini M, Varanini Z, Pinton R (2006) Phytosiderophores released by graminaceous species promote 59 Fe-uptake in citrus. Plant Soil 287:223–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-006-9069-4

Chinta YD, Uchida Y, Araki H (2021) Roles of soil bacteria and fungi in controlling the availability of nitrogen from cover crop residues during the microbial hot moments. Appl Soil Ecol 168:104135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.104135

Clapperton MJ, Chan KY, Larney FJ (2007) Managing the soil habitat for enhanced biological fertility. In: Abbott LK, Murphy DV (eds) Soil biological fertility. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6619-1_10

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cong WF, van Ruijven J, Mommer L, de Deyn GB, Berendse F, Hoffland E (2014) Plant species richness promotes soil carbon and nitrogen stocks in grasslands without legumes. J Ecol 102:1163–1170. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12280

Constantin J, Le Bas C, Justes E (2015) Large-scale assessment of optimal emergence and destruction dates for cover crops to reduce nitrate leaching in temperate conditions using the STICS soil–crop model. Eur J Agron 69:75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2015.06.002

Corre-Hellou G, Brisson N, Launay M, Fustec J, Crozat Y (2007) Effect of root depth penetration on soil nitrogen competitive interactions and dry matter production in pea–barley intercrops given different soil nitrogen supplies. Field Crop Res 103:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.04.008

Coskun D, Britto D, Shi W, Kronzucker HJ (2017) Nitrogen transformations in modern agriculture and the role of biological nitrification inhibition. Nat Plants 3:17074. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.74

Curie C, Panaviene Z, Loulergue C, Dellaporta SL, Briat JF, Walker EL (2001) Maize yellow stripe1 encodes a membrane protein directly involved in Fe(III) uptake. Nature 409:346–349. https://doi.org/10.1038/35053080

Dakora FD, Phillips DA (2002) In: Adu-Gyamfi JJ (ed) Root exudates as mediators of mineral acquisition in low-nutrient environments. In: Food security in nutrient-stressed environments: exploiting plants’ genetic capabilities. Developments in Plant and Soil Sciences, 95. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1570-6_23

de Araujo MEV, da Silva GC, Ferreira RB, Teixeira IR, Corrêa PC, da Silva AG (2020) Nutritional status of common bean and castor bean cultivars in response to intercropping and nitrogen application. J Plant Nutr 43:933–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2019.1702206

De Notaris C, Rasmussen J, Sørensen P, Olesen JE (2018) Nitrogen leaching: a crop rotation perspective on the effect of N surplus, field management and use of catch crops. Agric Ecosyst Environ 255:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.12.009

De-la-Peña C, Lei Z, Watson BS, Sumner LW, Vivanco JM (2008) Root-microbe communication through protein secretion. J Biol Chem 283:25247–25255. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M801967200

Delgado JA, Del Grosso SJ, Ogle SM (2010) 15 N isotopic crop residue cycling studies suggest that IPCC methodologies to assess N 2 O-N emissions should be reevaluated. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 86:383–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-009-9300-9

Dietz M, Machill S, Hoffmann HC, Schmidtke K (2013) Inhibitory effects of Plantago lanceolata L. on soil N mineralization. Plant Soil 368:445–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1524-9

Ding G, Liu X, Herbert S, Novak J, Amarasiriwardena D, Xing B (2006) Effect of cover crop management on soil organic matter. Geoderma 130:229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.01.019

Doran JW, Smith MS (1991) Role of cover crops in nitrogen cycling. In: Hargrove WL (ed) Cover crops for clean water. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA, pp 85–90

Google Scholar  

Dorsainvil F, Dürr C, Justes E, Carrera A (2005) Characterisation and modelling of white mustard ( Sinapis alba L.) emergence under several sowing conditions. Eur J Agron 23:146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2004.11.002

Drinkwater LE, Snapp SS (2007) Nutrients in agroecosystems: rethinking the management paradigm. Adv Agron 92:163–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(04)92003-2

Elfstrand S, Båth B, Mårtensson A (2007) Influence of various forms of green manure amendment on soil microbial community composition, enzyme activity and nutrient levels in leek. Appl Soil Ecol 36:70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2006.11.001

Emerson WW (1995) Water-retention, organic-C and soil texture. Aust J Soil Res 33:241–251. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR9950241

European Commission (EC) (2019) Communication from the Commission. The European Green Deal. Available on https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en . Accessed 5 November 2021.

Fageria N, Baligar V, Bailey B (2005) Role of cover crops in improving soil and row crop productivity. Commun Soil Sci Plan 36:2733–2757. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103620500303939

Francis GS, Bartley KM, Tabley FJ (1998) The effect of winter cover crop management on nitrate leaching losses and crop growth. J Agric Sci 131:299–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859698005899

Francioli D, Schulz E, Lentendu G, Wubet T, Buscot F, Reitz T (2016) Mineral vs. organic amendments: microbial community structure, activity and abundance of agriculturally relevant microbes are driven by long-term fertilization strategies. Front Microbiol 7:1446. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01446

Gabriel JL, Quemada M, Martín-Lammerding D, Vanclooster M (2019) Assessing the cover crop effect on soil hydraulic properties by inverse modelling in a 10-year field trial. Agric Water Manag 222:62–71

Gatsios A, Ntatsi G, Celi L, Said-Pullicino D, Tampakaki A, Savvas D (2021) Legume-based mobile green manure can increase soil nitrogen availability and yield of organic greenhouse tomatoes. Plants 10(11):2419. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112419

Geisseler D, Scow KM (2014) Long-term effects of mineral fertilizers on soil microorganisms–a review. Soil Biol Biochem 75:54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.03.023

Gitari HI, Karanja NN, Gachene CKK, Kamau S, Sharma K, Schulte-Geldermann E (2018) Nitrogen and phosphorous uptake by potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) and their use efficiency under potato-legume intercropping systems. Field Crop Res 222:78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.03.019

Gomez-Roldan V, Fermas S, Brewer PB, Puech-Pagès V, Dun EA, Pillot JP, Letisse F, Matusova R, Danoun S, Portais JC, Bouwmeester H, Bécard G, Beveridge CA, Rameau C, Rochange SF (2008) Strigolactone inhibition of shoot branching. Nature 455:189–194. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07271

Grand R, Delatouche R (1968) Storia agraria del Medioevo. Il saggiatore, Milano, Italy

Hammermeister AM (2016) Organic weed management in perennial fruits. Sci Hortic-Amsterdam 208:28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.02.004

Hartwig NL, Ammon HU (2002) Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Sci 50:688–699. https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0688:AIACCA]2.0.CO;2

Haruna SI, Anderson SH, Udawatta RP, Gantzer CJ, Phillips NC, Cui S, Gao Y (2020) Improving soil physical properties through the use of cover crops: a review. Agrosyst Geosci Environ 3:e20105. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20105

Hirpa T (2013) Effect of stage at termination of legume green manures on soil organic carbon, yield and economic performance of subsequent maize crop. Int J Curr Res Acad Rev 1:84–101

CAS   Google Scholar  

Housman M, Tallman S, Jones C, Miller P, Zabinski C (2021) Soil biological response to multi-species cover crops in the Northern Great Plains. Agric Ecosyst Environ 313:107373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107373

Hudson BD (1994) Soil organic matter and available water capacity. J Soil Water Conserv 49:189–194

Huntington TG (2020) Soil: organic matter and available water capacity. In: Wang Y (ed) Encyclopedia of Natural Resources - Land - Volume I. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 273–281

Ingels CA, Klonsky KM (1998) Historical and current uses. In: Ingels CA, Bugg RL, McGourty GT, Christensen LP (eds) Cover cropping in vineyards: a grower's handbook. University of California, DANR, USA, pp 3–7

Jahanzad E, Barker AV, Hashemi M, Sadeghpour A, Eaton T, Park Y (2017) Improving yield and mineral nutrient concentration of potato tubers through cover cropping. Field Crop Res 212:45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.06.023

Justes E, Beaudoin N, Bertuzzi P, Charles R, Constantin J, Dür C (2012) The use of cover crops in the reduction of nitrate leaching: impact on the water and nitrogen balance and other ecosystem services. Summary of the Study Report. Institut Nationale de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Paris, France, p 60

Kahimba F, Ranjan RS, Froese J, Entz M, Nason R (2008) Cover crop effects on infiltration, soil temperature, and soil moisture distribution in the Canadian Prairies. Appl Eng Agric 24:321–333. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.24502

Kaspar T, Singer J (2011) The use of cover crops to manage soil. In: Hatfield J, Sauer T (eds) Soil management: building a stable base for agriculture. Am Soc Agron, Soil Sci Soc Am, Madison, WI, pp 321–337. https://doi.org/10.2136/2011.soilmanagement.c21

Kaye J, Finney D, White C, Bradley B, Schipanski M, Alonso-Ayuso M, Hunter M, Burgess M, Mejia C (2019) Managing nitrogen through cover crop species selection in the U.S. mid-Atlantic. PLoS One 14(4):e0215448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215448

Kaye JP, Quemada M (2017) Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 37:4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0410-x

Keisling TC, Scott HD, Waddle BA, Williams W, Frans RE (1994) Winter cover crops influence on cotton yield and selected soil properties. Commun Soil Sci Plan 25:3087–3100

Korucu T, Shipitalo MJ, Kaspar TC (2018) Rye cover crop increases earthworm populations and reduces losses of broadcast, fall-applied, fertilizers in surface runoff. Soil Tillage Res 180:99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.03.004

Krueger ES, Ochsner TE, Porter PM, Baker JM (2011) Winter rye cover crop management influences on soil water, soil nitrate, and corn development. Agron J 103:316–323. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2010.0327

Kumar L, Meena NL, Singh U (2016) Role of phytosiderophores in acquisition of iron and other micronutrients in food legumes. In: Singh U, Praharaj C, Singh S, Singh N (eds) Biofortification of food crops. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2716-8_21

Kuo S, Jellum EJ (2002) Influence of winter cover crop and residue management on soil nitrogen availability and corn. Agron J 94:501–508. https://doi.org/10.2134/agron.j2002.5010

Kuzyakov Y (2010) Priming effects: Interactions between living and dead organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1363–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.04.003

Kuzyakov Y, Blagodatskaya E (2015) Microbial hotspots and hot moments in soil: concept & review. Soil Biol Biochem 83:184–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.025

Latati M, Dokukin P, Aouiche A, Rebouh NY, Takouachet R, Hafnaoui E et al (2019) Species interactions improve above-ground biomass and land use efficiency in intercropped wheat and chickpea under low soil inputs. Agronomy 9(11):765. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9110765

Lee KE (1985) Earthworms: their ecology and relationships with soils and land use. Academic Press, New York, Unites States

Lemessa F, Wakjira M (2015) Cover crops as a means of ecological weed management in agroecosystems. J Crop Sci Biotechnol 18:123–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12892-014-0085-2

Li L, Zhang F, Li X, Christie P, Sun J, Yang S, Tang C (2003) Interspecific facilitation of nutrient uptake by intercropped maize and faba bean. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 65:61–71. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021885032241

Liu YX, Sun JH, Zhang FF, Li L (2020) The plasticity of root distribution and nitrogen uptake contributes to recovery of maize growth at late growth stages in wheat/maize intercropping. Plant Soil 447:39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04034-9

Lombardo S, Restuccia A, Abbate C, Anastasi U, Fontanazza S, Scavo A, Guarnaccia P, La Malfa S, Pandino G, Mauromicale G (2021) Trifolium subterraneum cover cropping for improving the nutritional status of a Mediterranean apricot orchard. J Sci Food Agric 101:3767–3777. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11009

Ludwig B, Geisseler D, Michel K, Joergensen RG, Schulz E, Merbach I, Raupp J, Rauber R, Hu K, Niu L, Liu X (2011) Effects of fertilization and soil management on crop yields and carbon stabilization in soils. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 31:361–372. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2010030

Maja MM, Ayano SF (2021) The impact of population growth on natural resources and farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change in low-income countries. Earth Syst Environ 5:271–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-021-00209-6

Marschner H (1995) Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic Press, London, UK

Marsh K, Daly MJ, McCarthy TP (1996) The effect of understory management on soil fertility, tree nutrition, fruit production and apple fruit quality. Biol Agric Hortic 13:161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.1996.9754775

Massaccesi L, Rondoni G, Tosti G, Conti E, Guiducci M, Agnelli A (2020) Soil functions are affected by transition from conventional to organic mulch-based cropping system. Appl Soil Ecol 153:103639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103639

Maughan MW, Flores JPC, Anghinoni I, Bollero J, Fernández FG, Tracy BF (2009) Soil quality and corn yield under crop–livestock integration in Illinois. Agron J 101:1503–1510. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.0068

Mauro RP, Anastasi U, Lombardo S, Pandino G, Pesce GR, Alessia R, Mauromicale G (2015) Cover crops for managing weeds, soil chemical fertility and nutritional status of organically grown orange orchard in Sicily. Ital J Agron 10:101–104. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2015.641

Mauro RP, Pesce GR, Mauromicale G (2013) The role of cover crops in agro-ecosystems management. In: Taab A (ed) Weeds and their Ecological Functions. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., NY, USA, pp 115–152

Melkonian J, Poffenbarger HJ, Mirsky SB, Ryan MR, MoebiusClune BN (2017) Estimating nitrogen mineralization from cover crop mixtures using the precision nitrogen management model. Agron J 109:1944–1959. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.06.0330

Menesatti P, Antonucci F, Pallottino F, Roccuzzo G, Allegra M, Stagno F, Intrigliolo F (2010) Estimation of plant nutritional status by Vis–NIR spectrophotometric analysis on orange leaves [ Citrus sinensis (L) Osbeck cv Tarocco]. Biosyst Eng 105:448–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2010.01.003

Meyer N, Bergez JE, Constantin J, Belleville P, Justes E (2020) Cover crops reduce drainage but not always soil water content due to interactions between rainfall distribution and management. Agric Water Manag 231:105998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105998

Meyer N, Bergez JE, Constantin J, Justes E (2019) Cover crops reduce water drainage in temperate climates: a meta-analysis. Agron Sustain Dev 39:3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0546-y

Mirsky SB, Curran WS, Mortenseny DM, Ryany MR, Shumway DL (2011) Timing of cover-crop management effects on weed suppression in no-till planted soybean using a roller-crimper. Weed Sci 59:380–389. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-10-00101.1

Mohammed S, Hassan E, Abdo HG, Szabo S, Mokhtar A, Alsafadi K, Al-Khouri I, Rodrigo-Comino J (2021) Impacts of rainstorms on soil erosion and organic matter for different cover crop systems in the western coast agricultural region of Syria. Soil Use Manag 37:196–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12683

Moller K, Stinner W, Leithold G (2008) Growth, composition, biological N2 fixation and nutrient uptake of a leguminous cover crop mixture and the effect of their removal on field nitrogen balances and nitrate leaching risk. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 82:233–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-008-9182-2

Moncada KM, Sheaffer CC (2010) Winter cover crops. In: Risk management guide for organic producers. Moncada KM, Sheaffer CC (eds). University of Minnesota, St. Paul., USA

Morimoto S, Uchida T, Matsunami H (2018) Effect of winter wheat cover cropping with no-till cultivation on the community structure of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonizing the subsequent soybean. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 64:545–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2018.1486171

Muhammad I, Wang J, Sainju UM, Zhang S, Zhao F, Khan A (2021) Cover cropping enhances soil microbial biomass and affects microbial community structure: a meta-analysis. Geoderma 381:114696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114696

Nielsen DC, Vigil MF (2005) Legume green fallow effect on soil water content at wheat planting and wheat yield. Agron J 97:684–689. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0071

Osipitan OA, Dille JA, Assefa Y, Radicetti E, Ayeni A, Knezevic SZ (2019) Impact of cover crop management on level of weed suppression: a meta-analysis. Crop Sci 59:833–842. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2018.09.0589

Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1633–1644. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007

Pérez-Álvarez EP, Pérez-Sotés JL, García-Escudero E, Peregrina F (2013) Cover crop short-term effects on soil NO 3 − -N availability, nitrogen nutritional status, yield, and must quality in a calcareous vineyard of the AOC Rioja, Spain. Commun Soil Sci Plan 44:711–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2013.748122

Pieters AJ (1927) Green manuring. Willey, New York, USA

Quemada M, Baranski M, Nobel-De Lange M, Vallejo A, Cooper J (2013) Meta-analysis of strategies to control nitrate leaching in irrigated agricultural systems and their effects on crop yield. Agric Ecosyst Environ 174:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.018

Ramírez-García J, Carrillo JM, Ruiz M, Alonso-Ayuso M, Quemada M (2015) Multicriteria decision analysis applied to cover crop species and cultivars selection. Field Crop Res 175:106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.02.008

Ramirez-Garcia J, Martens HJ, Quemada M, Thorup-Kristensen K (2015) Intercropping effect on root growth and nitrogen uptake at different nitrogen levels. J Plant Ecol 8:380–389. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtu024

Rasmussen PE, Goulding KWT, Brown JR, Grace PR, Janzen HH, Körschens M (1998) Long-term agroecosystem experiments: assessing agricultural sustainability and global change. Science 282:893–896. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5390.893

Reeves D (1994) Cover crops and rotations. In: Hatfield JL, Stewart BA (eds) Crop residue management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 125–172. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351071246

Reinbott TM, Conley SP, Blevins DG (2004) No-tillage corn and grain sorghum response to cover crop and nitrogen fertilization. Agron J 96:1158–1163. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.1158

Restuccia A, Scavo A, Lombardo S, Pandino G, Fontanazza S, Anastasi U, Abbate C, Mauromicale G (2020) Long-term effect of cover crops on species abundance and diversity of weed flora. Plants 9(11):1506. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111506

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rocha KF, Kuramae EE, Borges BMF, Leite MFA, Rosolem CA (2020) Microbial N-cycling gene abundance is affected by cover crop specie and development stage in an integrated cropping system. Arch Microbiol 202:2005–2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-020-01910-2

Rodrigues MÂ, Correia CM, Claro AM, Ferreira IQ, Barbosa JC, Moutinho-Pereira JM, Bachelar EA, Fernandes-Silva AA, Arrobas M (2013) Soil nitrogen availability in olive orchards after mulching legume cover crop residues. Sci Hortic-Amsterdam 158:45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.04.035

Romdhane S, Spor A, Busset H, Falchetto L, Martin J, Bizouard F, Bru D, Breuil M-C, Philippot L, Cordeau S (2019) Cover crop management practices rather than composition of cover crop mixtures affect bacterial communities in no-till agroecosystems. Front Microbiol 10:1618. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01618

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Römheld V (2012) Diagnosis of deficiency and toxicity of nutrients. In: Marschner P (ed) Marschner's mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic Press, UK, pp 299–312

Rosecrance RC, McCarty GW, Shelton DR, Teasdale JR (2000) Denitrification and N mineralization from hairy vetch ( Vicia villosa Roth) and rye ( Secale cereale L.) cover crop monocultures and bicultures. Plant Soil 227:283–290. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026582012290

Saltini A (1984) Storia delle scienze agrarie. Edagricole, Bologna

Saxton KE, Rawls WJ (2006) Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70(5):1569–1578. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0117

Scavo A, Abbate C, Mauromicale G (2019) Plant allelochemicals: agronomic, nutritional and ecological relevance in the soil system. Plant Soil 442:23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04190-y

Scavo A, Mauromicale G (2020) Integrated weed management in herbaceous field crops. Agronomy 10(4):466. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040466

Scavo A, Mauromicale G (2021) Crop allelopathy for sustainable weed management in agroecosystems: knowing the present with a view to the future. Agronomy 1(11):2104. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112104

Scavo A, Restuccia A, Abbate C, Lombardo S, Fontanazza S, Pandino G, Anastasi U, Mauromicale G (2021) Trifolium subterraneum cover cropping enhances soil fertility and weed seedbank dynamics in a Mediterranean apricot orchard. Agron Sustain Dev 41:70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00721-

Scavo A, Restuccia A, Lombardo S, Fontanazza S, Abbate C, Pandino G, Anastasi U, Onofri A, Mauromicale G (2020) Improving soil health, weed management and nitrogen dynamics by Trifolium subterraneum cover cropping. Agron Sustain Dev 40:18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00621-8

Scow KM, Werner MR (1998) Soil ecology. In: Ingels CA, Bugg RL, McGourty GT, Christensen LP (eds) Cover cropping in vineyards: a grower's handbook. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, California, USA, pp 69–79

Semple EC (1928a) Ancient Mediterranean agriculture: Part II. Manuring and seed selection. Agric Hist 2(3):129–156

Semple EC (1928b) Ancient Mediterranean Agriculture: Part I. Agric Hist 2(2):61–98

Seo J-H, Lee H-J, Hur I-B, Kim S-J, Kim C-K, Jo H-S (2000) Use of hairy vetch green manure as nitrogen fertilizer for corn production. Korean J Crop Sci 45:294–299

Sharma P, Singh A, Kahlon CS, Brar AS, Grover KK, Dia M, Steiner RL (2018) The role of cover crops towards sustainable soil health and agriculture – a review paper. Am J Plant Sci 9:1935–1951. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2018.99140

Shelton DR, Sadeghi AM, McCarty GW (2000) Effects of soil water content on denitrification during cover crop decomposition. Soil Sci 165:365–371

Shen F-T, Lin S-H (2021) Priming effects of cover cropping on bacterial community in a tea plantation. Sustainability 13:4345. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084345

Subbarao GV, Rondon M, Ito O, Ishikawa T, Rao IM, Nakahara K, Lascano C, Berry WL (2007) Biological nitrification inhibition (BNI)–is it a widespread phenomenon? Plant Soil 294:5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-006-9159-3

Tahir II, Svensson S-E, Hansson D (2015) Floor management systems in an organic apple orchard affect fruit quality and storage life. Hort Sci 50:434–441. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.50.3.434

Thapa R, Tully KL, Cabrera M, Dann C, Schomberg HH, Timlin D, Gaskin J, Reberg-Horton C, Mirsky SB (2021a) Cover crop residue moisture content controls diurnal variations in surface residue decomposition. Agric For Meteorol 308–309:108537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108537

Thapa R, Tully KL, Cabrera ML, Dann C, Schomberg HH, Timlin D, Reberg-Horton C, Gaskin J, Davis BW, Mirsky SB (2021b) Effects of moisture and temperature on C and N mineralization from surface-applied cover crop residues. Biol Fertil Soils 57:485–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-021-01543-7

Thavarajah D, Siva N, Johnson N, McGee R, Thavarajah P (2019) Effect of cover crops on the yield and nutrient concentration of organic kale ( Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala ). Sci Rep-UK 9:10374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46847-9

Thorup-Kristensen K, Magid J, Jensen LS (2003) Catch crops and green manures as biological tools in nitrogen management in temperate zones. Adv Agron 79:227–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(02)79005-6

Tosti G, Benincasa P, Farneselli M, Tei F, Guiducci M (2014) Barley–hairy vetch mixture as cover crop for green manuring and the mitigation of N leaching risk. Eur J Agron 54:34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.11.012

Tosti G, Guiducci M (2010) Durum wheat–faba bean temporary intercropping: Effects on nitrogen supply and wheat quality. Eur J Agron 33:157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2010.05.001

Tribouillois H, Cohan JP, Justes E (2016) Cover crop mixtures including legume produce ecosystem services of nitrate capture and green manuring: assessment combining experimentation and modelling. Plant Soil 401:347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2734-8

Tribouillois H, Constantin J, Justes E (2018) Analysis and modeling of cover crop emergence: accuracy of a static model and the dynamic STICS soil-crop model. Eur J Agron 93:73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.12.004

Unger PW, Vigil MF (1998) Cover crop effects on soil water relationships. J Soil Water Conserv 53:200–207

United Nation (UN) (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York. Available on https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/ . Accessed 5 November 2021

Valentinuzzi F, Cesco S, Tomasi N, Mimmo T (2016) Effect of aluminium exposure on the release of organic acids and genistein from the roots of Lupinus albus L. plants. Rhizosphere 1:29–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2016.07.002

Van der Heijden MGA, Bardgett RD, Van Straalen NM (2008) The unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 11:296–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01139.x

Varela MF, Barraco M, Gili A, Taboada MA, Rubio G (2017) Biomass decomposition and phosphorus release from residues of cover crops under no-tillage. Agron J 109:317–326. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.03.0168

Villamil MB, Bollero GA, Darmody RG, Simmons FW, Bullock DG (2006) No-till corn/soybean systems including winter cover crops: effects on soil properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1936–1944. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0350

Vincent-Caboud L, Casagrande M, David C, Ryan MR, Silva EM, Peigne J (2019) Using mulch from cover crops to facilitate organic no-till soybean and maize production. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 39:45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0590-2

Vukicevich E, Lowery T, Bowen P, Úrbez-Torres JR, Hart M (2016) Cover crops to increase soil microbial diversity and mitigate decline in perennial agriculture. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 36:48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0385-7

Wagg C, Bender SF, Widmer F, van der Heijden MG (2014) Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111:5266–5270. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320054111

Wang B, Qiu YL (2006) Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants. Mycorrhiza 16:299–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-005-0033-6

Williams A, Wells MS, Dickey DA, Hu S, Maul J, Raskin DT, Reberg-Horton SC, Mirsky SB (2018) Establishing the relationship of soil nitrogen immobilization to cereal rye residues in a mulched system. Plant Soil 426:95–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-018-3566-0

Wortman SE, Francis C, Lindquist JL (2012) Cover crop mixtures for the western Corn Belt: opportunities for increased productivity and stability. Agron J 104:699–705. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2011.0422

Xiao X, Cheng Z, Meng H, Liu L, Li H, Dong Y (2013) Intercropping of green garlic ( Allium sativum L.) induces nutrient concentration changes in the soil and plants in continuously cropped cucumber ( Cucumis sativus L.) in a plastic tunnel. PLoS One 8(4):e62173. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062173

Yoneyama K, Xie X, Sekimoto H, Takeuchi Y, Ogasawara S, Akiyama K, Hayashi K, Yoneyama K (2008) Strigolactones, host recognition signals for root parasitic plants and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, from Fabaceae plants. New Phytol 179:484–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02462.x

Zadoks JC (2013) Crop protection in Medieval agriculture: studies in pre-modern organic agriculture. Sidestone Press, Leiden

Zhang R, Meng L, Li Y, Wang X, Ogundeji AO, Li X, Sang P, Mu Y, Wu H, Li S (2021) Yield and nutrient uptake dissected through complementarity and selection effects in the maize/soybean intercropping. Food Energy Secur 10:379–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.282

Zhu Y-G, Michael Miller R (2003) Carbon cycling by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in soil–plant systems. Trends Plant Sci 8:407–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(03)00184-5

Zuo Y, Zhang F, Li X, Cao Y (2000) Studies on the improvement in iron nutrition of peanut by intercropping with maize on a calcareous soil. Plant Soil 220:13–25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004724219988

Download references

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Catania within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment (Di3A), University of Catania, via Valdisavoia, 5, 95123, Catania, Italy

Aurelio Scavo, Stefania Fontanazza, Alessia Restuccia, Gaetano Roberto Pesce, Cristina Abbate & Giovanni Mauromicale

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S., G.R.P and G.M; Resources, A.S., G.R.P, S.F., C.A., A.R. and G.M.; Writing – original draft, Review & Editing, A.S. and G.R.P; Supervision, G.M. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaetano Roberto Pesce .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, consent to participate, consent for publication, conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team .

About this article

Scavo, A., Fontanazza, S., Restuccia, A. et al. The role of cover crops in improving soil fertility and plant nutritional status in temperate climates. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42 , 93 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00825-0

Download citation

Accepted : 12 August 2022

Published : 05 September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00825-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cover cropping
• Soil health
• Crop nutritional status
• Cover crop management
• Soil microorganisms
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Advancing intercropping research and practices in industrialized agricultural landscapes.

1. Introduction

2. fundamentals of intercropping, 2.1. types of intercropping, 2.2. mechanisms, 2.3. benefits of intercropping, 2.3.1. productivity and yield stability, 2.3.2. pest reduction, 2.3.3. soil health, 3. examples of successful intercropping systems, 3.1. grass-legume hay, 3.2. winter wheat and red clover, 3.3. cover crop mixtures, 4. considerations for research and practice, 4.1. fundamental measurements, 4.1.1. species selection and seeding rates, 4.1.2. evenness and crop growth rate, 4.1.3. stability, 4.2. quantifying complementarity, 4.2.1. replacement and additive experimental designs, 4.2.2. comparing intercrops to monocultures, 4.2.3. response surface experimental designs, 4.2.4. parsing out intra- and interspecific competition, 4.3. standardizing data collection, 4.4. temporal and spatial aspects of complementarity and multifunctionality, 4.5. balancing multifunctionality and management complexity, 5. understanding the socio-political context of adoption through cover crop mixtures, 5.1. government, 5.2. advocacy, 5.3. private sector, 5.4. cultural change with technological tools., 6. conclusions, author contributions, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Loos, J.; Abson, D.J.; Chappell, M.J.; Hanspach, J.; Mikulcak, F.; Tichit, M.; Fischer, J. Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014 , 12 , 356–361. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Struik, P.C.; Kuyper, T.W. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: The richer shade of green. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017 , 37 , 39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Litrico, I.; Violle, C. Diversity in plant breeding: A new conceptual framework. Trends Plant Sci. 2015 , 20 , 604–613. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mt. Pleasant, J.; Burt, R.F. Estimating productivity of traditional Iroquoian cropping systems from field experiments and historical literature. J. Ethnobiol. 2010 , 30 , 52–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duchene, O.; Vian, J-F.; Celette, F. Intercropping with legume for agroecological cropping systems: Complementarity and facilitation processes and the importance of soil microorganisms: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017 , 240 , 148–161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brooker, R.W.; Bennett, A.E.; Cong, W-F.; Daniell, T.J.; George, T.S.; Hallett, P.D.; Hawes, C.; Iannetta, P.P.M.; Jones, H.G.; Karley, A.J.; et al. Improving intercropping: A synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol. 2015 , 206 , 107–117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Cadotte, M.W.; Cavender-Bares, J.; Tilman, D.; Oakley, T.H. Using phylogenetic, functional and trait diversity to understand patterns of plant community productivity. PLoS ONE 2009 , 4 , e5695. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Borg, J.; Kiær, L.P.; Lecarpentier, C.; Goldringer, I.; Gauffreteau, A.; Saint-Jean, S.; Barot, S.; Enjalbert, J. Unfolding the potential of wheat cultivar mixtures: A meta-analysis perspective and identification of knowledge gaps. Field Crops Res. 2017 , 221 , 298–313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chateil, C.; Goldringer, I.; Tarallo, L.; Kerbiriou, C.; Le Viol, I.; Ponge, J.-F.; Salmon, S.; Gachet, S.; Porcher, E. Crop genetic diversity benefits farmland biodiversity in cultivated fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013 , 171 , 25–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Smithson, J.B.; Lenné, J.M. Varietal mixtures: A viable strategy for sustainable productivity in subsistence agriculture. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1996 , 128 , 127–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tooker, J.F.; Frank, S.D. Genotypically diverse cultivar mixtures for insect pest management and increased crop yields. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012 , 49 , 974–985. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Reiss, E.R.; Drinkwater, L.E. Cultivar mixtures: A meta-analysis of the effect of intraspecific diversity on crop yield. Ecol. Appl. 2018 , 28 , 62–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bybee-Finley, K.A.; Mirsky, S.B.; Ryan, M.R. Functional diversity in summer annual grass and legume intercrops in the northeastern United States. Crop Sci. 2016 , 56 , 2775. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raseduzzaman, M.; Jensen, E.S. Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 2017 , 91 , 25–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williamson, J. Extending the Grazing Season—Preparing for the Summer Slump. Available online: https://extension.psu.edu/extending-the-grazing-season-preparing-for-the-summer-slump (accessed on 8 March 2018).
• Liebman, M.; Dyck, E. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 1993 , 3 , 92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Verret, V.; Gardarin, A.; Pelzer, E.; Médiène, S.; Makowski, D.; Valantin-Morison, M. Can legume companion plants control weeds without decreasing crop yield? A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2017 , 204 , 158–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tonhasca, A.; Byrne, D.N. The effects of crop diversification on herbivorous insects: A meta-analysis approach. Ecol. Entomol. 1994 , 19 , 239–244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Langellotto, G.A.; Denno, R.F. Responses of invertebrate natural enemies to complex-structured habitats: A meta-analytical synthesis. Oecologia 2004 , 139 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Boudreau, M.A. Diseases in intercropping fystems. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2013 , 51 , 499–519. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Khan, Z.; Midega, C.; Pittchar, J.; Pickett, J.; Bruce, T. Push-pull technology: A conservation agriculture approach for integrated management of insect pests, weeds and soil health in Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2011 , 9 , 162–170. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eigenbrode, S.D.; Birch, A.N.E.; Lindzey, S.; Meadow, R.; Snyder, W.E. Review: A mechanistic framework to improve understanding and applications of push-pull systems in pest management. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016 , 53 , 202–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• How Push-Pull Works: A Platform Technology for Improving Livelihoods of Resource Poor Farmers. Available online: http://www.push-pull.net/how_it_works.shtml (accessed on 17 March 2018).
• Sanderson, M.A.; Archer, D.; Hendrickson, J.; Kronberg, S.; Liebig, M.; Nichols, K.; Schmer, M.; Tanaka, D.; Aguilar, J. Diversification and ecosystem services for conservation agriculture: Outcomes from pastures and integrated crop–livestock systems. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2013 , 28 , 129–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lemaire, G.; Franzluebbers, A.; de Faccio Carvalho, P.C.; Dedieu, B. Integrated crop–livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014 , 190 , 4–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cong, W.-F.; Hoffland, E.; Li, L.; Six, J.; Sun, J.-H.; Bao, X.-G.; Zhang, F.-S.; Van Der Werf, W. Intercropping enhances soil carbon and nitrogen. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015 , 21 , 1715–1726. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vukicevich, E.; Lowery, T.; Bowen, P.; Urbez-Torres, J.R.; Hart, M. Cover crops to increase soil microbial diversity and mitigate decline in perennial agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016 , 36 , 48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chapman, D.F.; Parsons, A.J.; Schwinning, S. Management of clover in grazed pastures: Expectations, limitations and opportunities. Spec. Publ.-Agron. Soc. N. Z. 1996 , 11 , 55–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang, Y.; Yu, L.; Guan, A.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Z.; Gou, Y.; Wang, J. Soil mineral nitrogen and yield-scaled soil N 2 O emissions lowered by reducing nitrogen application and intercropping with soybean for sweet maize production in southern China. J. Integr. Agric. 2017 , 16 , 2586–2596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tilman, D.; Reich, P.B.; Knops, J.; Wedin, D.; Mielke, T.; Lehman, C. Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 2001 , 294 , 843–845. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Picasso, V.D.; Brummer, E.C.; Liebman, M.; Dixon, P.M.; Wilsey, B.J. Crop species diversity affects productivity and weed suppression in perennial polycultures under two management strategies. Crop Sci. 2008 , 48 , 331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barnes, R.F.; Nelson, C.J.; Collins, M.; Moore, K.J. (Eds.) Forages, Volume 1: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture , 6th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, IA, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-0-8138-0421-7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alfalfa-Grass Mixtures Are Complex. Available online: https://hayandforage.com/article-permalink-1578.html (accessed on 28 December 2017).
• Cherney, J.J. Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, Unpublished work. 2018.
• Gaudin, A.C.M.; Westra, S.; Loucks, C.E.S.; Janovicek, K.; Martin, R.C.; Deen, W. Improving resilience of northern field crop systems using inter-seeded red clover: A review. Agronomy 2013 , 3 , 148–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schipanski, M.E.; Drinkwater, L.E. Nitrogen fixation of red clover interseeded with winter cereals across a management-induced fertility gradient. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2011 , 90 , 105–119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schipanski, M.E.; Barbercheck, M.; Douglas, M.R.; Finney, D.M.; Haider, K.; Kaye, J.P.; Kemanian, A.R.; Mortensen, D.A.; Ryan, M.R.; Tooker, J.; et al. A framework for evaluating ecosystem services provided by cover crops in agroecosystems. Agric. Syst. 2014 , 125 , 12–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• CTIC. Report of the 2016-17 National Cover Crop Survey. Joint publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center, the North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, and the American Seed Trade Association. West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2017. Available online: https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/From-the-Field/North-Central-SARE-From-the-Field/2017-Cover-Crop-Survey-Analysis (accessed on 28 December 2017).
• Kuykendall, M.B. Biomass Production and Changes in Soil Water with Cover Crop Species and Mixtures Following no-Till Winter Wheat. Master’s Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Groff, S. Mixtures and cocktails: Soil is meant to be covered. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2008 , 63 , 110A–111A. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• USDA NRCS East National Technology Support Center Under Cover Farmers—Feature Length. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWXCLVCJWTU&t=3s (accessed on 28 December 2017).
• Finney, D.M.; White, C.M.; Kaye, J.P. Biomass production and carbon/nitrogen ratio influence ecosystem services from cover crop mixtures. Agron. J. 2016 , 108 , 39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berglund, D.R. Buckwheat Production. Available online: https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/crops/a687.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2017).
• Connolly, J.; Wayne, P.; Bazzaz, F.A.; Gaines, A.E.S.D. Interspecific competition in plants: How well do current methods answer fundamental questions? Am. Nat. 2001 , 157 , 107–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Grace, J.B.; Keough, J.; Guntenspergen, G.R. Size bias in traditional analyses of substitutive competition experiments. Oecologia 1992 , 90 , 429–434. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Poffenbarger, H.J.; Mirsky, S.B.; Teasdale, J.R.; Spargo, J.T.; Cavigelli, M.A.; Kramer, M. Nitrogen competition between corn and weeds in soils under organic and conventional management. Weed Sci. 2015 , 63 , 461–476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berzsenyi, Z.; Gy-Horffy, B.; Lap, D. Effect of crop rotation and fertilisation on maize and wheat yields and yield stability in a long-term experiment. Eur. J. Agron. 2000 , 13 , 225–244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Finlay, K.W.; Wilkinson, G.N. The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Crop Pasture Sci. 1963 , 14 , 742–754. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Grover, K.K.; Karsten, H.D.; Roth, G.W. Corn grain yields and yield stability in four long-term cropping systems. Agron. J. 2009 , 101 , 940. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weigelt, A.; Jolliffe, P. Indices of plant competition. J. Ecol. 2003 , 91 , 707–720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bedoussac, L.; Justes, E. A comparison of commonly used indices for evaluating species interactions and intercrop efficiency: Application to durum wheat–winter pea intercrops. Field Crops Res. 2011 , 124 , 25–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cousens, R. Design and interpretation of interference studies: Are some methods totally unacceptable? N. Z. J. For. Sci. 1996 , 26 , 5–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mead, R.; Willey, R.W. The concept of a “land equivalent ratio” and advantages in yields from intercropping. Exp. Agric. 1980 , 16 , 217–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Wit, T.C. On Competition ; Pudoc: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1960; p. 82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Inouye, B.D. Response surface experimental designs for investigating interspecific competition. Ecology 2001 , 82 , 2696–2706. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Willey, R.W.; Heath, S.B. The quantitative relationships between plant population and crop yield. In Advances in Agronomy ; Brady, N.C., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1969; Volume 21, pp. 281–321. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spitters, C.J.T. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 1983 , 31 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helenius, J.; Jokinen, K. Yield advantage and competition in intercropped oats ( Avena sativa L.) and faba bean ( V icia faba L.): Application of the hyperbolic yield-density model. Field Crops Res. 1994 , 37 , 85–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Connolly, J. On the use of response models in mixture experiments. Oecologia 1987 , 72 , 95–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tow, P.G.; Lazenby, A. Competition and Succession in Pastures ; CABI: New York, NY, USA, 2000; ISBN 978-0-85199-703-2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Federer, W.T. Statistical Design and Analysis for Intercropping Experiments: Volume 1: Two Crops ; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; ISBN 978-1-4613-9305-4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piwowar, H.A.; Day, R.S.; Fridsma, D.B. Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS ONE 2007 , 2 , e308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Search|re3data.org. Available online: https://www.re3data.org/search?query=agriculture (accessed on 17 March 2018).
• Data Management Planning|Research Data Management Service Group. Available online: https://data.research.cornell.edu/content/data-management-planning (accessed on 17 March 2018).
• The Organization—Dryad. Available online: https://datadryad.org/pages/organization (accessed on 17 March 2018).
• KNB. Available online: https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/#about (accessed on 17 March 2018).
• Data Publisher for Earth & Environmental Science. Available online: https://www.pangaea.de/ (accessed on 17 March 2018).
• Home|National Agricultural Library. Available online: https://data.nal.usda.gov/ (accessed on 17 March 2018).
• Smith, R.G.; Atwood, L.W.; Warren, N.D. Increased productivity of a cover crop mixture is not associated with enhanced agroecosystem services. PLoS ONE 2014 , 9 , e97351. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bybee-Finley, K.A.; Mirsky, S.B.; Ryan, M.R. Crop biomass not species richness drives weed suppression in warm-season annual grass–legume intercrops in the northeast. Weed Sci. 2017 , 65 , 669–680. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Finney, D.M.; Kaye, J.P. Functional diversity in cover crop polycultures increases multifunctionality of an agricultural system. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017 , 54 , 509–517. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murrell, E.G.; Schipanski, M.E.; Finney, D.M.; Hunter, M.C.; Burgess, M.; LaChance, J.C.; Baraibar, B.; White, C.M.; Mortensen, D.A.; Kaye, J.P. Achieving diverse cover crop mixtures: Effects of planting date and seeding rate. Agron. J. 2017 , 109 , 259–271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tilman, D. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: A search for general principles 101. Ecology 1999 , 80 , 1455–1474. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hector, A.; Bagchi, R. Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 2007 , 448 , 188–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Naeem, S.; Duffy, J.E.; Zavaleta, E. The Functions of Biological Diversity in an Age of Extinction. Science 2012 , 336 , 1401–1406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schipanski, M.E.; Drinkwater, L.E. Nitrogen fixation in annual and perennial legume-grass mixtures across a fertility gradient. Plant Soil 2012 , 357 , 147–159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations , 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-0-7432-2209-9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Exner, D.N.; Davidson, D.G.; Ghaffarzadeh, M.; Cruse, R.M. Yields and returns from strip intercropping on six Iowa farms. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1999 , 14 , 69–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ledgard, S.F.; Steele, K.W. Biological nitrogen fixation in mixed legume/grass pastures. Plant Soil 1992 , 141 , 137–153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ledgard, S.F.; Freney, J.R.; Simpson, J.R. Assessing nitrogen transfer from legumes to associated grasses. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1985 , 17 , 575–577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardinale, B.J.; Matulich, K.L.; Hooper, D.U.; Byrnes, J.E.; Duffy, E.; Gamfeldt, L.; Balvanera, P.; O’Connor, M.I.; Gonzalez, A. The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am. J. Bot. 2011 , 98 , 572–592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Trenbath, B.R. Biomass productivity of mixtures. In Advances in Agronomy ; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974; Volume 26, pp. 177–210. ISBN 978-0-08-056339-8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cadotte, M.W.; Cardinale, B.J.; Oakley, T.H. Evolutionary history and the effect of biodiversity on plant productivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008 , 105 , 17012–17017. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Yu, Y.; Stomph, T.-J.; Makowski, D.; van der Werf, W. Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2015 , 184 , 133–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardinale, B.J.; Wright, J.P.; Cadotte, M.W.; Carroll, I.T.; Hector, A.; Srivastava, D.S.; Loreau, M.; Weis, J.J. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007 , 104 , 18123–18128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Therond, O.; Duru, M.; Roger-Estrade, J.; Richard, G. A new analytical framework of farming system and agriculture model diversities. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017 , 37 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Sanderson, M.A.; Brink, G.; Stout, R.; Ruth, L. Grass–legume proportions in forage seed mixtures and effects on herbage yield and weed abundance. Agron. J. 2013 , 105 , 1289. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Szumigalski, A.R.; Van Acker, R.C. The agronomic value of annual plant diversity in crop-weed systems. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2006 , 86 , 865–874. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ryan, M.R.; Crews, T.E.; Culman, S.W.; DeHaan, L.R.; Hayes, R.C.; Jungers, J.M.; Bakker, M.G. Managing for multifunctionality in perennial grain crops. BioScience 2018 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gonzalez-Ramirez, J.; Kling, C.; Arbuckle, J.G., Jr.; Wright-Morton, L.; McGuire, J.; Ingels, C.; Benning, J. Cover Crop Adoption Decisions in Iowa: Insights from an in-Person Survey CARD Agricultural Policy Review. Available online: https://www.card.iastate.edu/ag_policy_review/article/?a=67 (accessed on 23 April 2018).
• Roesch-McNally, G.; Basche, A.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Tyndall, J.; Miguez, F.; Bowman, T.; Clay, R. The trouble with cover crops: Farmers’ experiences with overcoming barriers to adoption. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2017 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dunn, M.; Ulrich-Schad, J.D.; Prokopy, L.S.; Myers, R.L.; Watts, C.R.; Scanlon, K. Perceptions and use of cover crops among early adopters: Findings from a national survey. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2016 , 71 , 29–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Plastina, A.; Liu, F.; Miguez, F.; Carlson, S. Cover crops use in midwestern US agriculture: Perceived benefits and net returns. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2018 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wade, T.; Claassen, R.L.; Wallander, S. Conservation-Practice Adoption Rates Vary Widely by Crop and Region ; United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
• Cover Crop Program. Available online: http://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/pages/cover_crop.aspx (accessed on 28 December 2017).
• Bryant, L. Iowa Breaks New Ground with Innovative Cover Crop Incentive. Available online: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-bryant/iowa-breaks-new-ground-innovative-cover-crop-incentive (accessed on 28 December 2017).
• MCCC—The Goal of the Midwest Cover Crops Council (MCCC) Is to Facilitate Widespread Adoption of Cover Crops throughout the Midwest, to Improve Ecological, Economic, and Social Sustainability. Available online: http://mccc.msu.edu/ (accessed on 28 December 2017).
• Mission, Vision, Values. Practical Farmers of Iowa. Available online: https://www.practicalfarmers.org/about/mission-vision-values/ (accessed on 14 February 2018).
• SARE, The Northeast Cover Crops Council: Building the Network and Online Decision Support Tools. Available online: https://projects.sare.org/sare_project/ene16-144/ (accessed on 14 February 2018).
• About CTIC. Available online: http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC%20HOME/ABOUT%20CTIC/ (accessed on 11 March 2018).
• Cover Crops. Available online: http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/Cover%20Crops/ (accessed on 11 March 2018).
• Roadmap-to-Increased-Cover-Crop-Production_Print.pdf. Available online: http://mccc.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Roadmap-to-Increased-Cover-Crop-Production_Print.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2017).
• About Us. Available online: http://soilhealthpartnership.org/about-us.html (accessed on 5 June 2018).
• Agriculture—Walmart Sustainability. Available online: https://www.walmartsustainabilityhub.com/project-gigaton/agriculture (accessed on 11 March 2018).
• Cover Crop Interseeder and Spplicator. Available online: https://extension.psu.edu/cover-crop-interseeder-and-applicator (accessed on 2 April 2018).
• Hagie Manufacturing Company. Available online: http://www.hagie.com/hagie_manuals.aspx?bd=Virtual|Manuals|Cover%20Crop%20Interseeder (accessed on 2 April 2018).
• Canadian Monster Drill Clean Seed Offers New Level of Seed Accuracy. Available online: https://www.futurefarming.com/Machinery/Articles/2018/2/Canadian-monster-drill-Clean-Seed-offers-new-level-of-seed-accuracy-3663WP/ (accessed on 2 April 2018).
• The CX-6 SMART Seeder—The New Benchmark in Precision Seeding. Available online: http://www.cx6smartseeder.com/home (accessed on 2 April 2018).
• Cover Crop Seeding Results on Earth Day. Available online: http://rowbot.com/blog-posts/2016/4/22/cover-crop-seeding-results-on-earth-day (accessed on 2 April 2018).
• Featured Articles—eXtension. Available online: http://articles.extension.org/ (accessed on 18 March 2018).

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Bybee-Finley, K.A.; Ryan, M.R. Advancing Intercropping Research and Practices in Industrialized Agricultural Landscapes. Agriculture 2018 , 8 , 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8060080

Bybee-Finley KA, Ryan MR. Advancing Intercropping Research and Practices in Industrialized Agricultural Landscapes. Agriculture . 2018; 8(6):80. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8060080

Bybee-Finley, K. Ann, and Matthew R. Ryan. 2018. "Advancing Intercropping Research and Practices in Industrialized Agricultural Landscapes" Agriculture 8, no. 6: 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8060080

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides

Academic regulations

Academic regulations for research degree provision 2024/25.

Last updated: 18 September 2024

• The Registration Period
• Registration
• Creative Works
• Published Work
• Supervision
• Assessment Offences
• The Examination
• The Candidate’s Responsibilities in the Examination Process
• Examination
• Right of Appeal
• Appendix One – Specimen thesis title page
• Appendix Two – Author’s Declaration example
• Appendix Three – Specimen front cover for final thesis

1. Principles

1.1. The University may award the degrees of Master of Arts by Research (MA by Research), Master of Science by Research (MSc by Research), Master of Research (MRes), Master of Philosophy (MPhil), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Doctor of Philosophy by Publication (PhD by Publication), Professional Doctorate and International Doctorate to registered candidates who successfully complete approved programmes of supervised research. Students enrolled for any of these programmes shall be considered research students.

1.2. Programmes of research may be proposed in any field of study within the competence of the University, provided that the proposed programme is capable of leading to scholarly work and to its presentation for assessment by appropriate examiners. The written thesis may be supplemented by material in other than written form. All proposed research programmes will be considered for research degree registration on their academic merits and without reference to the concerns or interests of any associated funding body.

1.3. The MSc by Research or MA by Research may be awarded to a candidate who has successfully completed an approved programme requiring completion of taught elements and whose thesis represents an independent contribution to knowledge. The thesis should demonstrate the investigation and evaluation or critical examination of an approved topic The candidate must present a thesis for assessment and be prepared to defend it by viva voce examination, or other approved alternative examination, to the satisfaction of the examiners. If both examiners produce individual reports to indicate that the thesis is of sufficient strength not to warrant a viva voce examination, the oral (or other approved alternative) examination may be dispensed with.

1.4. The MRes may be awarded to a candidate who has successfully completed an approved programme requiring completion of taught elements and whose thesis both reflects on research methods and represents an independent contribution to knowledge. The thesis should demonstrate the investigation and evaluation or critical examination of an approved topic. The candidate must present a thesis for assessment and normally be prepared to defend it by viva voce examination, or other approved alternative examination, to the satisfaction of the examiners.

1.5. The MPhil may be awarded to a candidate who has successfully completed an approved programme requiring completion of taught elements and whose thesis represents and independent, significant contribution to knowledge. The thesis should demonstrate the investigation and evaluation or critical examination of an approved topic, together with an understanding of research methods appropriate to the chosen field. The candidate must present a thesis and defend it by viva voce examination, or approved alternative examination, to the satisfaction of the examiners.

1.6. The PhD may be awarded to a candidate who has successfully completed a programme of scholarly research and whose thesis represents an independent, significant and original contribution to knowledge, or who has completed an integrated programme of study comprising advanced instructions as well as scholarly research demonstrated by thesis. The thesis should demonstrate the investigation and evaluation or critical evaluation of an approved topic, together with an understanding of research methods appropriate to the chosen field. The candidate must present a thesis and defend it by viva voce examination, or approved alternative examination, to the satisfaction of the examiners. The work, or elements of it, should be worthy of publication, may include a proportion of published work, and in the case of a practice based study may include artworks, performance and/or artefacts.

1.7. The PhD by Publication may be awarded to a candidate where the submission consists of previously published research of doctoral standard and the accompanying critical reflection and commentary on the submitted publications demonstrates their independent, significant and original contribution to knowledge and scholarly research.

1.8. An appropriately titled Professional Doctorate may be awarded to a candidate who has successfully completed an approved programme requiring completion of taught elements at advanced level and supervised, independent research of clear value, relevance and application to a defined area of professional practice, concluded by the submission of a thesis or approved alternative to be examined by viva voce examination, or approved alternative examination, at Doctoral level.

1.9. The International Doctorate may be awarded to a candidate who has successfully completed a programme of scholarly research and whose thesis represents an independent, significant and original contribution to knowledge, or who has completed an integrated programme of study comprising advanced instruction as well as scholarly research demonstrated by thesis. The thesis should demonstrate the investigation and evaluation or critical examination of an approved topic, together with an understanding of research methods appropriate to the chosen field. The candidate must always present a thesis written in English for this award. The thesis should have been reviewed by 2 academics from 2 different countries. The candidate must defend the thesis by viva voce examination, or approved alternative examination, to the satisfaction of the examiners. The work, or elements of it should be worthy of publication, or may include a proportion of published work.

1.10. Each award title incorporating taught elements has regulations for the taught components that comply with the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Provision .

1.11. Co-operation with industrial, commercial, professional or research establishments may be undertaken for the purposes of research leading to research degree awards. Co-operation may be formalised with one or more bodies external to the University; such bodies are referred to as collaborating establishments. Formal collaboration will normally involve the candidate’s use of facilities, data or other resources, including advice and supervision, which are provided jointly by the University and the collaborating establishments.

2. The Registration Period

2.1. The maximum periods of registration should normally be as follows:

2.2. A candidate must pay such fees for their programme of study as shall be determined by the University. The University publishes a Fees Policy which gives further information.

2.3. A candidate must submit the thesis before the expiry of the maximum period of registration.

2.4 . Where a candidate is prevented, by ill-health or other good cause, from making progress with the research, they may suspend study for a specific period, for not less than 3 months and not more than one year. Candidates may request suspension of studies beyond one calendar year, but this must be supported by the School. Approved periods of suspension of studies count against the maximum registration period and therefore do not change the end date for the maximum registration period.

2.5. Candidates who have been awarded a fixed term funded studentship must ensure that a period of suspension of studies is permitted under the terms of their contract. It is the student’s responsibility to check their eligibility, including any limitations on number or duration of suspension of study periods, before submitting their request.

2.6. Candidates may apply for an extension in exceptional circumstances to extend the period of registration beyond the expected period, for not less than 1 month and not more than one year.

2.7. Candidates successfully upgrading to a new award will have the period spent on studying for the initial award incorporated into the maximum submission dates for the new award.

2.8. Where the submission consists of pre-published material accompanied by a critical reflection and commentary on the submitted publications and their contribution to knowledge and research methods appropriate to the discipline, the period of registration may be shortened.

2.9. The registration period must not be less than 12 months full-time and 24 months part-time study.

3. Registration

3.1. The University Research Committee (URC) delegates its powers to the University Research Degrees Committee (URDC) to note and approve examination arrangements, examination reports, and awards of research students in the University.

3.2. URDC retains oversight of the approval of research degree projects, upgrade of registration, supervision and change of supervision and change in mode or programme of study of research students in the University.

3.3. An application should not be approved unless:

a) The candidate is suitably qualified; b) The candidate is embarking upon a feasible research programme; c) Supervisory expertise and capacity is available and likely to be sustained; and d) The University is able to provide appropriate facilities and research environment for the conduct of scholarly research in the area of the research programme.

3.4. An applicant for registration for a research Master’s degree should normally hold a first class or upper second class Honours degree or a qualification that is regarded by the University as equivalent to such an Honours degree.

3.5. An applicant for direct registration for Doctor of Philosophy should normally hold a Master’s degree in a discipline relevant to the proposed research.

3.6. An applicant for a Professional Doctorate should normally hold a Master’s degree in a cognate area, or a Bachelor’s degree in a cognate area plus at least two years’ professional practice, or be capable of otherwise demonstrating professional competence of high standing in the area of the research.

3.7. The candidate must demonstrate sufficient command of the English language to complete the programme of work satisfactorily and to prepare and defend a thesis in English.

3.8. Candidates may register on a full-time or part-time basis.

3.9. On occasion applications may be approved from a person proposing to work largely outside the UK, provided that the following criteria are met:

a) There is satisfactory evidence of the adequacy of the support and facilities available for the research both in the University and abroad, for example through the designation of an appropriate collaborating institution outside the UK. b) The supervisory arrangements enable frequent and substantial contact between the candidate and the first and second supervisor; c) Personal contact between the student and first supervisor must be sufficiently frequent for the first supervisor to have continuing confidence in the candidate’s progress.

3.10. A candidate may apply to upgrade their award in the following ways:

a) Master of Science by Research or Master of Arts by Research to Master of Philosophy or Doctor of Philosophy; b) Master of Philosophy to Doctor of Philosophy;

3.11. A candidate may apply to upgrade when all mandatory research modules (or agreed equivalent programme) have been satisfactorily completed and the supervisory team has deemed that they have made sufficient progress on the research to provide evidence of its potential development towards the intended award.

3.12. A candidate who is registered for any higher award and who is unable to complete the approved programme of work may, at any time prior to submission of the thesis for examination, apply to URDC to convert the registration to an appropriate lower award, provided that the registration period for the lower award has not been exceeded.

3.13. Where there is a requirement for the thesis to remain confidential for a period of time after completion of the work, application for approval should normally be made at the time of submission. The period approved should normally not exceed two years from the date of the viva voce examination.

3.14. A Project Approval of Research Degree Project shall not be considered for approval more than three times.

3.15. A Project Approval of Research Degree Project may be exempted for Masters by Research students by the Postgraduate Research Lead under the following conditions:

1) All supervisors and the Postgraduate Research Lead agree that the research proposal is of equal quality and coverage to the requirements in the Project Approval Form. 2) The project is a pre-existing supervisor designed project that the student is being engaged to fulfil.

3.16. A candidate must ensure engagement with mandatory progression monitoring points and regular recording of supervisory meetings to meet the University’s policy with regard to Engagement & Attendance. 

3.17. Failure to comply with mandatory monitoring points may result in the instigation of the University withdrawal procedures.

4. Creative works

4.1. Candidates may undertake a programme of research in which the candidate’s own creative work forms, as point of origin or reference, a significant part of the intellectual enquiry. Such creative work must have been undertaken as part of the registered research programme. In such cases, the presentation and submission may be partly in other than written form.

4.2. The creative work must be clearly presented in relation to the argument of a written thesis and set within its relevant theoretical, historical, critical or design context. The thesis must itself conform to the usual scholarly requirements and be of the appropriate length (see Section 13).

4.3. The final submission must be accompanied by some permanent record (this may be electronic or physical) of the creative work, which should, where practicable, be bound with the thesis or included in a digital submission.

5. Published Work

5.1. Candidates may undertake a programme of research in which the candidate’s own published work forms, as a point of origin or reference, a significant part of the intellectual enquiry.

5.2. Any joint publications that are included in the thesis must include a statement of contribution agreed with and signed by co-authors in the appendices to the thesis.

5.3. The published work must be clearly presented in relation to the argument of a written commentary and set within its relevant context. The commentary must itself conform to the usual scholarly requirements and be of the appropriate length.

6. Supervision

6.1. For each research degree candidate, the School within which the research will be based will approve the appointment of a supervisory team. One supervisor, who must be a member of the University staff, should be designated the first supervisor and the other(s) the second supervisor(s). A second supervisor may be external to the University.

6.2. The first supervisor has responsibility for supervising the candidate on a regular and frequent basis agreeing an adequate record of actions and plans with the student. There must be sufficient frequent personal contact between the student and the first supervisor to enable the first supervisor to assess and confirm the candidate’s progress. The first supervisor is also responsible for the recording of student monitoring data for Student Route visa students.

6.3. Individual supervisors will normally not supervise more than 8 research students at any one time unless they are highly experienced and have sufficient time allocated to them to do so.

6.4. Ultimate responsibility for progress on the research degree programme resides with the candidate who must ensure that satisfactory progress is made at all times against targets set in supervision.

7. Assessment Offences

7.1. A student’s work submitted for assessment must be their own. Practices that compromise this principle are defined by the University in their guidance on Assessments and Examinations .

7.2. If assessment offences are suspected for work completed for taught elements of research degrees then the procedures relating to these are covered by the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Provision .

7.3. If the supervisory team suspects that formative work (produced during the preparation of the thesis but not prepared for assessment on a taught module) includes practices that compromise the principle that the student’s work is expected to be their own (as per the definitions linked to in paragraph 8.1), this must be reported to the relevant PGR Lead. The PGR Lead shall nominate an interview panel to meet with the student and the supervisory team to determine whether the work shall be deemed not to be their own. If the student’s work is not deemed to be their own, the work will be considered within the category of “errors of attribution” or “assessment offences”.

7.4. The panel will normally be chaired by the PGR Lead. Where the PGR Lead is also the supervisor of the candidate concerned, another experienced supervisor should be nominated to act as Chair. No member of the interview panel should be involved in the consideration of a case in which they have an interest.

7.5. Where “errors of attribution” are found by the nominated panel, a temporal plan should be agreed to rectify the errors and progress towards this must be reviewed at the next Progress Review. The student will be called to a formal interview if any elements of the plan have not been met.

7.6. Where “assessment offences” are found by the nominated panel, the finding should be reported to URDC acting as the Assessment Offences Board of Examiners. If the recommendation that the student has committed an “assessment offence” is upheld there, this finding must be placed on the student’s record as a first offence and must be taken into consideration in subsequent Annual Progress Reports and progression decisions. If, subsequently, a second offence is found, the student will be required to attend a formal interview at a special meeting of the Annual Progression Board and will be required to withdraw from their programme of study and the University.

The examination

8.1. The examination may not take place until the examiners have been approved. The viva voce examination should normally be completed within 3 months of the formal submission of the thesis for examination, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

8.2. The examination for a research degree should have two stages: first, the candidate’s submission of the thesis and the examiners’ independent preliminary assessment of it; and second, the defence of the thesis by viva voce or approved alternative examination. In the case of the MA/MSc by Research and the MRes, where the Examiners’ independent preliminary assessments agree that the thesis reaches the required standard for the intended award, they may recommend that the viva voce is dispensed with.

8.3. A candidate should be examined orally or by another approved alternative on the programme of work and on the field of study in which the programme lies.

8.4. Where valid reasons are presented in advance that the candidate would be seriously disadvantaged if required to undergo a viva voce examination, an alternative form of examination may be approved by URDC. Such approval will not be given on the grounds that the candidate’s knowledge of English is inadequate.

8.5. All candidates must attend their viva voce examination or approved alternative. Failure to attend may result in actions up to not being awarded any degree and not being permitted to re-submit the thesis unless independent notice of serious mitigating circumstances is received.

8.6. The viva voce examination should normally be held in the University and must be attended by all examiners. In special circumstances URDC may give approval for the examination and/or resubmission to take place elsewhere.

8.7. URDC will approve examination arrangements using the most appropriate platform for the candidate. This may be either face to face examination, or online.

8.8. If it is proposed that the examination is held away from the University, the application for examination arrangements must specify the location.

8.9. The candidate’s supervisor(s) may, with the permission of the student, be present at the viva voce examination in a non-speaking capacity. Others may, with the permission of the candidate and agreement of the examiners, be present at the viva voce in a non-speaking capacity.

8.10. URDC should make a decision based on the reports and recommendation(s) of the examiners in respect of the candidate. The formal power to confer the degree rests with URDC.

8.11. Where evidence of the use of unfair means, such as plagiarism , in the preparation of the thesis comes to light during examination this must be discussed in detail in the joint examination report to assist URDC in its consideration of the matter, if necessary in consultation with the examiners URDC will undertake an investigation and if the use of unfair means is upheld by the investigation panel, they will take appropriate action, which includes failing the thesis with no possibility of re-examination.

8.12. URDC should ensure that all examinations are conducted, and the recommendations of the examiners are presented, wholly in accordance with these regulations. In any instance where URDC is made aware of a failure to comply with all the procedures of the examination process, it may declare the examination null and void, and appoint new examiners.

8.13. The degree of MSc/MA by Research, MRes, MPhil, PhD, PhD by Publication, Professional Doctorate or International Doctorate may be awarded posthumously on the basis of a thesis completed by a candidate, which is ready for submission for examination. In such cases URDC should seek evidence that the candidate would have been likely to have been successful, had a viva voce examination taken place.

9. The candidate’s responsibilities in the examination process

9.1. The candidate should submit one digital copy of the thesis before the expiry of the registration period. The candidate should submit the author’s declaration and candidature form with the thesis:

9.2. The submission of the thesis for examination should be at the sole discretion of the candidate. Although a candidate would normally be unwise to submit the thesis for examination against the advice of the supervisor(s), it is their right to do so. The supervisor(s) should record in writing that the thesis has been submitted against advice and submit a copy of this record to both the School PGR Lead and Research Administration Office. The supervisor’s agreement to the submission of a thesis does not guarantee the successful outcome of the examination.

9.3. The candidate should satisfy any conditions of eligibility for examination required by the Committee including the successful completion of any mandatory taught modules, or Annual Progress requirements.

9.4. The candidate should take no part in the arrangement of the examination and should have no contact with any of the examiners between the appointment of the examiners and the viva voce examination.

9.5. The candidate should ensure that the thesis format is in accordance with the requirements of the regulations (see section 13 below).

9.6. Any work which breaches the University’s Research Ethics: Handbook of Principles and Procedures will not knowingly be assessed.

10. Examiners

10.1. A candidate should be examined initially by at least two and not more than three examiners, of whom at least one is an external examiner. The first supervisor is responsible for contacting and nominating the examiners, and should consult with the candidate concerning the suitability of the examiners. Should the candidate and supervisor(s) disagree on the proposed appointment of external examiners, the matter will be referred to the University Research Degrees Committee for a final decision.

10.2. Examiners should not be appointed unless experienced in research in the area of the candidate’s thesis. At least one examiner should also have experience of examining at least two candidates at the level of award being sought.

10.3. An independent internal examiner shall be defined as an examiner who is:

a) A member of staff of the University, but not a member of the supervisory team; or

b) A member of staff of the candidate’s collaborating establishment, but not a member of the supervisory team.

10.4. Where the candidate is on the permanent staff of the institution no member of staff may serve as an examiner.

10.5. The internal examiner should not :

a) Have/have had any significant collaboration with the candidate nor have given any substantive advice to the candidate on their research (except in the case of a resubmitted thesis).

10.6. The external examiner should not :

a) Have/have had any significant collaboration with the candidate nor have given any substantive advice to the candidate on their research (except in the case of a resubmitted thesis);

b) Be either a current or former member of staff, governor or near relative of a member of staff of the University of Gloucestershire, unless at least 5 years have elapsed since their relinquished the post;

c) Be a former higher degree student of the University of Gloucestershire or of any of the supervisors at another higher education institution, unless at least 5 years have elapsed since the degree was conferred;

d) Normally be invited on a regular basis (more than once every 2 years) to examine research degrees at the University of Gloucestershire;

e) Show evidence of reciprocal examining arrangements to an extent that could encourage unprofessional, biased assessment.

10.7. No candidate for a research degree should act as an examiner.

10.8. The University shall determine and pay the fees and expenses of the external examiners.

11. Examination

11.1. Each examiner must read and examine the thesis and submit an individual preliminary report on it to the School.

11.2. The preliminary reports will indicate whether the thesis is of a sufficient standard to go forward for viva voce or other approved alternative examination, or in the case of the MA/MSc by Research or MRes, whether the thesis is of a sufficient standard for the viva voce to be dispensed with.

11.3 . The preliminary reports should either indicate an agenda for discussion in the viva voce examination or form the basis for the compilation of a joint report by examiners in cases where the viva voce examination is to be dispensed with.

11.4. In the case of the MPhil, PhD and the Professional Doctorates, the preliminary report should be sent to the relevant School at least 7 working days before any viva voce examination is due to be held.

11.5. In the case of the MA/MSc by Research and MRes, the preliminary report should be sent to the relevant School at least 14 working days before the proposed viva voce.

11.6. The examiners cannot recommend that a candidate fail outright without holding a viva voce examination or other approved alternative examination. However, students may use the maximum period of registration permitted for the programme (para. 2.1) and examiners may recommend that the thesis be returned to the student for further work if time in registration remains

11.7. Following the viva voce or other approved examination, the examiners should prepare a joint report that must be sufficiently detailed to enable URDC to make a well-founded decision about the award. A summary of the report may be made available to the student and only if the examiners have agreed upon an unequivocal recommendation. They should make it clear to the candidate at the end of the viva voce examination that their joint report is their recommendation, but that the final decision on the award rests with URDC.

11.8. The report should make one of the following recommendations. That:

a) The candidate be awarded the degree unconditionally;

b) The candidate be awarded the degree subject to the correction of typographic and similar errors to the satisfaction of the first supervisor. Typographic errors or similar may be communicated via an annotated copy of the thesis or through a list in the examination report. Such corrections should be of a scale capable of completion by the candidate within one month of the viva voce;

c) The candidate be awarded the degree subject to minor amendments, to the satisfaction of the internal examiner where present or a nominated external examiner if not. In this case the examiners should provide in writing for communication to the candidate by the viva chair a list of the minor corrections by the candidate within three months of the viva voce examination;

d) The candidate be awarded the degree subject to major amendment to the thesis to the satisfaction of a nominated examiner. In this case the examiners should provide in writing for communication to the candidate by the viva chair a list of the amendments and corrections required. Corrections should be made within six months of the relevant meeting of URDC;

e) The candidate not be awarded the degree, but be permitted to re-submit the thesis in revised form and be re-examined, with or without a viva voce examination. The examiners should recommend resubmission only if there is sufficient evidence of original work and if the amount of further work to be undertaken is not so substantial as to constitute a new thesis. A recommendation should be made concerning the maximum period of time for resubmission, which is normally between 6 and 12 months from the relevant meeting of the URDC;

f) In the case of a PhD examination, the candidate not be awarded the degree of PhD, but be awarded the degree of MPhil subject to the presentation of the thesis amended as necessary to the satisfaction of the examiners. The amendments should be made within three months of the relevant meeting of URDC

In the case of a Professional Doctorate, the candidate not be awarded the Doctorate but be awarded a lesser award consonant with the assessed work completed and /or thesis submitted.

In the case of an MPhil examination, the examiners may recommend that the candidate not be awarded the degree of MPhil, but be awarded the degree of MSc or MA by Research subject to the presentation of the thesis amended to the satisfaction of the examiners;

g) The candidate not be awarded any degree and not be permitted to re-submit the thesis. In this case the examiners should prepare an agreed general statement of the deficiencies of the thesis and the reason for their recommendation, which should be submitted to the Research Administration Office for transmission to URDC and subsequently to the candidate;

h) No recommendation can be made for reasons outlined within the examiner’s report. Further investigation will be required to provide a decision based on categories a – g above.

11.9. One re-examination may be permitted by URDC, subject to the following requirements:

a) A candidate who fails to satisfy the examiners at the first examination (including at the viva voce or approved alternative examination, or any further examination required) may, on the recommendation of the examiners, and with the approval of URDC, be permitted to revise the thesis and be re-examined;

b) The examiners must provide the candidate, through URDC, with written guidance on the deficiencies of the first submission; and

c) The candidate should submit for re-examination normally within the period of one calendar year from the date of the relevant Committee meeting. Where the viva voce examination has been dispensed with, the re-examination should take place within 6 months of the resubmission of the thesis. URDC may, where there are good reasons, approve an extension of this period.

d) Where the viva voce examination has not been dispensed with for the re-examination, the candidate must attend their viva voce.

11.10. URDC may require that an additional external examiner be appointed for the re- examination.

11.11. On completion of re-examination the examiners should make one of the following recommendations to URDC in accordance with paragraph 12.8, excepting that 12.8.g shall not apply to the re-examination.

11.12. Where the examiners’ recommendations are not unanimous, URDC will normally appoint an additional external to give a ‘blind’ reading of the thesis. Following this appointment, a report should be submitted to URDC within one month and URDC will make a decision based on this report.

11.13. If the degree is not awarded, the examiners should prepare an agreed statement of the deficiencies of the thesis and reason for their recommendation, which should be forwarded to URDC and to the candidate by the Research Administration Office.

11.14. Failure to submit amendments as recorded on the approved examination report to the satisfaction of the nominated supervisor or examiner to the timeframe agreed by URDC will result in the recording of a no award outcome

12.1. The written language of the thesis must be English unless it is the purpose of the thesis to translate or otherwise engage with a language other than English. This intention should be noted on the Project Approval Form.

12.2. If the candidate proposes a change to the approved title of the thesis after the Project Approval, they must submit the amended title to the Research Administration Office

12.3. An abstract of approximately 300 words must be bound into the thesis on the page following the title page. The abstract should provide a synopsis of the thesis, stating the nature and scope of the work undertaken and of the contribution made to the knowledge of the subject treated.

12.4. The thesis must acknowledge published or other sources of material consulted and any assistance received. It is the responsibility of the candidate to ensure that the final version of the thesis lodged with the University’s Research Repository carries full and acknowledged permissions for any copyrighted materials. For more information about including copyrighted materials, please refer to Keeping Your Thesis Legal , a booklet available from the Library, Technology and Information Services.

In the event that permission cannot or will not be granted by the copyright holder, it will be the student’s responsibility to submit a second digital version of their final thesis which redacts the items or sections which do not carry the appropriate permissions.

12.5. Where a candidate’s research programme is part of a collaborative group project, the thesis should indicate clearly the candidate’s individual contribution and the extent of the collaboration. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that a signed declaration is included in the final copy stating how far the work contained in the thesis was the candidate’s own work, or how far it was undertaken in collaboration with, or with the assistance of, others.

12.6. The candidate is free to publish material from the thesis in advance of its submission, but reference should be made in the thesis to any such output.

In the event that a publisher does not permit the candidate to deposit a full text version of their thesis to the Repository it is the candidate’s responsibility to submit a second redacted version with links to the DOI or a publisher’s URL of the publication(s).

12.7. The text of the thesis is

• for an MSc or MA by Research 30,000 words for an MRes 25,000 words
• for an MPhil 50,000 words
• for a Professional or International Doctorate 60,000 words for a PhD 80,000 words

12.8. The final word count must not be exceeded by more than 10% of the stated amount for the award. Ancillary data, bibliography, appendices, and footnotes or endnotes are not included in the word count.

The University reserves the right to suspend the examination process if the thesis is found to be in breach of the stated word count (excluding appendices, tables, diagrams, bibliography and references).

12.9. Where the thesis is accompanied by material in other than written form, or the research involves creative writing or the preparation of a scholarly edition, or the thesis is related to an integrated programme of taught study, or the thesis contains previously published material, the balance of the thesis should normally be within the range:

• for an MSc or MA by Research 10,000 – 12,000 words for an MPhil 15,000 – 20,000 words
• for a PhD 20,000 – 40,000 words
• for a PhD by Publication 10,000-25,000 words
• for a Professional or International Doctorate 40,000 words – 50,000

12.10. The following requirements should be adhered to in the format of the submitted thesis.

a) Upon initial submission for examination, the thesis will be submitted in digital form. b) The thesis should be formatted in A4 portrait format. c) Text should be present in 12point size, in a clear font such as Times New Roman or Arial d) A consistent margin should be applied throughout the thesis e) Double or one-and-a-half spacing should be used in the typescript except for indented quotations or footnotes where single spacing may be used. f) Pages should be numbered consecutively through the main text including photographs and/or diagrams included as whole pages. Page numbers should be printed in the header or footer of each page title page. g) The title page should give the following information in the following order (see also specimen title page below):

i. The full title of the thesis (including any sub-title), followed by the volume number if there is more than one; ii. The full name of the author; iii. ‘A thesis submitted to the University of Gloucestershire in accordance with the requirements for the degree of…in the School of…’; iv. The name of the collaborating establishment(s) if any; v. The month and year of first submission; and vi. The word count (appendices, tables, diagrams, bibliography and references are excluded from the word count).

h) Text placed within headers should be excluded from the title page; abstract page; author’s declaration; acknowledgements (if applicable); and table of contents.

i) The candidate should include on the page following the abstract page a signed author’s declaration confirming that the material presented for examination is their own work or how far the work contained in the thesis was the candidate’s own work, , or how far it was conducted in collaboration with, or with the assistance of others, and stating that the thesis is not being submitted for any other academic award and where necessary include evidence showing where permission(s) for copyrighted material have been received.

j) The candidate should not be precluded from incorporating in the thesis, covering a wider field, work which has already been submitted for a degree or comparable award, provided that it is indicated which work has been so incorporated. In addition, a disclaimer that the views expressed in the dissertation are those of the author and not of the University should be included on this page.

See Appendix Two for an example Author’s Declaration.

k) Following successful completion, a ‘perfect’ digital copy of the final thesis should be submitted to the Research Administration Office for retention by the University. No award can be made until the digital copy has been submitted.

l) The ETHOS electronic deposit form should be submitted with the final thesis. As well as being deposited into the British Library’s EThOS (national online thesis scheme site) the candidate’s thesis will also go into the University’s Research Repository. A digital copy must be submitted even if the candidate has been granted an embargo or temporary moratorium. In this case, the thesis will be will be placed in a dark-archive or kept securely by the Research Administration Office. For details, please refer to Keeping Your Thesis Legal , a booklet available from the Library, Technology and Information Services.”.

m) The copyright in the thesis should normally be vested in the candidate, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Right of appeal

13.1 Students have the right to appeal against a decision of a Board of Examiners and will not suffer any disadvantage or recrimination as a result of making an appeal in good faith. Students considering making an appeal should consult the University’s guidance on Appeals and Complaints .

13.2 Procedures for submitting and hearing an academic appeal are documented in the assessment procedures section of the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Provision .

APPENDIX ONE – Specimen thesis title page

A PROFESSION UNDER PRESSURE:

THE INCREASING INCIDENCE OF STRESS-RELATED DISORDERS AMONGST CONTRACT RESEARCHERS

BLANCHE DELAMERE

A thesis submitted to The University of Gloucestershire in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Health

Word Count: ______            

APPENDIX TWO – Author’s Declaration example

I declare that the work in this thesis was carried out in accordance with the regulations of the University of Gloucestershire and is original except where indicated by specific reference in the text. No part of the thesis has been submitted as part of any other academic award. The thesis has not been presented to any other education institution in the United Kingdom or overseas.

Any views expressed in the thesis are those of the author and in no way represent those of the University.

Signed …………………………………………….. Date ……………………………….

APPENDIX THREE – Specimen front cover for final thesis

B. DELAMERE

Was this article helpful?

Academic calendar – term dates  .

Jump to: Academic calendar 2024: January startAcademic calendar 2024-25Academic calendar 2025:…

Academic Regulations for Taught Provision 2024/25  

Contents 1. Scope 1.1 The Academic Regulations for Taught Provision, referred to here as the…

Academic Regulations for Research Degree Provision 2015/16  

Contents Appendix OneAppendix Two 1. Principles 1.1. The University may award the degrees of Master…