Monocultures aren’t bad

Why don’t cover crop mixes work better than monocultures? Well, first, some ecological theory. The idea that biodiversity is better than monoculture comes from ecologists studying natural habitats. In nature, they observe niche differentiation (Connor et al. 2011). The idea is that a diverse mix of organisms can better use the available resources because of their different use characteristics. When their resource use does not overlap much, they are complementary. Take a field of wheat. If some plant species needed different resources than wheat, then we could expect that adding that species to the wheat field might result in more production in the same area. Better resource use means better productivity. That is the theory.

Niche differentiation is seen most clearly with animals, but plants are different. First, they do not move. They are stuck where chance happens to put them. Second, plants require the same resources; sunshine, CO2, water, and nutrients (nitrogen for legumes is the exception). For these reasons, plants, especially annual crops, have much less opportunity for niche differentiation. And this is what we see in cover crop research results, little evidence of complementarity. Even in more natural systems, support for complementarity in plants is rare (Cardinale et al. 2011). The authors of this paper ask, “how can species be ‘complementary’ in their use of resources and production of biomass, and yet, a diverse community not perform processes any more efficiently than its most efficient species?” The simple answer is that there is no complementarity in these diverse mixes. Cardinale and colleagues cannot go this far, but rather think it “warrants more investigation.”

.

Rather than complementarily, there are simple tradeoffs. When plant species compete for the same resources, there are winners and losers. Mixing a less productive species with a high productive species reduces total biomass production (with the exception of legumes in infertile soils). Winners dominate losers in mixed stands, to the point where the losers are suppressed by the canopy, or larger root system of the winner. This is what we see in cover crop polyculture research. Dominant species, which happen to be our most productive crops, tend to dominate. If we control them by reducing their seeding rate, the less extreme species grow better, but not enough to make up for the lower population of the dominant species.

Finney and Kaye mention possible reasons why cover crop mixtures may not live up to ecological theory. Whereas polyculture advantages have been seen mainly in perennials growing together for several years, cover crops are annuals growing for just a short time. In natural systems, the number of species present is very much greater than in agriculture where we select dominant plant species for our crops.

This demonstrates the basic problem with attempts to make agriculture more like nature; agriculture is not like nature. Whether it be crop rotation, cover crops, or the need to supply farm fields with inputs, agriculture is not like nature. Therefore, we should not be surprised when one of these principles, here the diversity-productivity relationship, does not apply.

There are other reasons not to use mixtures in cover crops. First, because monoculture powers crop rotation benefits, planting a cover crop mixture increases the risk that a pest will find something in the mix it likes. Add to this the difficulty in seeding multiple species, finding the right timing for planting a diverse mix, and the increased cost of seed blends…if these mixtures do not give extra benefits, why grow them?