*6.2. Research Limitations and Prospects*

Our study provides new evidence to promote sustainable agricultural development in China. However, the article still has some limitations. First, limited by the availability of data, our study data are only updated to 2017, and future data updates are needed for further research. Second, we only measured agricultural sustainability from the perspective of ATFP, and future research can study the impact study of high-standard farmland construction policy on agricultural sustainability from the perspective of green efficiency.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, F.Y. and L.W.; methodology, F.Y. and L.W.; software, F.Y.; validation, F.Y., L.W. and T.T.; formal analysis, F.Y., A.R. and L.W.; investigation, F.Y.; resources, F.Y. and L.W.; data curation, F.Y. and L.W.; writing original draft preparation, F.Y., L.W. and A.R.; writing—review and editing, F.Y., L.W., A.R., Q.Z, A.A. and T.T.; visualization, F.Y., T.T. and A.A.; supervision, L.W. and Q.Z.; project administration, L.W. and Q.Z.; funding acquisition, L.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Project No. 18ZDA072); The Study on the Influence of Toilet Reform Support Policy on Rural Residential Environment Improvement: A Case Study of Changzhutan Area, Hunan Province (Project No. 2022[174]); "You Xiang Jia" APP—Sharing Interactive Platform for Rural Culture and Tourism (Project No. [2021]13).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland www.mdpi.com

*Land* Editorial Office E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.mdpi.com/journal/land

Disclaimer/Publisher's Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Academic Open Access Publishing

mdpi.com ISBN 978-3-0365-9673-0


2. Sources of pharmaceutical micropollutants in the aquatic environment

Pharmaceuticals are important and indispensable elements of modern life. They are used in humans and animals, in agriculture and in water culture. The presence of pharmaceuticals in the environment first attracted the attention of the scientific community and the public in the 1970s. However, until the 1990s, little has been done about the presence, behavior, and effects of pharmaceuticals in the environment. During this time, environmental pollutants such as heavy metals, polycyclic hydrocarbons, dioxins, furans, pesticides, and detergents have been extensively studied. Endocrine system drugs and lipid-lowering drugs have been on the rise since the 1990s. After this date, many studies have been done in the USA and Europe for hormones and other pharmaceuticals [8–10].

An important reason why so much care is taken with pharmaceutical products is that they have to produce a biological effect. They are made as stable as possible so that they can be stored for a long time and easily swallowed. The membranes are lipophilic enough to cross the membranes, and in order to reach the sites of action—especially those taken orally—drugs must be resistant to enzymes and must not hydrolyze at acidic pH values. They must be stable and have high mobility in liquid phase [11–13].

1. Introduction

42 Wastewater and Water Quality

effects [3].

these regulations [4].

present in the raw wastewater [1].

treatment strategies to improve biodegradation.

hormones and other pharmaceuticals [8–10].

Pharmaceutical wastewater is one of the most important gateways of emerging pollutants (such as synthetic hormones including corticosteroids) to enter water bodies. During the last years, numerous studies have documented the presence of many of these substances at the level of microgram or nanogram per liter in raw water (i.e., stream/source water), in wastewater effluents, and even in finished drinking waters [1, 2]. As a consequence, pharmaceuticals are entering in the trophic chain and causing adverse ecological and human health

Pharmaceuticals are not regulated at the moment in the EU, but the 2013 amendment of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC) contains a mechanism to collect high-quality data on concentration of compounds of environmental concern, the so-called watchlist. This list includes diclofenac, 17-beta-estradiol (E2), and 17-alpha-ethinylestradiol (EE2). For compounds on this list, it is likely that regulations will be developed in the future. This would mean that additional treatment of wastewater will be necessary to comply with

Membrane bioreactor (MBR) technique is a promising alternative to conventional treatment, [5, 6], and its usage is increasingly for municipal wastewater treatment and reuse, and great concerns have been raised to some emerging trace pollutants found in aquatic environment in the last decade, notably the pharmaceuticals [7]. In that sense, recently a pilot MBR was innovatively applied leading to removal efficiencies over 95% of the chemical oxygen demand (COD). Furthermore, other lab-scale MBR studies have been focused not only in the removal of the bulk organic matter but also in the elimination of the specific organic micropollutants

In this study, we present a comprehensive review of the studies carried out in the literature with MBR of micropollutant residues in different wastewaters, and it is expected that these pollutants, which are highly biologically active and difficult to biodegrade, shed light on

2. Sources of pharmaceutical micropollutants in the aquatic environment

Pharmaceuticals are important and indispensable elements of modern life. They are used in humans and animals, in agriculture and in water culture. The presence of pharmaceuticals in the environment first attracted the attention of the scientific community and the public in the 1970s. However, until the 1990s, little has been done about the presence, behavior, and effects of pharmaceuticals in the environment. During this time, environmental pollutants such as heavy metals, polycyclic hydrocarbons, dioxins, furans, pesticides, and detergents have been extensively studied. Endocrine system drugs and lipid-lowering drugs have been on the rise since the 1990s. After this date, many studies have been done in the USA and Europe for Because of these properties, active pharmaceutical ingredients/conversion products can be bioaccumulated and can cause effects in aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems.

The intake of drug active substances occurs in various ways. Starting from humans and animals, the active pharmaceutical ingredients reach the wastewater, soil, and groundwater and, if adequate treatment is not done, reach our drinking water. Pharmaceutical products can be roughly divided into two: medicinal products and veterinary drugs used by humans. Veterinary medicines are used in farm animal breeding and poultry production. Medicinal products used by humans reach sewage through urea and feces and from there to wastewater treatment plant. If xenobiotics are taken as an example, there are three possible behaviors of the substance: (i) the substance is completely mineralized to water and CO2 (e.g., aspirin). (ii) The substance is lipophilic and does not easily fragment. So, some of the material is kept in clay. (iii) The substance is metabolized to a more hydrophobic than lipophilic form but becomes resistant. It cannot be removed in the treatment plant, and it is thrown away with wastewater and mixed with the receiving waters. If the metabolites are still biologically active, they also affect the aquatic organisms in the environment. Possible materials in clay, if the mud is laid on the field, may affect microorganisms and the useful ones. Medicinal substances used to support growth of animals in the stables are mostly fertile. These substances can affect soil organisms. The hydrophilic materials in the sewage sludge, which are scattered in the mouth, reach the aquatic environment by infiltrating with rain [11–13].

Pharmaceutical substances used for animals in the field are thrown directly to the ground via urea and feces. High local concentration affects soil organisms. It is also possible that medicinal substances spread over the surface are mineralized to the ground or reach the groundwaters.

They are used in fish farms and are directly confused with the receiving waters because the best way to treat fish with antibiotics and other medicines is to use feed additives. Because most of the feed additives are not eaten by the fish, they fall from the cages and accumulate in the seabed. These substances can affect aquatic organisms. An unknown part of the medical goods sold for human use is thrown into the toilet as waste by people and reaches the treatment plant by interfering with the sewage system [14–17].

Micropollutants consist of a vast and expanding array of anthropogenic as well as natural substances. These include pharmaceuticals, personal care products, steroid hormones, industrial chemicals, pesticides, and many other emerging compounds. Micropollutants are commonly present in waters at trace concentrations, ranging from a few ng/L to several μg/L. The "low concentration" and diversity of micropollutants not only complicate the associated detection and analysis procedures but also create challenges for water and wastewater treatment processes [2].

Sources of micropollutants in the environment are diverse, and many of these originate from mass-produced materials and commodities. Table 1 summarizes the sources of the major categories of micropollutants in the aquatic environment.

they are designed to kill and inhibit the growth of microorganism; thus, they will hinder the activity of beneficial microbes in wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operation and involved in their removal. Moreover, for constant exposure to antibiotics, microbial community stay in wastewater improves resistant mechanism more readily than the rest of another microbial world. The presence of numerous antibiotic compounds was identified in untreated wastewater in both aqueous and solid phases. Overall, occurrence and persistence of antibiotics in water bodies increase concern; almost 90% of antibiotics consumed by human body were

Efficient Removal Approach of Micropollutants in Wastewater Using Membrane Bioreactor

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75183

45

Therapeutic hormones are the synthetic analog of animal or plant natural hormones, which affect the endocrine system and have impacts on human and animal health. The most frequently found hormones in the environment are estrogens. A synthetic estrogenic steroid is used as a birth control agent and in estrogen substitution therapies. Thus, estrogen and its metabolite become the abundant class of emerging pharmaceutical contaminants. The metabolite of 17bethinyl estradiol and estrone (E1) is one of the most powerful EDCs creating impacts in aquatic organisms. Their presence in the river environment causes adverse reproductive and developmental effect in nontargeted organisms [20]. Several studies confirmed that the presence of estrogen in both influent and effluent of municipal wastewater treatment plants at a concentra-

Analgesic is the widely used drug for pain relaxation and to treat fever. Drugs belonging to the class of analgesics such as naproxen acetaminophen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, and meprobamate were treated as significant environment pollutants due to their persistence in the aquatic environment [22]. Almost, 15% of ibuprofen was excreted after administration and 26% as its metabolite. The metabolite of ibuprofen is more toxic to aquatic organisms than parental compound [23]. The presence of ibuprofen, diclofenac, naproxen, gemfibrozil, and hydrochlorothiazide in the river shows a concentration range from 2 to 18 ng/L. The occurrence of these xenobiotic compounds in natural water bodies represents a significant concern for human health as little information is available on the effect of long-term ingestion of these compounds through drinking water [19].

Pharmaceutical compounds pass on a set of biochemical transformation in human and animal body and form polar, hydrophilic, and biologically active metabolites, which are discharged through urine and feces and enter WWTP. These active metabolites are accumulated in tissues of aquatic organisms. They have the potential to bind covalently to their cellular protein and may evoke an immune response or exert toxic effects [25]. These metabolites are reported to be 50% more toxic than their parental compounds. The poorly metabolized parental pharmaceutical substances undergo a transformation and affect the action of microbial community present in

tion ranges from 5 to 188 ng/L and between 0.3 and 12.6 ng/L, respectively [19, 21].

discharged via urine and feces [19].

2.2. Therapeutic hormones

2.3. Analgesic pharmaceuticals

2.4. By-product and metabolites

Pharmaceuticals are thoroughly used to cure the diseases in humans and as veterinary drugs. These biologically active chemicals are treated as emerging contaminant due to their persistence and potential harmful impact on the aquatic ecosystem.

These refractory emerging contaminants (RECs) (analgesics, anti-inflammatories, antiepileptics, and antibiotics) fall into the class of endocrine-disrupting compounds, which continually enters into the aquatic environment in small concentration.

They remain active even in low concentrations and deteriorate water quality and have an adverse impact on the ecosystem and human health. The most common and persistent pharmaceutical products in the aquatic environment are summarized below.


**3.4. CNE due to fungal pathogens**

*3.2.2. Non HACEK group organisms*

106 Contemporary Challenges in Endocarditis

Other fastidious bacteria causing CNE include *Pasturella multocida* and other *Pasturella* spp. which constitute part of the normal oral flora of dogs and cats in particular [21]. While bite wounds are obviously a portal of entry for *Pasturella* spp., in immunocompromised patients, more superficial contact especially with cat fur, minor cat scratches and cat saliva can lead to bacteremia and subsequent endocarditis [22]. Culture-negative endocarditis caused by *Abiotrophia defectiva* and *Granulicatella* spp.—so-called nutritionally deficient *Streptococci* [23] —can also be associated with infected intracranial aneurysms and may be difficult to isolate in routine blood cultures [24]. Special consideration for length of therapy must be given and is covered below. *Clostridia* and other anaerobic organisms [25] may be difficult to recover in routine blood cultures if specimens are not handled appropriately. These organisms are likely a rare cause of CNE, but true prevalence is unknown. *Gemella* spp. have been described rarely as a cause of CNE [9, 21] including *Gemella burgeri* tricuspid valve endocarditis [26] and *Gemella hemolysans* prosthetic valve endocarditits identified by PCR of prosthetic valve material and requiring implantation of a total artificial heart as a bridge to transplantation [27]. *Brucella mellitensis* is another unusual pathogen associated with culture-negative endocarditis [2], especially in regions of the world where consumption of unpasteurized milk (cow, goat and sheep) occurs. In one series of six patients subsequently found to have *Brucella* endocarditis, only two patients had blood cultures that revealed the diagnosis [28]. Several different *Legionella* spp. have been reported as causes of culture-negative endocarditis, both in native valves and prosthetic valves. These include cases of *Legionella pneumophila* in an immunocompromised patient with pneumonitis, a positive BAL fluid *Legionella* antigen, and subsequent BAL fluid and blood isolation of the organism when subcultured onto buffered charcoal yeast extract agar (BCYE agar) [29]. Another CNE case with *L. pneumophila* was identified when the patient presented with septic arthritis and the organism was identified from synovial fluid by 16s rDNA PCR and was subsequently found to have a new murmur and a mitral vegetation [30]. Mycobacteria are another rare cause of CNE, especially in association with porcine bioprosthetic valves [31]. This study from a reference laboratory conducted between 2010 and 2013 found PCR evidence of Mycobacterial infection in six out of 370 valve samples submitted from patients with suspected CN [31] with five cases of *Mycobacterium chelonae* and one case of *M. lentiflavum\*\*\**. While typically associated with immunodeficiency states, mycobacterial infections have also been reported in immunocompetent hosts as in the case of a patient with disseminated *M. chelonae* infection and resulting pacemaker CNE [32]. Special stains and cultures for acid fast bacilli should be considered in patients with device-related CNE [33]. Finally there are also rare reports with unusual causes of endovascular infections such as CNE in an immunocompromised patient on high dose corticosteroids [34] and infected aortic

aneurysm in an immunocompetent patient [35] with *Helicobacter cinaedi*.

This section deals with CNE attributable to organisms that are not typically identified with blood cultures but are responsible for a significant portion of cases of culture-negative infective

**3.3. CNE due to** *Bartonella* **spp.,** *C. burnetti* **and** *T. whipplei*

endocarditis [36].

Invasive mold infections are another cause of CNE, due to the difficulty in isolating these organisms from routine blood cultures. They are an important cause especially of early culturenegative prosthetic valve endocarditis [52] but can cause late prosethetic valve, pacemaker associated as well as native valve endocarditis. Among cases in the recent literature, infections with *Aspergillus* spp. [53–55], *Histoplasma capsulatum* [56–58] and *Trichosporin* spp. [59, 60] are the most widely reported. Commercial tests that detect fungal wall antigens such as galactomannan [2, 61, 62] and β-1,3-D-glucan [62] can show good sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis of fungal CNE. Jinno et al. [56] reported negative urine *Histoplasma* antigen results in their patient with *H. capsulatum* CNE, with diagnosis based on valvular pathology and tissue culture.


**3. Conventional extraction methods**

Conventional extraction methods can have some drawbacks, such as the degradation of unsaturated compounds and loss of certain components. It is great to hear that there are ongoing efforts to improve and optimize extraction techniques and that these techniques are carefully chosen based on the plant organ and desired product quality. It is also important to note that the analytical composition of EOs can vary depending on the extraction technique used and that factors such as distillation duration, temperature, operating pressure, and raw plant material quality can all influence EO yield [11].


**2.3 Biomechanical aspects of feet for treatment with insoles and shoes in runners with plantar fasciitis**

In an attempt to prevent the progression of plantar fasciitis or even to eliminate the periods of recurrence of the disease, most therapeutic approaches directed to runners with this pathology occur through insoles, with the purpose of supporting the medial longitudinal arch and reducing overload in the rearfoot region, as well as footwear to minimize excessive rearfoot pronation [20]. However, few studies have aimed to understand the effect of these factors on plantar fasciitis [56, 57], especially in running [58, 59].

One explanation for the few studies on treatment with insoles or shoes in runners may be due to the treatment time for plantar fasciitis. According to Young *et al.*, [60]

#### *Biomechanical Aspects of the Static and Dynamic Patterns of the Feet of Runners with Plantar… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97090*

the treatment lasts around six to 18 months, a fact which can lead to frustration of the therapist and the patient [61]. Although conservative therapy (drugs, physiotherapy, and orthosis resources) is still the mainstay of treatment, there are several controversies about the effectiveness of the therapeutic program that best provides symptom relief [62]. Thus, when conservative treatment is unsuccessful, a percentage of 5 to 10% of those affected progress to surgical treatment for removal of the plantar fascia [63].

The purpose of most of the treatment strategies for plantar fasciitis described in the literature is to reduce pain symptoms and overloads imposed on the calcaneus. In this direction Landorf *et al.,* [57], evaluated 135 individuals with plantar fasciitis, non-athletes, in a longitudinal follow-up treatment with insoles. The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of three types of insoles on the plantar surface, after three, six, and twelve months of treatment. The authors concluded that, in the long run, none of the insoles promoted a reduction in symptomatology and improved foot function. This may explain the cycles of relapse and remission of plantar fasciitis [64].

This study is important, since one of the most commonly used resources by runners in their running practice is the insole, as a corrective factor for a better mechanical performance of the feet, as it is low cost when compared to recognized brand footwear in the market. According to some authors [65–67], the support of the longitudinal plantar arch is one of the most common treatments used in the population of athletes with plantar fasciitis.

Another study aimed at conventional footwear in triathlete runners with plantar fasciitis found that many have manufacturing defects that possibly contributed to the development of plantar fasciitis. Evaluating the construction of sports shoes (in terms of flexibility and the sole) can prevent injuries from overuse of the lower extremities [58].

In another study, the authors aimed to verify the effect of traditional footwear in relation to footwear with an ultra-flexible intermediate midsole (Nike 5.0) for the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis associated with diverse exercises for 12 weeks and a 6-month follow-up after intervention. The conclusion of this study revealed that the shoes with an ultra-flexible intermediate midsole (Nike 5.0) promoted pain reduction earlier than conventional shoes [59].

Given the biomechanical studies carried out to date, it is likely that the way the loads are distributed on the surface of the feet of individuals with plantar fasciitis is different depending on the type of insole and footwear used by runners, especially when considering the acute and chronic phase of the pathology. However, there is still a scarcity of studies that address the effects of footwear and insoles on heel pain in runners with plantar fasciitis and their relationship with the plantar arch and load imposed on the feet during running and static postures.


Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse Tomato Production

*Rafael A. Muchanga and Hajime Araki*

### **Abstract**

Adequate residue management may enhance the benefits of cover crops on greenhouse tomato (*Solanum lycopersicum* L.) productivity, soil N pool, N cycling, and environmental quality. Regardless of management, cover crops may maintain or increase soil N storage at 10 cm depth compared with bare fallow. Cover crops may also enhance microbial biomass N, as a result, soil N availability may increase with cover crops, except rye (*Secale cereale* L.), more so with hairy vetch (*Vicia villosa* R.; HV) incorporation than HV mulch and the biculture of HV and rye. Residual inorganic N at surface soil may increase with cover crops, more so with HV and rye monocultures than the biculture. Tomato yield may increase more with the biculture than either HV incorporation or HV mulch because of an efficient residue-N use by tomatoes. The biculture may change the N release pattern from both cover crops: rye of the biculture may release more N than the monoculture, while HV may release a similar or more N in the late than in the early period of tomato growth. With adequate seeding HV/rye ratio (2/1), biculture may maintain or increase soil N storage, increase N cycling and tomato yield, and improve environmental quality.

**Keywords:** soil and environmental quality, N dynamics, hairy vetch, rye, tomato yield

#### **1. Introduction**

Nitrogen (N) is the most important nutrient required by most crops, and if adequately used in cropping systems can contribute to increasing food production over the long-term, which may help sustain the growing world population. Nitrogen fertilizers have been used in amounts that often exceed the crop N requirements over the years worldwide. Nitrogen fertilizer rates in vegetable production systems worldwide can be as high as 200 to 900 kg N ha1 [1, 2]. However, high N fertilization rates may result in increased soil residual inorganic N [3] that can be lost from the soil–plant system through volatilization to the atmosphere [4] or leaching to groundwater [5]. Cover cropping is an improved management practice that can help reduce N leaching to groundwater through soil N uptake and/or by reducing N fertilizer inputs into cropping systems. However, the efficiency of cover crops in reducing N leaching varies with plant species. Nonlegumes are about three times more efficient in reducing N leaching than legumes [5] because of greater above- and belowground biomass production [3, 6]. Also, nonlegumes can establish root systems and produce dry matter under cool conditions better than legumes. On the other hand, the ability of legume cover crops in reducing N leaching is limited by the fact that legumes meet some or all of their N requirements from symbiotic N2 fixation [5].

**2.1 Hairy vetch and rye C and N accumulation and residue decomposition**

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse…*

the open-field systems [3, 25].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

by soil microbes [11, 25].

N dynamics more significantly.

**57**

**and cover crop N recovery**

Hairy vetch is a winter-hardy cover crop that can produce large biomass and accumulate about 92.1 to 187 kg N ha1 in the open-field systems and 98.1 to 301 kg N ha1 in greenhouse systems (**Table 1).** Because of a C/N ratio < 25 (**Table 1**) [23], HV residues breakdown rapidly after incorporation in the soil, releasing about 40% of its total N within the first 4 weeks after incorporation of residues in the soil [24]. This rapid N release increases the likelihood of N loss from the soil–plant system when used as an N source for crop production, especially in

Rye is the coldest tolerant and the easiest to establish, the most productive and the earliest to head among temperate region nonlegume cover crops [26]. It can produce as much as 6.75 Mg ha1 of aboveground biomass in the open-field systems (**Table 1**). Because of the C/N > 25 (**Table 1**) [23], rye residues breakdown slowly after application in the soil resulting in a lack of synchrony between residue-N release and crop N demand, which leads to low residue-N recovery and crop yields. Our results from a litterbag experiment under the plastic high tunnel conditions showed that only 16.5% of buried dry weight rye residues decomposed during the first 4 weeks after the initiation of the experiment, whereas, during the same period, HV showed decomposition of 59.8% of buried dry weight residues (**Figure 1**). A more significant rye decomposition was observed after the first 4 weeks, whereas by the end of the experiment, 12 weeks after burying, the percentage of the initial dry weight of rye residues that remained in the soil was 24.5%, higher than 1.2% of HV (**Figure 1**). Despite greater biomass production, rye adds

fewer N amounts to the soil compared with HV [6, 11] because of low N accumulation. In some cases, the application of rye residues (C/N ratio > 25) depletes soil N availability and decreases crop yields because of N immobilization

Alternatively, the biculture of HV and rye, with an intermediate C/N ratio between HV and rye (**Table 1**), may show a moderate decomposition speed that may result in an increased soil N availability and residue-N recovery by tomatoes. This assumption is supported by the results from a litterbag assay under the openfield conditions of Chinta et al. [27], who reported, with few exceptions, an intermediate decomposition level of residues of the biculture of HV and rye between pure HV (higher) and rye (lower) residues. Also, because of greater seeding rates, biculture of HV and rye may accumulate greater biomass and add more C to the soil than HV, and more N than rye monoculture [6, 11], thereby influencing soil C and

**2.2 Effects of cover crop residue management on tomato yield, N uptake,**

Because of high N accumulation and low C/N ratio, HV adds more N to the soil and enhances N uptake and the yield of the subsequent crop better than nonlegumes or bare fallow [8, 11]. Cover crop treatments showed a 13.9 to 32.7% greater marketable yield than the bare treatment in 2017 (**Table 2**). The biculture of HV and rye (HV + RYE) showed the highest marketable yield. Similarly, the cover crop treatments showed 31.5 to 68.3% greater shoot biomass and N uptake compared with the bare treatment. Greater marketable yield with the biculture than with HV incorporation (HVI), although a similar total N uptake and residue-N recovered, may be explained by more efficient use of cover crop N by tomatoes throughout the growing period. Biculture with a moderate decomposition speed (C/N = 17.6 [22]) may have released more N during the period of high N demand, while HVI with fast

The sustainability of the cropping systems depends on the maintenance or improvement of soil carbon (C) and N levels. Cover crops can maintain or improve soil organic C and N levels by adding large amounts of residues that provide C and N to the soil [7, 8]. An increase in soil C and N levels may result in a range of ancillary benefits to the growing plants such as improved microbial biomass and activity and soil structure [9, 10], crop growth and yield [10–12]. Cover cropping may also help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by sequestering atmospheric C to the soil and through improving N use efficiency by crops [13, 14]. As with N leaching, the cover crops' ability to influence soil C and N levels, crop N uptake, N use efficiency, and crop yields vary with plant species. Because of greater biomass production, nonlegumes may be more effective in improving soil C pool than legumes, while legumes with higher N concentration may be more effective in improving soil N pool and crop yields [12]. Nitrogen use efficiency from plant residues by crops including tomatoes (*Solanum lycopersicum* L.) is often less than 50% [3, 15], and part of unrecovered N amount is prone to be lost from the soil– plant system; this low N recovery is, in part, related to the nature of plant residues added to the soil. Nonlegumes decompose and release N slowly to the growing crop because of high C/N ratio, whereas legume plant residues decompose rapidly after application in the soil, releasing high N amounts in the early growth stages when the crop requires low N amounts. Thus, there is a need to adopt plant residue management practices that help increased N use efficiency by crops thereby improving N cycling, environmental quality, and crop yields. This chapter discusses cover crop use in greenhouse tomato production systems and residue management practices that optimize N use efficiency and tomato yield, reduce or limit residual N accumulation while maintaining or improving soil N storage.

#### **2. Greenhouse tomato production systems and cover crops**

Tomato is one of the most widely grown and eaten vegetables worldwide, and the second most important after potato (*Tuberosum solanum* L.) [16]. In Japan, tomato is the most important vegetable crop, and the fresh-market tomato industry is larger than that of processing tomatoes. Fresh-market tomatoes are mainly grown in greenhouses, especially plastic high tunnels, throughout the year, mainly in warm regions. In these systems, farmers cultivate tomatoes continuously and often apply high amounts of synthetic N fertilizers (>200 kg N ha1 ) to maximize net returns, as a result, salt accumulation and fruit injury became serious problems [17]. The increased concerns about environmental problems and the consumer's preference for vegetables produced with fewer chemicals have become the driving forces for the development of alternative and sustainable fresh-market tomato production systems. The use of cover crops, especially legumes such as hairy vetch (*Vicia villosa* R.; HV), was seen as a promising practice that could help reduce N fertilizer inputs, while maintain or improving tomato yield and soil organic matter. Hairy vetch and rye (*Secale cereale* L.) cover crops were evaluated in the field and Wagner pots under plastic high tunnel conditions in northern Japan and the results are discussed below.

#### **2.1 Hairy vetch and rye C and N accumulation and residue decomposition**

Hairy vetch is a winter-hardy cover crop that can produce large biomass and accumulate about 92.1 to 187 kg N ha1 in the open-field systems and 98.1 to 301 kg N ha1 in greenhouse systems (**Table 1).** Because of a C/N ratio < 25 (**Table 1**) [23], HV residues breakdown rapidly after incorporation in the soil, releasing about 40% of its total N within the first 4 weeks after incorporation of residues in the soil [24]. This rapid N release increases the likelihood of N loss from the soil–plant system when used as an N source for crop production, especially in the open-field systems [3, 25].

Rye is the coldest tolerant and the easiest to establish, the most productive and the earliest to head among temperate region nonlegume cover crops [26]. It can produce as much as 6.75 Mg ha1 of aboveground biomass in the open-field systems (**Table 1**). Because of the C/N > 25 (**Table 1**) [23], rye residues breakdown slowly after application in the soil resulting in a lack of synchrony between residue-N release and crop N demand, which leads to low residue-N recovery and crop yields. Our results from a litterbag experiment under the plastic high tunnel conditions showed that only 16.5% of buried dry weight rye residues decomposed during the first 4 weeks after the initiation of the experiment, whereas, during the same period, HV showed decomposition of 59.8% of buried dry weight residues (**Figure 1**). A more significant rye decomposition was observed after the first 4 weeks, whereas by the end of the experiment, 12 weeks after burying, the percentage of the initial dry weight of rye residues that remained in the soil was 24.5%, higher than 1.2% of HV (**Figure 1**). Despite greater biomass production, rye adds fewer N amounts to the soil compared with HV [6, 11] because of low N accumulation. In some cases, the application of rye residues (C/N ratio > 25) depletes soil N availability and decreases crop yields because of N immobilization by soil microbes [11, 25].

Alternatively, the biculture of HV and rye, with an intermediate C/N ratio between HV and rye (**Table 1**), may show a moderate decomposition speed that may result in an increased soil N availability and residue-N recovery by tomatoes. This assumption is supported by the results from a litterbag assay under the openfield conditions of Chinta et al. [27], who reported, with few exceptions, an intermediate decomposition level of residues of the biculture of HV and rye between pure HV (higher) and rye (lower) residues. Also, because of greater seeding rates, biculture of HV and rye may accumulate greater biomass and add more C to the soil than HV, and more N than rye monoculture [6, 11], thereby influencing soil C and N dynamics more significantly.

#### **2.2 Effects of cover crop residue management on tomato yield, N uptake, and cover crop N recovery**

Because of high N accumulation and low C/N ratio, HV adds more N to the soil and enhances N uptake and the yield of the subsequent crop better than nonlegumes or bare fallow [8, 11]. Cover crop treatments showed a 13.9 to 32.7% greater marketable yield than the bare treatment in 2017 (**Table 2**). The biculture of HV and rye (HV + RYE) showed the highest marketable yield. Similarly, the cover crop treatments showed 31.5 to 68.3% greater shoot biomass and N uptake compared with the bare treatment. Greater marketable yield with the biculture than with HV incorporation (HVI), although a similar total N uptake and residue-N recovered, may be explained by more efficient use of cover crop N by tomatoes throughout the growing period. Biculture with a moderate decomposition speed (C/N = 17.6 [22]) may have released more N during the period of high N demand, while HVI with fast

**Figure 1.**

**2017**

**2018**

*z*

*x*

**Table 2.**

**59**

*total dry weight.*

*significant difference test.*

*2017 and 2018 (Muchanga et al. [22]).*

*(n = 3); only shown when larger than the symbols.*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

**Treatmentsz Marketable Dry**

*BARE, no cover crop but fertilized with 150 kg N ha1*

*controlled-release N fertilizer at a rate of 150 kg N ha1 . y*

*Decomposition of 5 g dry weight of hairy vetch (HV) and RYE (RYE) residues buried at 10 cm soil depth in tomato plots during 12 weeks under the plastic high tunnel in 2018. Vertical bars represent standard errors*

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse…*

**Total N Recovered**

**kg N ha1**

**yield biomass uptakey Total Percentage**

**ha1**

BARE 101 cw 4.89 c 186 c ─ ─ HVI 116 b 7.10 a 313 a 127 a 42.0 HVM 115 b 6.43 b 267 b 81 b 27.0 HV+RYE 134 a 7.47 a 312 a 126 a 63.9

BARE 60.1 b 4.37 ab 184 b ─ ─ HVI 84.3 a 5.96 a 233 a 49.0 a 50.7 HVM 64.8 b 4.98 ab 195 b 11.0 b 11.4 RYE 49.8 c 3.64 b 153 c -31 ─ -71.8 HV+RYE 60.7 b 4.81 ab 188 b 4.0 c 3.42

*RYE, rye monoculture; HV+RYE, biculture of hairy vetch and rye. All cover crop treatments received the*

*Nitrogen uptake from the soil and cover crops = shoot N content shoot dry weight biomass + fruit N content fruit*

*Calculated as the ratio of total N recovered from cover crops (N uptake in cover crop – N uptake in BARE) to the cover crop N input. Cover crop N input in HVI, HVM, and HV+RYE was 302, 300, and 197 kg N ha1 in 2017, and 99.3, 96.8, and 117 kg N ha1 in 2018, respectively. Rye residues (RYE) added to the soil 43.1 kg N ha1 in 2018. wMeans followed by the same letters in each column and year are not significantly different at 5% by Tukey's honestly*

*Effects of cover crop residue management on tomato marketable yield, shoot biomass, N uptake and recovery in*

**cover crop Nx**

*; HVI, hairy vetch incorporation; HVM, hairy vetch mulch;*

**of**

**N input**

**weight shoot**

**Mg ha1 Mg ha1 kg N**

*z Low biomass resulted from a late planting of hairy vetch (planted on 25 April 2018) due to the low survival rate of the previous hairy vetch planting (planted on 21 September 2017) caused by a high snowpack (>1 m) and a long period of snow cover.*

*Aboveground biomass was not reported by the authors.*

#### **Table 1.**

*The dry weight (DW) biomass, carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) accumulation, and C/N ratio of cover crops grown in the open-field and greenhouse systems.*

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

#### **Figure 1.**

*Decomposition of 5 g dry weight of hairy vetch (HV) and RYE (RYE) residues buried at 10 cm soil depth in tomato plots during 12 weeks under the plastic high tunnel in 2018. Vertical bars represent standard errors (n = 3); only shown when larger than the symbols.*

*z BARE, no cover crop but fertilized with 150 kg N ha1 ; HVI, hairy vetch incorporation; HVM, hairy vetch mulch; RYE, rye monoculture; HV+RYE, biculture of hairy vetch and rye. All cover crop treatments received the controlled-release N fertilizer at a rate of 150 kg N ha1 . y*

*Nitrogen uptake from the soil and cover crops = shoot N content shoot dry weight biomass + fruit N content fruit total dry weight.*

*x Calculated as the ratio of total N recovered from cover crops (N uptake in cover crop – N uptake in BARE) to the cover crop N input. Cover crop N input in HVI, HVM, and HV+RYE was 302, 300, and 197 kg N ha1 in 2017, and 99.3, 96.8, and 117 kg N ha1 in 2018, respectively. Rye residues (RYE) added to the soil 43.1 kg N ha1 in 2018. wMeans followed by the same letters in each column and year are not significantly different at 5% by Tukey's honestly significant difference test.*

#### **Table 2.**

*Effects of cover crop residue management on tomato marketable yield, shoot biomass, N uptake and recovery in 2017 and 2018 (Muchanga et al. [22]).*

decomposition speed (C/N = 10.2), may have released more N in the early period of tomato growth [24], a period of low N demand. This assumption is supported by a lower growth index (GI = plant length stem diameter number of expanded leaves [28]) in the early period of tomato growth (5 and 7 weeks after transplanting; WAT) with the biculture than with HVI (**Table 3**). However, the rate of increase of GI from 7 to 9 WAT was higher with the biculture (82.9%) than with HVI (68.9%), which resulted in a similar GI of the biculture to HVI at 9 WAT. The results of Sugihara et al. [24] who found more HV-derived N concentration in the 1st and 2nd tomato fruit clusters than in upper fruit clusters, also supported the assumption that HV incorporation released more N in the early period of tomato growth, which favors more shoot biomass accumulation rather than fruit set and enlargement.

with HV mulch than with bare fallow. Likewise, Muchanga et al. [21] reported greater marketable and total yields and shoot biomass with HV incorporation than

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse…*

The quantity, quality, and management of cover crop residues may influence N dynamics and storage in the soil, which affects crop yield and environmental quality. Regardless of residue management (residue placement or the mixing of legumes and nonlegumes residues), the addition of cover crops residues to the soil increased significantly soil microbial biomass N (MBN) levels at 0–10 cm bulk soil by 25.4 to 121% at 4 and 8 WAT in 2017, and by 26.8 to 187% at 2 and 8 WAT in 2018, compared with the bare treatment (no cover crop but fertilized with 150 kg N ha1

(**Figure 2**). In both years, HV incorporation showed the highest increment of MBN, whereas, despite a similar N input [22], HV mulch showed the least increment of MBN. This fact points out that the placement of residues in the soil may determine the cover crop N mineralization and contribution to the growing crop. The increase in MBN with cover crops than with no cover crop resulted from greater C and N inputs, especially N because it is the most limiting nutrient for microbial growth [29, 30]. However, with high levels of soil inorganic N, even residues with low N content, such as rye residues, may increase MBN levels in the early period after residue application because if plant residues do not satisfy microbes N require-

Soil N availability (soil inorganic N during the crop growing period) varied significantly (*P* < 0.05) with treatments at 0–10 cm depth at 2, 8, and 16 WAT in 2017 and 2018 (**Figure 3**). Averaged across sampling dates, soil N availability followed these orders: HVI > HV + RYE > BARE > HVM in 2017, and

HVI = HVM > HV + RYE > BARE > RYE in 2018. The decrease in soil N availability in HVM in 2017 may be the result of slow N mineralization of mulch residues compared with incorporated residues [31], and higher N uptake compared with the bare treatment (**Table 2**). On the other hand, the decrease in soil N availability in RYE in 2018 resulted from N immobilization due to the C/N ratio > 25 [23].

Therefore, even in greenhouse production systems where water is applied regularly and the soil temperature is relatively higher compared to that of the open-field systems, cover crops such as rye, with a high C/N ratio, may have little or no N contribution to the growing crop, so biculture of HV and rye may be a better management option. It's noteworthy that the effectiveness of biculture in increasing MBN and soil N availability diminished from 2017 to 2018 as a result of the increase in the C/N ratio of residues. Therefore, the use of adequate seeding HV/rye rates is

Increasing or maintaining soil N levels is vital for sustaining soil quality, crop growth and yield [8]. Soil N storage may vary with cover crop species due to differences in biomass production and N accumulation [32], and residue management. In 2017, HV incorporation increased significantly soil total N (STN) by 11.3% at 0–10 cm depth and 8.14% at 10–30 cm depth, compared with the bare treatment (**Table 4**). The biculture showed a 1.76% increase in STN compared with bare treatment at 10–30 cm depth only. In contrast, HVM showed no or negative effect on STN in 2017. In 2018, all cover crop treatments increased STN by 10.1% to 12.6%

crucial to maximizing residue-N utilization by the growing crop.

)

**2.3 Effects of cover crop residue management on soil N pool**

*2.3.1 Soil microbial biomass N and N availability*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

ments, microbes obtain N from the soil [29].

*2.3.2 Soil total N*

**61**

with the bare fallow.

As opposed to 2017, the marketable yield, shoot biomass, and total N uptake increased with HVI only, compared with the bare treatment, in 2018. The biculture and HV mulch (HVM) showed similar marketable yield, shoot biomass, and total N uptake to the bare treatment, whereas rye treatment (RYE) showed adverse effects on tomato yield, shoot biomass, and total N uptake due to N immobilization (**Table 2**). The adverse effect of rye residues resulted from their C/N ratio > 25 [23]. Soil microbes require N for their growth and if residues cannot meet their N requirements, microbes immobilize soil inorganic N, resulting in soil inorganic N depletion. Sainju et al. [12] reported 27.2 and 28.9% lower tomato yield and plant biomass, respectively, in rye than in bare plots without N fertilization in 1997. Likewise, Clark et al. [11] reported a decrease in corn grain yield by 32.7% in rye plots compared with no cover crop plots. The increased effectiveness of the biculture on marketable yield observed in 2017 was not repeated in 2018. Biculture showed no effect on shoot biomass, tomato yield, and N uptake possibly because of low residue-N recovery in 2018. Tomatoes utilized only 3.42% of the biculture N amount applied (N applied by residues was 117 kg N ha1 [22]) (**Table 2**). This ineffectiveness of the biculture may be explained by the higher C/N ratio of residues in 2018 (23.7) than in 2017 (17.6) [22]. This result highlights the importance of the C/N ratio in controlling the plant residue N release, so the decision on seeding rates HV/rye should be based on the expected C/N ratio of biculture residues. Greater tomato yield with HV than with bare fallow was reported by several researchers [10, 12]. Araki et al. [17] reported greater tomato yield and plant growth

*z BARE, no cover crop but fertilized with 150 kg N ha1 ; HVI, hairy vetch incorporation; HVM, hairy vetch mulch; HV+RYE, biculture of hairy vetch and rye. All cover crop treatments received the controlled-release N fertilizer at a rate of 150 kg N ha1 . y*

*GI = Plant length (cm) stem diameter (mm) number of expanded leaves. WAT, weeks after transplanting. x Means followed by the same letters in each column are not significantly different at 5% by Tukey's honestly significant difference test.*

*NS, not significant.*

#### **Table 3.**

*Tomato growth index (GI) as influenced by cover crop residue management in 2017.*

with HV mulch than with bare fallow. Likewise, Muchanga et al. [21] reported greater marketable and total yields and shoot biomass with HV incorporation than with the bare fallow.

#### **2.3 Effects of cover crop residue management on soil N pool**

#### *2.3.1 Soil microbial biomass N and N availability*

The quantity, quality, and management of cover crop residues may influence N dynamics and storage in the soil, which affects crop yield and environmental quality. Regardless of residue management (residue placement or the mixing of legumes and nonlegumes residues), the addition of cover crops residues to the soil increased significantly soil microbial biomass N (MBN) levels at 0–10 cm bulk soil by 25.4 to 121% at 4 and 8 WAT in 2017, and by 26.8 to 187% at 2 and 8 WAT in 2018, compared with the bare treatment (no cover crop but fertilized with 150 kg N ha1 ) (**Figure 2**). In both years, HV incorporation showed the highest increment of MBN, whereas, despite a similar N input [22], HV mulch showed the least increment of MBN. This fact points out that the placement of residues in the soil may determine the cover crop N mineralization and contribution to the growing crop. The increase in MBN with cover crops than with no cover crop resulted from greater C and N inputs, especially N because it is the most limiting nutrient for microbial growth [29, 30]. However, with high levels of soil inorganic N, even residues with low N content, such as rye residues, may increase MBN levels in the early period after residue application because if plant residues do not satisfy microbes N requirements, microbes obtain N from the soil [29].

Soil N availability (soil inorganic N during the crop growing period) varied significantly (*P* < 0.05) with treatments at 0–10 cm depth at 2, 8, and 16 WAT in 2017 and 2018 (**Figure 3**). Averaged across sampling dates, soil N availability followed these orders: HVI > HV + RYE > BARE > HVM in 2017, and HVI = HVM > HV + RYE > BARE > RYE in 2018. The decrease in soil N availability in HVM in 2017 may be the result of slow N mineralization of mulch residues compared with incorporated residues [31], and higher N uptake compared with the bare treatment (**Table 2**). On the other hand, the decrease in soil N availability in RYE in 2018 resulted from N immobilization due to the C/N ratio > 25 [23]. Therefore, even in greenhouse production systems where water is applied regularly and the soil temperature is relatively higher compared to that of the open-field systems, cover crops such as rye, with a high C/N ratio, may have little or no N contribution to the growing crop, so biculture of HV and rye may be a better management option. It's noteworthy that the effectiveness of biculture in increasing MBN and soil N availability diminished from 2017 to 2018 as a result of the increase in the C/N ratio of residues. Therefore, the use of adequate seeding HV/rye rates is crucial to maximizing residue-N utilization by the growing crop.

#### *2.3.2 Soil total N*

Increasing or maintaining soil N levels is vital for sustaining soil quality, crop growth and yield [8]. Soil N storage may vary with cover crop species due to differences in biomass production and N accumulation [32], and residue management. In 2017, HV incorporation increased significantly soil total N (STN) by 11.3% at 0–10 cm depth and 8.14% at 10–30 cm depth, compared with the bare treatment (**Table 4**). The biculture showed a 1.76% increase in STN compared with bare treatment at 10–30 cm depth only. In contrast, HVM showed no or negative effect on STN in 2017. In 2018, all cover crop treatments increased STN by 10.1% to 12.6%

#### **Figure 2.**

*Effects of cover crop residue management on microbial biomass nitrogen at surface 10 cm bulk soil depth during the period of tomato cultivation in (A) 2017 and (B) 2018. Vertical bars represent standard errors (n = 3). Means followed by the same letters on each sampling date and year are not significantly different at 5% by Tukey's honestly significant difference test (Muchanga et al. [22]).*

of 30-day in the soil at 25° C (LPS100, 41%N; JCAM AGRI, Tokyo, Japan). Because of its N release pattern, it was included in our experiments for developing low N input systems. The N fertilizer effects on soil C and N were examined in 2016 under plastic high tunnel conditions (**Table 5**). The controlled-release N fertilizer showed no effect on soil organic C (SOC) and STN at 0–10 cm depth, but HV fertilizer interaction was significant for SOC. The N fertilizer enhanced the positive effects of HV mulch on SOC, whereas it diminished the effectiveness of HV incorporation in increasing SOC (**Table 5**). As opposed to fast-release N fertilizers that were

*soil depth during the period of tomato cultivation in (A) 2017 and (B) 2018. Vertical bars represent standard errors (n = 3). Means followed by the same letters on each sampling date and year are not significantly different*

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse…*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

*N + NH4*

*+ N) at surface 10 cm*

reported to decrease SOC and STN [33, 34], this controlled-release N fertilizer may be used safely in greenhouse tomato production systems, preferably applying N

Soil residual inorganic N may represent 50 to 80% of total fertilizer N applied to crops, more so in vegetable than field crop systems because of higher N inputs and lower N recovery of vegetable crops including tomatoes [35]. Thus, the N loss potential from the soil–plant system through volatilization and/or leaching is higher

in vegetable systems. Because temperate region soils are negatively charged

amounts ≤ 150 kg N ha1

*2.3.3 Soil residual N*

**63**

**Figure 3.**

.

*Effects of cover crop residue management on soil inorganic nitrogen (NO3*

*at 5% by Tukey's honestly significant difference test (Muchanga et al. [22]).*

at 0–10 cm depth only, compared with no cover crop treatment. Greater STN with cover crops than without cover crops observed mostly in 2018 agreed with the results of Kuo et al. [8] and Sainju et al. [12] and may be the result of greater C and N inputs by cover crop residues. In both years, HVI was the most effective treatment in increasing STN. The positive effects of HVI on STN shown in **Table 4** agreed with the results of our previous study [21] where the effects of HV (incorporation) were compared to those of livestock compost. In that study, HV incorporation showed 7.29% greater STN stock than the bare treatment (no HV and compost) and a 17.3% increase of STN stock compared with the baseline stock (initial STN stock measured before any treatment application). However, HV was not as effective as the livestock compost in building up STN stock.

The cover crops and bare treatments shown in the **Table 4** were fertilized with the controlled-release N fertilizer at a rate of 150 kg N ha1 to sustain crop growth when the cover crop N supply ceases or reduces. This N fertilizer follows a sigmoidal pattern (S-type), releasing 80% of its total N slowly for 70-day after a lag period *Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

#### **Figure 3.**

*Effects of cover crop residue management on soil inorganic nitrogen (NO3 N + NH4 + N) at surface 10 cm soil depth during the period of tomato cultivation in (A) 2017 and (B) 2018. Vertical bars represent standard errors (n = 3). Means followed by the same letters on each sampling date and year are not significantly different at 5% by Tukey's honestly significant difference test (Muchanga et al. [22]).*

of 30-day in the soil at 25° C (LPS100, 41%N; JCAM AGRI, Tokyo, Japan). Because of its N release pattern, it was included in our experiments for developing low N input systems. The N fertilizer effects on soil C and N were examined in 2016 under plastic high tunnel conditions (**Table 5**). The controlled-release N fertilizer showed no effect on soil organic C (SOC) and STN at 0–10 cm depth, but HV fertilizer interaction was significant for SOC. The N fertilizer enhanced the positive effects of HV mulch on SOC, whereas it diminished the effectiveness of HV incorporation in increasing SOC (**Table 5**). As opposed to fast-release N fertilizers that were reported to decrease SOC and STN [33, 34], this controlled-release N fertilizer may be used safely in greenhouse tomato production systems, preferably applying N amounts ≤ 150 kg N ha1 .

#### *2.3.3 Soil residual N*

Soil residual inorganic N may represent 50 to 80% of total fertilizer N applied to crops, more so in vegetable than field crop systems because of higher N inputs and lower N recovery of vegetable crops including tomatoes [35]. Thus, the N loss potential from the soil–plant system through volatilization and/or leaching is higher in vegetable systems. Because temperate region soils are negatively charged

#### *Nitrogen in Agriculture - Physiological, Agricultural and Ecological Aspects*

retaining most of NH4

the biculture showed NO3

As opposed to 2017, NO3

both years, HVM showed the highest NO3

*BARE, no cover crop but fertilized with 150 kg N ha1*

*release N fertilizer at a rate of 150 kg N ha1 . y*

*respectively. Rye N input was 43.1 kg N ha1 . x*

*significant difference test.*

*Soil inorganic nitrogen (SIN; NO3*

**N NH4**

tion speed of residues.

**Treatmentsz NO3**

ment. Least NO3

NO3

**2017**

**2018**

*z*

**Table 6.**

**65**

surface-placed residues is delayed [36].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

+ N [32], NO3

after winter when a large amount of snow melts. The use of cover crops may reduce N fertilization rates and thereby reducing N leaching potential. Moreover, the management of cover crop residues may affect the decomposition speed of the residues thereby influencing crop N uptake and residual inorganic N. Generally, the decomposition speed of residues that are incorporated in the soil is faster than that of residues that are placed on the soil surface [29, 31], therefore the net N release of

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse…*

The effects of cover crop residue management on soil residual N (soil inorganic N levels after tomato harvest) in tomato production in a Gleysol were assessed in 2017 and 2018 in northern Japan. Because of greater N input and slow or fast decomposition speed, HVM and HVI showed 25.2 to 386% greater NO3

N and SIN levels similar to those of the bare treat-

+ N, and SIN levels increased by 54.2 to

**+ N SIN Percentage of SIN-derived from**

*; HVI, hairy vetch incorporation; HVM, hairy vetch mulch;*

*+ N) after tomato harvest at surface 10 cm depth as*

N and SIN levels suggesting its use in

**cover crop N inputy**

N and SIN levels with the biculture may be the result of higher

soil inorganic N (SIN) at 0–10 cm depth in 2017 (**Table 6**). On the other hand, despite a higher N input (biculture residues added 117 kg N ha1 to the soil [22]),

residue-N recovery by tomatoes (**Table 2**) possibly due to a moderate decomposi-

218% with all cover crop treatments compared with the bare treatment in 2018. In

greenhouse tomato production systems may represent a high risk of N leaching to groundwater after winter. As opposed to 2017, the fact the biculture increased

 N and SIN levels in 2018 may be explained by the increase of its C/N ratio to 23.7, which resulted in low N recovery due to slow residue decomposition [37].

**kg N ha1 %**

*RYE, rye monoculture; HV+RYE, biculture of hairy vetch and rye. All cover crop treatments received the controlled-*

*%SINdfCCNinput = (SIN in cover crop – SIN in BARE)/Cover crop N input 100. Cover crop N input in HVI, HVM, and HV+RYE was 302, 300, and 197 kg N ha1 in 2017, and 99.3, 96.8, and 117 kg N ha1 in 2018,*

*Means followed by the same letters in each column and year are not significantly different at 5% by Tukey's honestly*

N, NH4

BARE 4.59 cx 23.0 b 27.6 c ─ HVI 9.14 b 25.4 b 34.5 b 2.30 HVM 22.3 a 32.0 a 54.3 a 8.92 HV + RYE 4.11 c 22.8 b 26.9 c 0.91

BARE 20.8 d 5.7 c 26.4 d ─ HVI 35.7 c 11.4 a 47.1 c 20.8 HVM 73.9 a 10.2 ab 84.1 a 59.5 RYE 47.5 b 12.7 a 60.2 b 78.3 HV + RYE 32.0 c 10.0 ab 42.0 c 13.3

*N + NH4*

*influenced by cover crop residue management in 2017 and 2018 (Muchanga et al. [22]).*

 All cover crop treatments received the controlledrelease N fertilizer at a rate of 150 kg N ha1*

*. y Change (%) = (STN in cover crop – STN in BARE)/STN in BARE 100 x*

*Means followed by the same letters in each column and year are not significantly different at 5% by Tukey's honestly significant difference test.  Controlled-release N fertilizer applied at a rate of 150 kg N ha1 . y*

*Means followed by the same letters in each column are not significantly different at 5% by Tukey's honestly significant difference test. NS, \*, \*\*, \*\*\*Not significant or significant at* P *< 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.*

#### **Table 5.**

*Effects of hairy vetch residue management and nitrogen fertilization on soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) at 0– 10 cm depth in 2016.*

#### *Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

retaining most of NH4 + N [32], NO3 N leaching is more important, especially after winter when a large amount of snow melts. The use of cover crops may reduce N fertilization rates and thereby reducing N leaching potential. Moreover, the management of cover crop residues may affect the decomposition speed of the residues thereby influencing crop N uptake and residual inorganic N. Generally, the decomposition speed of residues that are incorporated in the soil is faster than that of residues that are placed on the soil surface [29, 31], therefore the net N release of surface-placed residues is delayed [36].

The effects of cover crop residue management on soil residual N (soil inorganic N levels after tomato harvest) in tomato production in a Gleysol were assessed in 2017 and 2018 in northern Japan. Because of greater N input and slow or fast decomposition speed, HVM and HVI showed 25.2 to 386% greater NO3 N and soil inorganic N (SIN) at 0–10 cm depth in 2017 (**Table 6**). On the other hand, despite a higher N input (biculture residues added 117 kg N ha1 to the soil [22]), the biculture showed NO3 N and SIN levels similar to those of the bare treatment. Least NO3 N and SIN levels with the biculture may be the result of higher residue-N recovery by tomatoes (**Table 2**) possibly due to a moderate decomposition speed of residues.

As opposed to 2017, NO3 N, NH4 + N, and SIN levels increased by 54.2 to 218% with all cover crop treatments compared with the bare treatment in 2018. In both years, HVM showed the highest NO3 N and SIN levels suggesting its use in greenhouse tomato production systems may represent a high risk of N leaching to groundwater after winter. As opposed to 2017, the fact the biculture increased NO3 N and SIN levels in 2018 may be explained by the increase of its C/N ratio to 23.7, which resulted in low N recovery due to slow residue decomposition [37].

*z BARE, no cover crop but fertilized with 150 kg N ha1 ; HVI, hairy vetch incorporation; HVM, hairy vetch mulch; RYE, rye monoculture; HV+RYE, biculture of hairy vetch and rye. All cover crop treatments received the controlledrelease N fertilizer at a rate of 150 kg N ha1 . y*

*%SINdfCCNinput = (SIN in cover crop – SIN in BARE)/Cover crop N input 100. Cover crop N input in HVI, HVM, and HV+RYE was 302, 300, and 197 kg N ha1 in 2017, and 99.3, 96.8, and 117 kg N ha1 in 2018, respectively. Rye N input was 43.1 kg N ha1 . x*

*Means followed by the same letters in each column and year are not significantly different at 5% by Tukey's honestly significant difference test.*

#### **Table 6.**

*Soil inorganic nitrogen (SIN; NO3 N + NH4 + N) after tomato harvest at surface 10 cm depth as influenced by cover crop residue management in 2017 and 2018 (Muchanga et al. [22]).*

In 2017, the proportion of the seeding rates of HV/rye was 2/1 (20 kg ha1 HV/10 kg ha1 rye), while in 2018 was 1/1 (50 kg ha1 HV/50 kg ha1 rye). The reasons for using different seeding rates among the years were explained by Muchanga et al. [22]. Thus, seeding rates of HV/rye in a proportion of 2/1 (in kg ha1 ) that may lead to a C/N ratio of about 17.6 are recommended. The percentage of SIN-derived from cover crop N input (%SINdfCCNinput) was lower in 2017 than in 2018 (**Table 6**), suggesting that more residue-N applied in 2017 was utilized by plants than in 2018. Hairy vetch mulch and rye showed higher %SINdfCCNinput than other treatments in 2018, suggesting that more residue-N was released in the late period, more so from rye than HV mulch.

The data from **Table 5** suggests that the increase in residual SIN in HVM and HVI plots is more related to the addition of the controlled-release N fertilizer, so the rate of 150 kg N ha1 added to HVI and HVM plots may be excessive. A further study determining a better N fertilization rate for HVI and HVM that leads to a high yield, increased soil N storage, and least residual SIN is needed.

#### **2.4 Rye-derived nitrogen dynamics in the soil-tomato system in a greenhouse using 15N tracer technique**

Since neither HV nor rye can simultaneously provide N and enhance tomato yield, increase soil N storage, and reduce N leaching through residual N uptake, the use of the biculture of HV and rye in tomato production is seen as a promising practice that can provide most of the benefits [32]. The positive effects of the biculture on tomato yield and residue-N recovery observed in 2017 discussed in the previous section suggest that residue management may improve the N contribution of cover crops to tomato production, and more importantly, the N release pattern of HV and rye may change when applied together in the soil. While dynamics of N derived from HV in the soiltomato system have been studied [24], studies on dynamics of N derived from rye in the soilcrop system are limited, possibly due to detrimental effects of rye on crop yields. A 15N tracer examination was conducted in Wagner pots in a plastic high tunnel in northern Japan to understand the reasons for the high effectiveness of the biculture in increasing residue-N recovery and tomato yield by examining the uptake and recovery, and retention in the soil of N derived from rye residues applied as a monoculture and biculture with HV. The major findings are discussed below.

fertilization with 15NH4Cl and soil N uptake (rye grew in soil with the initial

*Influence of residue management on rye-derived nitrogen accumulation in tomato shoot and fruit (a) and retained in the soil (B). Vertical bars represent standard errors (n = 3); only shown when larger than the*

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse…*

**Treatmentsz Input in the soil (mg N/pot) Uptakey (mg N/plant) Recoveryx (%)**

RYE 1943 144 114 265 523 7.39 5.87 13.7 26.9 HV + RYE 972 84.3 94.9 151 331 8.67 9.77 15.6 34.0 *t*-test \*\*\* \*\* NS \*\*\* \*\*\* \*\* NS \*\*\* \*\*\*

*Determined as the positive difference of rye-derived N accumulation (Figure 4A) between a given week and the preceding week.*

*Rye-derived nitrogen input in the pot, and its uptake and recovery by tomatoes (shoot + fruit) as influenced by*

**Rye-derived N**

**WAT Total WAT Total** 0–2 2–4 4–8 0–2 2–4 4–8

*symbols. \*, \*\*\*significant at* P *< 0.05, and 0.001, respectively (Muchanga et al. [38]).*

*RYE, 15N-labeled rye residues; HV+RYE, biculture of hairy vetch and 15N-labeled rye residues.*

cover crop, more so when high N fertilization amounts were added.

As opposed to rye-derived N uptake, the biculture showed a total rye-derived N recovery of 34%, higher than 26.9% of rye treatment (**Table 7**). This result suggests that biculture of HV and rye may be an effective management practice to increase the N contribution from rye to tomato growth and fruit production. Consequently, if more N from residues is used by tomatoes, less supplemental N fertilizer may be needed, and the environmental problems associated with high N fertilization rates may be avoided. The biculture may provide many benefits such as enhancing tomato yield and residue-N recovery better than HV and rye monocultures and reduce residual N better than HV [41]. Several researchers [3, 25] have reported increased residual nitrate levels and leaching to groundwater with HV than with no

Although the N contribution from rye to tomato growth and fruit production increased when applied with HV to the soil, HV in the biculture may play a major role by contributing more N than rye in the early (0–4 WAT) and late periods (4–8 WAT) of tomato cultivation (**Table 8**). Hairy vetch and rye N contributions from 0 to 8 WAT represented 25.3% and 17.3% of the total N uptake (1914 mg N/plant [38]), respectively. Sugihara et al. [24] reported N recovery by tomatoes (shoot + fruit) of 40.3% by 4 WAT and an additional 15% at 4–10 WAT (HV-derived N uptake ceased at 10 WAT). In this study, HV contributed 9.65% more N to shoot growth and fruit production at 4–8 WAT than at 0–4 WAT, suggesting that the biculture may change the N release pattern from both cover crops: rye may release

N concentration of 65.2 mg N kg1 [38]).

*residue management in 2018 (Muchanga et al. [38]).*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

*Rye-derived N recovery (%) = rye-derived N uptake/ rye-derived N input 100.*

*\*\*\* Not significant or significant at P < 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.*

NO3

**67**

*z*

*y*

*x*

*NS, \*\*,*

**Table 7.**

**Figure 4.**

#### *2.4.1 Rye-derived nitrogen accumulation in tomato, uptake and recovery*

Because of higher rye-derived N input, tomatoes (shoot + fruit) in the rye treatment (N input was 1943 mg N/plant [38]) accumulated more rye-derived N than those in the biculture treatment (N input was 972 mg N/plant) on all sampling dates (**Figure 4A**). Rye-derived N accumulation in both treatments increased from 2 to 8 WAT and then decreased afterward. This decline of rye-derived N accumulation indicates the cessation of N uptake (determined as the positive difference between rye-derived N accumulation of a given week and the preceding week). The cessation of N uptake by tomato shoot and fruit or the decline in N accumulation after 8 WAT may be the result of N partitioning to roots, a process that occurs when soil inorganic N is least [39, 40]. Rye-derived N uptake by tomatoes was 70.2% and 75.5% greater with rye than with the biculture at 0–2 and 4–8 WAT, respectively (**Table 7**). Rye is often regarded as a delayed-N release, so the fact that rye treatment released a high amount of N at 0–2 WAT may be explained by a C/N ratio < 25 (C/N ratio = 17.4) [23], which is lower than a normal range (25.3 to 66.9) reported by several researchers [6, 8, 10, 11]. This lower C/N ratio resulted from N

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Influence of residue management on rye-derived nitrogen accumulation in tomato shoot and fruit (a) and retained in the soil (B). Vertical bars represent standard errors (n = 3); only shown when larger than the symbols. \*, \*\*\*significant at* P *< 0.05, and 0.001, respectively (Muchanga et al. [38]).*

*z RYE, 15N-labeled rye residues; HV+RYE, biculture of hairy vetch and 15N-labeled rye residues.*

*y Determined as the positive difference of rye-derived N accumulation (Figure 4A) between a given week and the preceding week. x Rye-derived N recovery (%) = rye-derived N uptake/ rye-derived N input 100.*

*NS, \*\*, \*\*\* Not significant or significant at P < 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.*

#### **Table 7.**

*Rye-derived nitrogen input in the pot, and its uptake and recovery by tomatoes (shoot + fruit) as influenced by residue management in 2018 (Muchanga et al. [38]).*

fertilization with 15NH4Cl and soil N uptake (rye grew in soil with the initial NO3 N concentration of 65.2 mg N kg1 [38]).

As opposed to rye-derived N uptake, the biculture showed a total rye-derived N recovery of 34%, higher than 26.9% of rye treatment (**Table 7**). This result suggests that biculture of HV and rye may be an effective management practice to increase the N contribution from rye to tomato growth and fruit production. Consequently, if more N from residues is used by tomatoes, less supplemental N fertilizer may be needed, and the environmental problems associated with high N fertilization rates may be avoided. The biculture may provide many benefits such as enhancing tomato yield and residue-N recovery better than HV and rye monocultures and reduce residual N better than HV [41]. Several researchers [3, 25] have reported increased residual nitrate levels and leaching to groundwater with HV than with no cover crop, more so when high N fertilization amounts were added.

Although the N contribution from rye to tomato growth and fruit production increased when applied with HV to the soil, HV in the biculture may play a major role by contributing more N than rye in the early (0–4 WAT) and late periods (4–8 WAT) of tomato cultivation (**Table 8**). Hairy vetch and rye N contributions from 0 to 8 WAT represented 25.3% and 17.3% of the total N uptake (1914 mg N/plant [38]), respectively. Sugihara et al. [24] reported N recovery by tomatoes (shoot + fruit) of 40.3% by 4 WAT and an additional 15% at 4–10 WAT (HV-derived N uptake ceased at 10 WAT). In this study, HV contributed 9.65% more N to shoot growth and fruit production at 4–8 WAT than at 0–4 WAT, suggesting that the biculture may change the N release pattern from both cover crops: rye may release

With adequate seeding hairy vetch/rye ratio (2/1), the biculture may be a better management practice to increase tomato yield and residue-N recovery, and maintain or increase soil N storage at surface 30 cm depth with no or least residual N. Biculture may promote efficient use of residue-N by tomatoes by releasing high amount of N in both the early and late periods of tomato growth. Biculture may change the N release pattern of both hairy vetch and rye residues: hairy vetch may release a similar or more N in the late (reproductive growth stage) than in the early period (vegetative growth stage) of tomato growth, while rye may release more N

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse…*

Some data were obtained from the researches supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (no. 18H02310) provided by JSPS (Japan Society for the Pro-

\*

1 Faculty of Agronomic Engineering and Forestry, Zambeze University, Mocuba

2 Faculty of Agro-Food Science, Niigata Agro-Food University, Tainai, Niigata

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
when applied with than without hairy vetch.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

**Acknowledgements**

motion of Science).

**Author details**

2403, Mozambique

959-2702, Japan

**69**

Rafael A. Muchanga1 and Hajime Araki2

provided the original work is properly cited.

*z Calculated as the ratio of the total N uptake from hairy vetch or rye to the total N uptake of the biculture (1914 mg N/plant [38]).*

*\* , \*\*, \*\*\*Significant at P < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.*

#### **Table 8.**

*Nitrogen uptake by tomatoes (shoot + fruit) from each cover crop of the biculture (Muchanga et al. [35]).*

more N when mixed with HV, in turn, HV may release a similar or more N amount after 4 weeks following the transplanting than before that period.

#### *2.4.2 Retention in the soil of nitrogen derived from rye*

Residue management and the quantity of residues applied to the soil [7, 8] may influence the amount of N retained by the soil. Rye-derived N retained in the soil was markedly higher with rye monoculture than with the biculture on all sampling dates (**Figure 4B**). The rye treatment showed an increasing trend of rye-derived N levels in the soil from 2 to 12 WAT, more so at 8 to 12 WAT. In contrast, the biculture showed a decreasing trend of rye-derived N levels in the soil from 2 to 12 WAT. Greater rye-derived N retention with rye than with the biculture treatment may be the result of higher rye-derived N input in rye treatment [(1943 mg N/ plant) (**Table 7**)] than in biculture (972 mg N/plant), and also lower N mineralization rate of rye residues in RYE treatment than in HV + RYE treatment. The decreasing trend of rye-derived N in the soil with biculture suggests that slow decomposition of residues may be advantageous over fast decomposition in building up STN.

By 12 WAT, the amount of rye-derived N retained in the soil represented 52.5% and 47.0% of the total rye-derived N input in rye monoculture and biculture, respectively. The ability of the soil to retain plant-derived N is stronger than the ability of different loss mechanisms to remove it [15]. Thus, the lower rye-derived N recovery observed in both treatments resulted from increased soil N retention. Rye-derived N retained in the roots and/or lost (difference of rye-derived N input and rye-derived N uptake and retained in the soil) was estimated at 20.6% and 19.0% in rye monoculture and biculture treatments, respectively.

#### **3. Conclusion**

Adequate cover crop residue management may help increase N contribution from residues to tomato production, thereby enhancing tomato yield, reduce N fertilization rates, and maintain or improve soil and environmental quality. Regardless of residue management cover crops may maintain or increase soil N storage at surface 10 cm soil depth. Residual soil inorganic N at surface 10 cm soil depth, subject to leaching losses after tomato harvest, may increase with cover crops, more so with hairy vetch (incorporation and mulch) and rye monocultures than the biculture of hairy vetch and rye because of rapid or delayed N release.

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

With adequate seeding hairy vetch/rye ratio (2/1), the biculture may be a better management practice to increase tomato yield and residue-N recovery, and maintain or increase soil N storage at surface 30 cm depth with no or least residual N. Biculture may promote efficient use of residue-N by tomatoes by releasing high amount of N in both the early and late periods of tomato growth. Biculture may change the N release pattern of both hairy vetch and rye residues: hairy vetch may release a similar or more N in the late (reproductive growth stage) than in the early period (vegetative growth stage) of tomato growth, while rye may release more N when applied with than without hairy vetch.

#### **Acknowledgements**

Some data were obtained from the researches supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (no. 18H02310) provided by JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science).

#### **Author details**

Rafael A. Muchanga1 and Hajime Araki2 \*

1 Faculty of Agronomic Engineering and Forestry, Zambeze University, Mocuba 2403, Mozambique

2 Faculty of Agro-Food Science, Niigata Agro-Food University, Tainai, Niigata 959-2702, Japan

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] Csizinszky AA, Schuster DJ. Yield response of staked, fresh-market tomatoes to reduced use of fertilizers and insecticides. Journal of American Society for Horticultural Science. 1982; **107**: 648–652.

[2] Pionke HG, Sharma ML, Hirschberg KJ. Impact of irrigated horticulture on nitrate concentration in groundwater. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 1990; **32**: 119–132.

[3] Sainju UM, Singh BP, Rahman S, Reddy VR. Soil nitrate-nitrogen under tomato following tillage, cover cropping, and nitrogen fertilization. Journal of Environmental Quality. 1999; **28**: 1837–1844.

[4] Terman GL. Volatilization losses of nitrogen as ammonia from surfaceapplied fertilizers, organic amendments, and crop residues. Advances in Agronomy. 1980; **31**: 189–223.

[5] Meisinger JJ, Hargrove WL, Mikkelsen RL Jr, Williams JR, Benson VW. Effects of cover crops on groundwater quality. In: Hargrove WL, editor. Cover crops for clean water. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa;1991. pp. 57–68.

[6] Sainju UM, Whitehead WF, Singh BP. Biculture legume-cereal cover crops for enhanced biomass yield and carbon and nitrogen. Agronomy Journal. 2005; **97**: 1403–1412.

[7] Campbell, CA, Selles F, Lafond GP, Zentner RP. Adopting zero tillage management: Impact on soil C and N under long-term crop rotations in a thin Black Chernozem. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 2001; **81**: 139–148.

[8] Kuo S, Sainju UM, Jellum EJ. Winter cover cropping influence on nitrogen in soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1997b; **61**: 1392–1399.

[9] Drury CF, Stone JA, Findlay WI. Microbial biomass and soil structure associated with corn, grasses, and legumes. Soil Science Society of American Journal. 1991; **55**: 805–811. [17] Araki H, Hane S, Hoshino Y, Hirata T. Cover crop use in tomato production in plastic high tunnel. Horticulture Environment

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

management in food and energy production and environmental protection: Proceedings of the 2nd international nitrogen conference on science and policy. The Scientific

World. 2001; **1**: 22–29.

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse…*

[26] Dabney SM, Delagado JA,

Reeves DW. 2001. Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2001; **32**: 1221–1250.

[27] Chinta YD, Uchida Y, Araki H. Availability of nitrogen supply from

decomposition by soil microorganisms and its utilization by lettuce (*Lactuca sativa* L.). Scientia Horticulturae. 2020;

cover crops during residual

**270**: 109415. DOI: 10.1016/j. scientia.2020.109415.

[28] Soma S. Growth index.

[30] Nannipieri P, Ascher J,

pp. 165.

429–442.

Nogyogijutsu Taikei. Dojosehi 4 (in Japanese). Nobunkyo, Tokyo; 1993.

[29] Chen B, Liu E, Tian Q, Yan C, Zhang Y. Soil nitrogen dynamics and crop residues. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2014; **34**:

Ceccherini MT, Land L, Pietramellara G, Renella G, Valori F. 2008. Effects of Root Exudates in Microbial Diversity and Activity in Rhizosphere Soils. In: Nautiyal CS, Dion P, editors. Molecular Mechanisms of Plant and Microbe Coexistence. Soil Biology 15. Springer, Heidelberg; 2008. pp. 339–365.

[31] Coppens F, Garnier P, Findeling A, Merckx R, Recous S. Decomposition of mulched versus incorporated crop residues: Modelling with PASTIS clarifies interactions between residue quality and location. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2007; **39**: 2339–2350.

[32] Sainju UM, Singh HP, Singh BP, Whitehead WF, Chiluwal A, Paudel R.

Biotechnology. 2009; **50**: 324–328.

231–240.

[18] Horimoto S, Araki H, Ishimoto M, Ito M, Fuji Y. Growth and yield of tomatoes in hairy vetch-incorporated and-mulched field. Japanese Journal of Farm Work Research. 2002; **37**:

[19] Araki H. Tomato production with

Konvalina P, editor. Alternative crops and cropping systems. Intechopen,

[20] Muchanga RA, Hirata T, Araki H. Hairy vetch becomes an alternative basal N fertilizer in low-input freshmarket tomato production in a plastic high tunnel. The Horticulture Journal.

[21] Muchanga RA, Hirata T, Araki H. Hairy vetch and livestock compost improve soil carbon and nitrogen, and fresh-market tomato yield. Hortscience.

[22] Muchanga RA, Uchida Y, Hirata T, Hatano R, Araki H. Soil carbon and nitrogen and tomato yield response to cover crop management. Agronomy journal. 2020a; **112**: 1636–1648.

[23] Allison, FE. The fate of nitrogen applied to soils. Advances in Agronomy.

[24] Sugihara Y, Ueno H, Hirata T, Araki H. Uptake and distribution of nitrogen derived from hairy vetch used as a cover crop by tomato plant. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural

[25] Kuo S, Huang B, Bembenek R. Effects of winter cover crops on soil nitrogen availability, corn yield, and nitrate leaching. In optimizing nitrogen

cover crops in greenhouse. In:

London; 2016. pp. 87–104.

2017; **86**: 493–500.

2019; **54**: 1023–1030.

1966; **18**: 219–258.

Science. 2013; **82**: 30–38.

**71**

[10] Sainju UM, Whitehead WF, Singh BP. Cover crops and nitrogen fertilization effects on soil aggregation and carbon and nitrogen pools. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 2003; **83**: 155–165.

[11] Clark AJ, Decker AM, Meisinger JJ. Seeding rate and kill date effects on hairy vetch-cereal rye cover crop mixtures for corn production. Agronomy Journal. 1994; **86**: 1065–1070.

[12] Sainju UM, Singh BP, Whitehead WF. Cover crops and nitrogen fertilization effects on soil carbon and nitrogen and tomato yield. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 2000; **80**: 523–532.

[13] Basche A, Miguez F, Kasper T, Castellano M. Do cover crops increase or decrease nitrous oxide emissions in agroecosystems? A meta-analysis. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2014; **69**: 471–482.

[14] Lal R, Delgado JA, Groffiman PM, Millar N, Dell C, Rotz A. Management to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2011; **66**: 276–285.

[15] Muller MM, Sundman V. The fate of nitrogen (15N) released from different plant materials during decomposition under field conditions. Plant and Soil. 1988; **105**: 133–139.

[16] Costa JM, Heuvelink E. The global tomato industry. In: E. Heuvelink, editor. Tomatoes. CABI, Wallington, UK; 2018. pp. 1–26.

*Cover Crop Residue Management for Effective Use of Mineralized Nitrogen in Greenhouse… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95359*

[17] Araki H, Hane S, Hoshino Y, Hirata T. Cover crop use in tomato production in plastic high tunnel. Horticulture Environment Biotechnology. 2009; **50**: 324–328.

[18] Horimoto S, Araki H, Ishimoto M, Ito M, Fuji Y. Growth and yield of tomatoes in hairy vetch-incorporated and-mulched field. Japanese Journal of Farm Work Research. 2002; **37**: 231–240.

[19] Araki H. Tomato production with cover crops in greenhouse. In: Konvalina P, editor. Alternative crops and cropping systems. Intechopen, London; 2016. pp. 87–104.

[20] Muchanga RA, Hirata T, Araki H. Hairy vetch becomes an alternative basal N fertilizer in low-input freshmarket tomato production in a plastic high tunnel. The Horticulture Journal. 2017; **86**: 493–500.

[21] Muchanga RA, Hirata T, Araki H. Hairy vetch and livestock compost improve soil carbon and nitrogen, and fresh-market tomato yield. Hortscience. 2019; **54**: 1023–1030.

[22] Muchanga RA, Uchida Y, Hirata T, Hatano R, Araki H. Soil carbon and nitrogen and tomato yield response to cover crop management. Agronomy journal. 2020a; **112**: 1636–1648.

[23] Allison, FE. The fate of nitrogen applied to soils. Advances in Agronomy. 1966; **18**: 219–258.

[24] Sugihara Y, Ueno H, Hirata T, Araki H. Uptake and distribution of nitrogen derived from hairy vetch used as a cover crop by tomato plant. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science. 2013; **82**: 30–38.

[25] Kuo S, Huang B, Bembenek R. Effects of winter cover crops on soil nitrogen availability, corn yield, and nitrate leaching. In optimizing nitrogen management in food and energy production and environmental protection: Proceedings of the 2nd international nitrogen conference on science and policy. The Scientific World. 2001; **1**: 22–29.

[26] Dabney SM, Delagado JA, Reeves DW. 2001. Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2001; **32**: 1221–1250.

[27] Chinta YD, Uchida Y, Araki H. Availability of nitrogen supply from cover crops during residual decomposition by soil microorganisms and its utilization by lettuce (*Lactuca sativa* L.). Scientia Horticulturae. 2020; **270**: 109415. DOI: 10.1016/j. scientia.2020.109415.

[28] Soma S. Growth index. Nogyogijutsu Taikei. Dojosehi 4 (in Japanese). Nobunkyo, Tokyo; 1993. pp. 165.

[29] Chen B, Liu E, Tian Q, Yan C, Zhang Y. Soil nitrogen dynamics and crop residues. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2014; **34**: 429–442.

[30] Nannipieri P, Ascher J, Ceccherini MT, Land L, Pietramellara G, Renella G, Valori F. 2008. Effects of Root Exudates in Microbial Diversity and Activity in Rhizosphere Soils. In: Nautiyal CS, Dion P, editors. Molecular Mechanisms of Plant and Microbe Coexistence. Soil Biology 15. Springer, Heidelberg; 2008. pp. 339–365.

[31] Coppens F, Garnier P, Findeling A, Merckx R, Recous S. Decomposition of mulched versus incorporated crop residues: Modelling with PASTIS clarifies interactions between residue quality and location. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2007; **39**: 2339–2350.

[32] Sainju UM, Singh HP, Singh BP, Whitehead WF, Chiluwal A, Paudel R. Cover crop and nitrogen fertilization influence soil carbon and nitrogen under bioenergy sweet sorghum. Agronomy journal. 2018; **110**: 463–471.

[33] Khan SA, Mulvaney RL, Ellsworth TR, Boast CW. The myth of nitrogen fertilization for soil carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2007; **36**: 1821–1832.

[34] Mulvaney RL, Khan SA, Ellsworth TR. 2009. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers deplete soil nitrogen: A global dilemma for sustainable cereal production. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2009; **38**: 2295–2314.

[35] Di HJ, Cameron KC. Nitrate leaching in temperate agroecosystems: sources, factors and mitigating strategies. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2002; **46**: 237–256.

[36] Bradford J, Peterson G. Conservation tillage. In: Summer ME, editor. Handbook of soil science. CRC Press, Boca Raton; 2000. pp. 247–269.

[37] Frankenberger WT Jr, Abdelmagid HM. 1985. Kinetic parameters of nitrogen mineralization rates of leguminous crops incorporated into the soil. Plant and Soil. 1985; **87**: 257–271.

[38] Muchanga RA, Uchida Y, Hirata T, Hatano R, Araki H. Dynamics of N derived from 15N-labeled rye in soiltomato system as influenced by cover crop residue management. The Horticulture Journal. 2020b; **89**: 394–402.

[39] Cambui CA, Svennerstam H, Gruffman L, Nordin A, Ganeteg U, Näsholm T. Patterns of plant biomass partitioning depend on nitrogen source. PLoS ONE. 2011; **6**: e19211. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019211.

[40] de Groot CC, Marcelis LFM, van den Boogaard R, Kaiser WM, Lambers H. Interaction of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrition in determining of growth. Plant and Soil. 2003; **248**: 257–268.

[41] Sainju UM, Schomberg HH, Singh BP, Whitehead WF, Tillman PG, Lachnicht-Weyers SL. Cover crops effect on soil carbon fractions under conservation tillage cotton. Soil and Tillage Research. 2007; **96**: 205–218.

**73**

Section 3

N Utilization and Metabolism

in Crops

## Section 3