Plant and Soil

, Volume 426, Issue 1–2, pp 61–76 | Cite as

Crucifer-legume cover crop mixtures provide effective sulphate catch crop and sulphur green manure services

  • Antoine Couëdel
  • Lionel Alletto
  • Éric Justes
Regular Article


Background and aims

Crucifers grown as cover crops are known to reduce sulphate leaching (S catch-crop service) and release large amounts of mineral sulphate for the subsequent cash crop once incorporated into the soil (S green-manure service). Crucifer-legume cover crop mixtures are effective to obtain high nitrogen related services, but few data exist on their performances for S-related services. Our study aimed to assess performances of a wide variety of bispecific crucifer-legume mixtures designed to provide soil S catch-crop and S green-manure services.


A two-year field experiment was conducted at two sites near Toulouse, France (silt clay loam soil) and Orléans, France (sandy loam soil) in which cultivars from eight crucifer species and nine legume species were tested as sole and bispecific cover crops.


Crucifer-legume mixtures and crucifer sole cover crops provided the same level of S catch-crop service (12 kg S ha−1), significantly higher than that of legume sole cover crops (4 kg S ha−1). Similarly, crucifer-legume mixtures provided almost the same level of S green-manure service (5.5 kg S ha−1) as crucifer sole cover crops (6.5 kg S ha−1).


Our results demonstrate the compatibility and complementarity of certain crucifer and legume species when grown together to provide S and N catch-crop and green-manure services. For a same cover crop species no strong cultivar effect has been highlighted in our growing conditions.


Cover crop Sulphate catch crop Sulphur green manure Intercropping Interaction Brassicaceae-Fabaceae mixture 



This study was part of the CRUCIAL project, which was financially supported by the French Ministry of Agriculture (CASDAR project no. C-2013-05) and the Occitanie Region (CLE project no. 13053068). The authors would like to thank Annick Basset for technical assistance at La Vannelière research site of the seed company Jouffray Drillaud and for her expert advice in selecting cover crop mixtures for the project. We also thank Cedric Monprofit from RAGT Semences for his expert advice in selecting crucifer cover crops. We thank François Perdrieux and Gaël Rametti for their effective technical help at the Domaine de Lamothe site of INP-EI Purpan, and Eric Lecloux and Didier Raffaillac for their support in sampling plants and laboratory analysis. We also thank Simon Giuliano, Gaëlle van Frank, and Antoine Parisot for their helpful discussions. We thank Michelle and Michael Corson for reviewing the English language.


  1. Andersen MK, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Høgh-Jensen H, Jensen E (2007) Competition for and utilisation of sulfur in sole and intercrops of pea and barley. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 77:143–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bedoussac L, Justes E (2011) A comparison of commonly used indices for evaluating species interactions and intercrop efficiency: application to durum wheat-winter pea intercrops. Field Crop Res 124:25–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellostas N, Sørensen JC, Sørensen H (2007) Profiling glucosinolates in vegetative and reproductive tissues of four brassica species of the U-triangle for their biofumigation potential. J Sci Food Agric 87:1586–1594. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanco-Canqui H, Shaver TM, Lindquist JL, Shapiro CA, Elmore RW, Francis CA, Hergert GW (2015) Cover crops and ecosystem services: insights from studies in temperate soils. Agron J 107:2449–2474. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown L, Scholefield D, Jewkes EC et al (2000) The effect of Sulphur application on the efficiency of nitrogen use in two contrasting grassland soils. J Agric Sci 135:131–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chew FS (1988) Biological effects of glucosinolates. In: Biologically active natural products Potential Uses in Agriculture pp 155–180Google Scholar
  7. Constantin J, Beaudoin N, Laurent F, Cohan JP, Duyme F, Mary B (2011) Cumulative effects of catch crops on nitrogen uptake, leaching and net mineralization. Plant Soil 341:137–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Couëdel A, Seassau C, Wirth J, Alletto L (2017) Potentiels de régulation biotique par allélopathie et biofumigation ; services et dis-services produits par les cultures intermédiaires multiservices de crucifères. Innov Agron 62:71–85Google Scholar
  9. Couëdel A, Alletto L, Tribouillois H, Justes E (2018) Cover crop crucifer-legume mixtures provide effective nitrate catch crop and nitrogen green manure ecosystem services. Agric Ecosyst Environ 254:50–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Couëdel A, Alletto L, Kirkegaard JA, Justes E, in press. Crucifer glucosinolate production in legume-crucifer cover crop mixtures. Eur J Agron.
  11. DeBoer DL, Duke SH (1982) Effects of Sulphur nutrition on nitrogen and carbon metabolism in lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) Physiol Plant 54:343–350. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eriksen J (2005) Gross Sulphur mineralisation-immobilisation turnover in soil amended with plant residues. Soil Biol Biochem 37:2216–2224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksen J (2008) Soil sulfur cycling in temperate agricultural systems. In: Sulfur: a missing link between soils, crops, and nutrition. Agron Monogr 50:25–44Google Scholar
  14. Eriksen J, Thorup-Kristensen K (2002) The effect of catch crops on sulphate leaching and availability of S in the succeeding crop on sandy loam soil in Denmark. Agric Ecosyst Environ 90:247–254. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eriksen J, Thorup-Kristensen K, Askegaard M (2004) Plant availability of catch crop sulfur following spring incorporation. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 167:609–615. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Falk KL, Tokuhisa JG, Gershenzon J (2007) The effect of sulfur nutrition on plant glucosinolate content: physiology and molecular mechanisms. Plant Biol 9:573–581. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Falquet B, Roux D, Henriet L et al (2014) Simple method to separate resource competition from allelopathic root interactions. Allelopath J 34:227–240Google Scholar
  18. Génard T (2016) Potentiel agronomique et environnemental des associations Fabacées-colza. PhD thesis. Normandie Université 132pGoogle Scholar
  19. Génard T, Etienne P, Diquélou S, Yvin JC, Revellin C, Laîné P (2017) Rapeseed-legume intercrops: plant growth and nitrogen balance in early stages of growth and development. Heliyon 3:e00261. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Gimsing A, Kirkegaard JA (2009) Glucosinolates and biofumigation : fate of glucosinolates and their hydrolysis products in soil. Phytochem Rev 8:299–310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guzys S, Aksomaitiene R (2005) Migration of sulphur in limed soils differing in agricultural management. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71:191–201.
  22. Haneklaus S, Bloem E, Schnug E (2008) History of sulfur deficiency in crops. In: Sulfur: a missing link between soils, crops, and nutrition. Agronomy Monograph 50. pp 45–58Google Scholar
  23. Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Gooding M, Ambus P, Corre-Hellou G, Crozat Y, Dahlmann C, Dibet A, von Fragstein P, Pristeri A, Monti M, Jensen ES (2009) Pea–barley intercropping for efficient symbiotic N2-fixation, soil N acquisition and use of other nutrients in European organic cropping systems. Field Crop Res 113:64–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirkegaard JA, Sarwar M (1998) Biofumigation potential of brassicas: I. Variation in glucosinolate profiles of diverse field-grown brassicas. Plant Soil 201:71–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kristensen HL, Thorup-Kristensen K (2004) Root growth and nitrate uptake of three different catch crops in deep soil layers. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:529. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li L, Sun J, Zhang F, Guo T, Bao X, Smith FA, Smith SE (2006) Root distribution and interactions between intercropped species. Oecologia 147:280–290. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Li S, Schonhof I, Krumbein A, Li L, Stützel H, Schreiner M (2007) Glucosinolate concentration in turnip ( Brassica rapa ssp. rapifera L.) roots as affected by nitrogen and sulfur supply. J Agric Food Chem 55:8452–8457. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Matthiessen J, Kirkegaard J (2006) Biofumigation and enhanced biodegradation: opportunity and challenge in Soilborne Pest and disease management. Crit Rev Plant Sci 25:235–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Niknahad-Gharmakher H, Piutti S, Machet JM, Benizri E, Recous S (2012) Mineralization-immobilization of Sulphur in a soil during decomposition of plant residues of varied chemical composition and S content. Plant Soil 360:391–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Omirou MD, Papadopoulou KK, Papastylianou I, Constantinou M, Karpouzas DG, Asimakopoulos I, Ehaliotis C (2009) Impact of nitrogen and sulfur fertilization on the composition of glucosinolates in relation to sulfur assimilation in different plant organs of broccoli. J Agric Food Chem 57:9408–9417. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pedersen CA, Knudsen L, Schnug E (1998) Sulfur fertilization. In: Schnug E (ed) Sulphur in agroecosystems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna. Available at:
  33. Scherer HW (2001) Sulphur in crop production - invited paper. Eur J Agron 14:81–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scherer HW, Lange A (1996) N2 fixation and growth of legumes as affected by Sulphur fertilization. Biol Fertil Soils 23:449–453. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thorup-Kristensen K (2001) Are differences in root growth of nitrogen catch crops important for their ability to reduce soil nitrate-N content, and how can this be measured? Plant Soil 230:185–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thorup-Kristensen K, Magid J, Jensen LS (2003) Catch crops and green manures as biological tools in nitrogen management in temperate zones. Adv Agron 79:227–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tonitto C, David MB, Drinkwater LE (2006) Replacing bare fallows with cover crops in fertilizer-intensive cropping systems: a meta-analysis of crop yield and N dynamics. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112:58–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tosti G, Thorup-Kristensen K (2010) Using coloured roots to study root interaction and competition in intercropped legumes and non-legumes. J Plant Ecol 3:191–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tribouillois H, Fort F, Cruz P, Charles R, Flores O, Garnier E, Justes E (2015) A functional characterisation of a wide range of cover crop species: growth and nitrogen acquisition rates, leaf traits and ecological strategies. PLoS One 10:1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tribouillois H, Cohan J-P, Justes E (2016) Cover crop mixtures including legume produce ecosystem services of nitrate capture and green manuring: assessment combining experimentation and modelling. Plant Soil 401:347–364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Varin S, Cliquet JB, Personeni E, Avice JC, Lemauviel-Lavenant S (2010) How does Sulphur availability modify N acquisition of white clover (Trifolium repens L.)? J Exp Bot 61:225–234. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Wendling M, Büchi L, Amossé C, Sinaj S, Walter A, Charles R (2016) Influence of root and leaf traits on the uptake of nutrients in cover crops. Plant Soil 409:419–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Willey RW (1979) Intercropping - its importance and research need. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. F Crop Abstr 32:1–10Google Scholar
  44. Wortman SE, Francis CA, Lindquist JL (2012) Cover crop mixtures for the western Corn Belt: opportunities for increased productivity and stability. Agron J 104:699–705. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhao FG, McGraph SP, Blake-Kalff MMA, Link A, Tucker M (2002) Crop responses to Sulphur Fertilisation in Europe. Proceedings N° 504, International Fertiliser Society, York, p 27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antoine Couëdel
    • 1
  • Lionel Alletto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Éric Justes
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.AGIRUniversité de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INP-EI PURPANCastanet-TolosanFrance
  2. 2.Chambre Régionale d’Agriculture OccitanieCastanet-TolosanFrance
  3. 3.CIRAD, UMR SYSTEM, Univ. Montpellier, CIHEAM-IAMM, INRAMontpellier SupAgroMontpellier cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations