Table 16-a. Location comparison of mean percent total nitrogen content‡ of 60 cover crop varieties evaluated in small plot replicated trials at three University of Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center locations in Tennessee during 2019-2020.
Variety Common Name Group Total Nitrogen (%)
Apr† May
Avg. RECM MTREC ETREC Avg. RECM MTREC ETREC
Brassicas
Impact Collards Brassica 2 Q-S 2.1 J-N 1.8 O-X 2.1 L-O 1.9 N-Q 2.1 L-Q 1.8 M-P 1.7 M-O
Extender Hyb. Brassica Brassica 1.9 S-W 2.1 J-P 2 N-U 1.6 O-U 1.6 P-S 1.7 N-S 1.7 O-Q 1.4 O-Q
Viva Hyb. Brassica Brassica 1.9 S-W 1.8 J-Q 1.9 N-V 1.9 M-Q 1.6 Q-S 1.5 R-U 2 L-O 1.2 P-U
Vivant Hyb. Brassica Brassica 2 Q-T 1.9 J-Q 1.9 N-W 2.2 K-N 1.9 M-P 2.1 L-P 2 L-O 1.6 N-P
Aerifi Radish Brassica 1.9 ST 2.2 J-M 2.1 L-R 1.6 O-U 1.6 P-R 1.6 O-S 2 K-O 1.3 O-S
Digger Radish Brassica 2.1 P-S 2.1 J-N 2.3 J-N 1.9 M-Q 1.8 O-Q 1.6 O-S 2.3 G-M 1.4 O-Q
Driller Radish Brassica 2 Q-S 2.2 J-L 2.1 L-Q 1.7 N-R 1.8 O-R 1.8 N-S 2.2 I-O 1.4 O-R
SERALPHA Radish Brassica 1.9 S-U 2.3 JK 1.7 P-Y 1.8 N-R 1.7 P-R 1.5 Q-T 2.1 J-O 1.4 O-Q
SERWF19 Radish Brassica 2 Q-S 2.4 IJ 1.9 N-U 1.7 N-S 1.6 P-S 1.4 R-W 2.2 H-O 1.1 Q-V
Smart Radish Brassica 1.9 R-T 2.2 J-M 2 M-S 1.6 O-T 1.5 RS 1.4 S-W 1.8 M-P 1.3 O-S
Jackpot Turnip Brassica 2 R-T 2.1 J-O 1.8 N-W 2 M-P 1.6 P-S 1.5 P-V 1.9 M-P 1.3 O-Q
Average 2 2.1 2 2 2 2 2 1
Min 1.9 1.8 2 2 1 1 2 1
Max 2.1 2.4 2 2 2 2 2 2
Range 0.2 0.6 1 1 0 1 1 1
† Varieties that have any MS letter in common are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05). Mean separation was performed across all entries. Varieties within the “A group” were top performers across all entries and mean separation letters of these entries are highlighted in dark orange.
For ease of viewing, the table is broken into functional groups (brassicas, cereals, legumes). Mean values for top performers within each functional group are highlighted in light orange (50th – 75th percentile) and dark orange (> 75th percentile).
‡ Analyzed using near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) with the appropriate calibration for each species.
Table 16-b. Location comparison of mean percent total nitrogen content‡ of 60 cover crop varieties evaluated in small plot replicated trials at three University of Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center locations in Tennessee during 2019-2020.
Variety Common Name Group Total Nitrogen (%)
Apr† May
Avg. RECM MTREC ETREC Avg. RECM MTREC ETREC
Cereals
Centurion Annual Ryegrass Cereal 1.5 X-AA 1.5 O-Q 1.7 Q-Y 1.5 P-V 1 TU 0.9 W-Y 1.2 RS 1.1 Q-V
Lowboy Annual Ryegrass Cereal 1.9 ST 2.2 J-M 1.9 N-U 1.7 N-R 1.3 ST 1.3 S-X 1.4 P-R 1.3 O-T
140760 Barley Cereal 1.5 X-B 1.5 PQ 1.9 N-W 1.1 V-X 0.9 U-Y 0.8 W-Y 1.1 RS 0.8 U-W
140789 Barley Cereal 1.6 W-Z 1.7 K-Q 1.8 N-W 1.2 S-X 1 U-W 1 T-Y 1.1 RS 0.9 R-W
140797 Barley Cereal 1.6 U-Y 1.7 K-Q 2 N-T 1.2 T-X 1 UV 1 U-Y 1.2 RS 0.9 R-W
SB255 Barley Cereal 1.6 V-Z 1.6 L-Q 1.8 O-X 1.4 Q-W 1 U-X 0.9 V-Y 1.1 RS 0.9 S-W
Secretariat Barley Cereal 1.7 T-X 1.7 J-Q 1.9 N-W 1.5 Q-V 1 U-W 0.9 T-Y 1.2 RS 0.8 T-W
Bates RS4 Cereal Rye Cereal 1.2 AA-CC 1.3 Q 1.3 Y 1 WX 0.6 Y 0.6 Y 0.7 S 0.5 W
Elbon (1) Cereal Rye Cereal 1.4 X-C 1.5 N-Q 1.5 T-Y 1.2 S-X 0.6 Y 0.7 Y 0.7 S 0.5 W
Elbon (2) Cereal Rye Cereal 1.6 U-Y 1.8 J-Q 1.8 O-X 1.3 R-X 0.8 U-Y 0.9 W-Y 0.8 S 0.7 W
Goku Cereal Rye Cereal 1.4 Y-C 1.6 M-Q 1.5 U-Y 1 V-X 0.8 V-Y 0.8 XY 0.8 S 0.6 W
NF95319B Cereal Rye Cereal 1.2 AA-CC 1.3 Q 1.3 Y 0.9 X 0.7 XY 0.6 Y 0.9 S 0.5 W
NF97325 Cereal Rye Cereal 1.2 AA-CC 1.4 Q 1.3 XY 0.9 X 0.6 Y 0.7 XY 0.7 S 0.5 W
NF99362 Cereal Rye Cereal 1.2 AA-CC 1.3 Q 1.4 W-Y 0.9 X 0.6 Y 0.7 Y 0.7 S 0.5 W
Wintergrazer 70 Cereal Rye Cereal 1.3 AA-CC 1.3 Q 1.4 V-Y 1 V-X 0.7 W-Y 0.7 Y 0.7 S 0.7 W
Yankee Cereal Rye Cereal 1.9 S-V 2.2 J-M 2.1 M-S 1.5 P-V 1 T-V 1 T-Y 1.2 Q-S 0.9 S-W
Bob Oat Cereal 1.4 X-CC 1.5 PQ 1.6 R-Y 1.1 V-X 0.9 U-Y 0.8 XY 1 RS 0.7 VW
Cosaque Oat Cereal 1.4 Y-CC 1.3 Q 1.7 P-Y 1.1 U-X 0.8 U-Y 0.8 XY 1.1 RS 0.8 U-W
Hilliard Wheat Cereal 1.4 X-CC 1.5 PQ 1.6 S-Y 1.2 R-X 0.8 U-Y 0.8 XY 1 RS 0.7 VW
Liberty 5658 Wheat Cereal 1.3 Z-CC 1.4 Q 1.4 V-Y 1.1 V-X 0.9 U-Y 0.8 XY 1.1 RS 0.7 VW
Average 1.5 1.6 2 1 1 1 1 1
Min 1.2 1.3 1 1 1 1 1 0
Max 1.9 2.2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Range 0.8 0.9 1 1 1 1 1 1
† Varieties that have any MS letter in common are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05). Mean separation was performed across all entries. Varieties within the “A group” were top performers across all entries and mean separation letters of these entries are highlighted in dark orange.
For ease of viewing, the table is broken into functional groups (brassicas, cereals, legumes). Mean values for top performers within each functional group are highlighted in light orange (50th – 75th percentile) and dark orange (> 75th percentile).
‡ Analyzed using near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) with the appropraite calibration for each species.
Table 16-c. Location comparison of mean percent total nitrogen content‡ of 60 cover crop varieties evaluated in small plot replicated trials at three University of Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center locations in Tennessee during 2019-2020.
Variety Common Name Group Total Nitrogen (%)
Apr† May
Avg. RECM‖ MTREC ETREC Avg. RECM MTREC ETREC
Legumes
FIXatioN Clover, Balansa Legume 3.3 E-G 4 E-G 2.8 F-I 3.1 C-G 2.6 IJ 2.9 F-J 2.6 E-I 2.4 E-J
Paradana Clover, Balansa Legume 2.6 L-N 3 HI 2.5 I-M 2.3 J-M 2.1 K-N 2.1 L-O 2.2 I-O 2.1 I-M
Viper Clover, Balansa Legume 3.1 G-J 4.1 E-G 2.2 K-O 3.1 D-H 2.4 JK 2.6 I-L 2.2 I-O 2.4 D-I
Balady Clover, Berseem Legume 1.6 U-Y . 1.6 R-Y 1.7 O-T 2.2 KL 2.2 K-P 1.8 N-P 2.7 C-F
Frosty Clover, Berseem Legume 3 H-K 3.5 GH 2.9 E-I 2.6 G-K 2.7 IJ 3.1 E-I 2.6 E-I 2.3 F-L
AU Sunrise Clover, Crimson Legume 2.7 LM . 2.6 G-K 2.8 F-J 2.1 K-N 2.2 L-O 2.3 G-N 2 L-N
Bolsena Clover, Crimson Legume 2.9 I-L 3 HI 2.7 F-J 2.9 D-I 2.1 K-N 2.3 K-N 2.1 I-O 2 I-M
Dixie Clover, Crimson Legume 2.8 K-M . 3 D-H 2.6 G-K 2.2 KL 2.4 J-M 2.3 G-M 2 I-N
Kentucky Pride Clover, Crimson Legume 2.8 KL . 3 C-G 2.6 H-K 2.2 KL 2.2 K-O 2.3 G-N 2.2 H-L
SECCM18 Clover, Crimson Legume 2.8 J-L 2.9 HI 2.9 E-I 2.7 G-J 2.2 K-M 2.2 K-N 2.3 G-N 2 K-N
White Cloud Clover, Crimson Legume 2.7 K-M . 2.9 E-I 2.5 I-L 2 L-O 2 M-R 2.2 I-O 1.9 L-N
Big Red Clover, Red Legume 2.3 O-Q . 1.7 P-Y 2.7 G-J 2.6 IJ 2.9 G-J 2.4 F-L 2.6 C-H
Blaze Clover, Red Legume 2.3 N-P . 2 M-S 2.7 G-K 2.9 G-I 3.5 C-F 2.6 E-K 2.7 C-E
GA9909 Clover, Red Legume 2.5 M-O . 2.1 K-P 2.8 E-I 3 F-H 2.8 H-J 3 B-E 3.3 B
VNS Clover, Red Legume 2.2 O-R . 2.2 K-O 2.3 J-M 3 F-H 3.7 B-D 2.8 D-G 2.6 C-H
VNS Vetch, Common Legume 3.3 F-H 4 E-G 2.5 H-L 3.2 C-F 2.7 IJ 3.2 D-H 2.6 E-J 2.2 G-L
AU Merit Vetch, Hairy Legume 4.1 A 4.4 B-E 3.5 AB 4.3 A 3.9 A 4.3 A 3.5 AB 3.9 A
Patagonia Inta Vetch, Hairy Legume 4 A 5.3 A 3.7 A 3.1 D-H 3.5 BC 4.3 A 3.5 AB 2.7 C-F
Purple Bounty Vetch, Hairy Legume 4 A 4.7 A-D 3.4 A-C 3.9 AB 3 F-H 2.8 H-K 3.3 B-D 2.9 BC
Villana Vetch, Hairy Legume 3.8 A-C 4.9 A-C 3.5 AB 3.1 C-G 3.5 B 4.4 A 3.9 A 2.4 E-K
WinterKing Vetch, Hairy Legume 3.9 AB 4.4 C-E 3.7 A 3.6 BC 3.4 B-D 4.1 AB 3.4 A-C 2.8 CD
Namoi Vetch, Woolypod Legume 3.8 A-C 5.1 AB 3.1 B-F 3.3 C-E 3.3 B-F 3.9 A-C 2.9 C-F 2.9 BC
Double OO Winter Pea Legume 3.1 G-I 3.7 FG 3.1 B-F 2.6 I-L 2.8 HI 3.4 C-G 2.5 E-K 2.3 F-L
Survivor Winter Pea Legume 3.2 F-H 4.1 D-G 3.1 B-G 2.6 I-L 3.1 E-G 3.7 B-D 2.9 C-F 2.7 C-F
VNS (1) Winter Pea Legume 3.3 E-G 4 E-G 3.3 A-E 2.5 I-L 2.9 G-I 3.9 A-C 2.9 C-F 2 J-N
VNS (2) Winter Pea Legume 3.6 C-E 4.8 A-C 3.1 B-F 2.8 F-I 3.4 B-E 3.6 B-E 3.5 AB 3 BC
Windham Winter Pea Legume 3.6 B-D 4.2 D-F 3.3 A-E 3.4 B-D 3 F-H 3.6 B-E 2.7 D-H 2.6 C-G
WyoWinter (1) Winter Pea Legume 3.5 D-F 4.4 C-E 3.4 A-D 2.6 G-K 3.2 C-F 4.1 AB 3.4 A-C 2.2 G-L
WyoWinter (2) Winter Pea Legume 3.3 D-G 4.1 D-F 3.2 B-F 2.7 F-J 3.2 D-G 3.8 A-C 2.9 C-F 2.8 C-E
Average 3.1 4.1 2.9 2.9 3 3.2 2.7 2.5
Min 1.6 2.9 1.6 1.7 2 2 1.8 1.9
Max 4.1 5.3 3.7 4.3 4 4.4 3.9 3.9
Range 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.7 2 2.4 2.1 2
† Varieties that have any MS letter in common are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05). Mean separation was performed across all entries. Varieties within the “A group” were top performers across all entries and mean separation letters of these entries are highlighted in dark orange.
For ease of viewing, the table is broken into functional groups (brassicas, cereals, legumes). Mean values for top performers within each functional group are highlighted in light orange (50th – 75th percentile) and dark orange (> 75th percentile).
‡ Analyzed using near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) with the appropraite calibration for each species.
‖ Entries with missing values did not have enough biomass to grind and analyze using NIRS.
Table 16-d. Summary statistics for location comparison of mean percent total nitrogen content‡ of 60 cover crop varieties evaluated in small plot replicated trials at three University of Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center locations in Tennessee during 2019-2020.
Group Total Nitrogen (%)
Apr† May
Avg. RECM MTREC ETREC Avg. RECM MTREC ETREC
Brassicas
Average 2 2.1 2 2 2 2 2 1
Min 1.9 1.8 2 2 1 1 2 1
Max 2.1 2.4 2 2 2 2 2 2
Range 0.2 0.6 1 1 0 1 1 1
Cereals
Average 1.5 1.6 2 1 1 1 1 1
Min 1.2 1.3 1 1 1 1 1 0
Max 1.9 2.2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Range 0.8 0.9 1 1 1 1 1 1
Legumes
Average 3.1 4.1 3 3 3 3 3 2
Min 1.6 2.9 2 2 2 2 2 2
Max 4.1 5.3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Range 2.4 2.4 2 3 2 2 2 2
Across Groups
Average 2.4 2.7 2 2 2 2 2 2
Standard Error 0.1 0.3 2 5 0 1 2 3
Min 1.2 1.3 1 1 1 1 1 0
Max 4.1 5.3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Range 2.9 4 2 3 3 4 3 3
‡ Analyzed using near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) with the appropraite calibration for each species.
Virginia Sykes vsykes@utk.edu
- Table 1. 2021 Total entry numbers - December 26, 2021
- Table A-35. Mean yields and agronomic data from Memphis, TN, MG-5 - December 23, 2021
- Table A-34. Mean yields and agronomic data from Jackson, TN, MG-5 - December 22, 2021