Cover Crop Species Selection, Seeding Rate, and Termination Timing Impacts on Semi-Arid Cotton Production

Abstract

By improving soil properties, cover crops can reduce wind erosion and sand damage to emerging cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) plants. However, on the Texas High Plains, questions regarding cover crop water use and management factors that affect cotton lint yield are common and limit conservation adoption by regional producers. Studies were conducted near Lamesa, TX, USA, in 2017–2020 to evaluate cover crop species selection, seeding rate, and termination timing on cover crop biomass production and cotton yield in conventional and no-tillage systems. The no-till systems included two cover crop species, rye (Secale cereale L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and were compared to a conventional tillage system. The cover crops were planted at two seeding rates, 34 and 68 kg ha⁻¹, and each plot was split into two termination timings: optimum, six to eight weeks prior to the planting of cotton, and late, which was two weeks after the optimum termination. Herbage mass was greater in the rye than the wheat cover crop in three of the four years tested, while the 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate was greater than the low seeding rate in only one of four years for both rye and wheat. The later termination timing produced more herbage mass than the optimum in all four years. Treatments did not affect cotton plant populations and had a variable effect on yield. In general, cover crop biomass production did not reduce lint production compared to the conventional system.

1. Introduction

The High Plains of Texas is an important agricultural and economic region for the state. In this semi-arid region, upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is planted on more hectares than all other crops [1]. In 2020, the United States planted 4.8 million hectares of cotton, with 2.8 million hectares planted in Texas, USA [1]. The production of cotton has traditionally relied heavily on intensive tillage practices dating back to the early 20th century to prepare the soil for planting and to control weeds. Soil erosion caused by wind and water is a potential risk due to coarse soils, high winds, and high temperatures. The greatest example of this was the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, where soil erosion from winds combined with drought removed 5 Tg of topsoil from the High Plains area [2]. Over time, effective tillage practices and conservation management strategies have reduced soil erosion, but adoption has been limited, with many producers still using conventional practices.

Producers on the Texas High Plains (THPs) utilize frequent tillage events, with an average of 12 to 15 operations prior to cotton harvest [3]. Cotton provides little residue after harvest compared to other crops, which leaves the soil exposed to the environment and increases the potential for wind- and water-induced erosion [2]. When cotton is grown in a monoculture without a higher biomass crop in rotation, it allows for the cycle to continue and tillage to be needed to control soil movement due to wind and water. However, crop rotations and the implementation of a winter cover crop can be added to the system to protect and hold the soil. On the THPs, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) were the most dependable in soil coverage in a 13-species evaluation [4]. In the southeastern United States (U.S.), cover crop species and termination timing practices were compared, and rye produced more biomass than wheat, while a one-month difference in termination greatly increased biomass amounts [5]. Wagger [6] also reported increased biomass across different cover crops by delaying termination by two weeks. Cover crop seeding rate did not change biomass in one of the two years in a study in Kentucky [7]. These management factors are instrumental in managing herbage mass amounts and enabling sufficient seed-to-soil contact, soil temperatures, and soil moisture [8,9,10].

Cover crops can be an effective tool for reducing soil erosion. Nevertheless, limited precipitation and irrigation capacity have deterred many producers from implementing cover crops over water usage concerns that can negatively impact cash crop yield. While the benefits of cover crops have been demonstrated in other regions, like the southeastern U.S., these regions have greater amounts of annual precipitation along with lower temperatures that result in less potential loss through evapotranspiration [11]. The use of effective cover crop management can help reduce potential negative impacts on cotton lint yield and produce yields similar to a conventional tillage system [12]. The main goal in the THPs for conservation management should be to reduce soil erosion and water use while improving soil chemical, physical, and biological parameters. This research aims to understand how cover crop management factors can affect agronomic systems on the Texas High Plains and, more specifically, to determine the effect of cover crop species, seeding rate, and termination timing on cover crop herbage mass, cotton plant populations, cotton lint yield and quality, and farm budgets when compared to conventionally grown cotton.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description and Experimental Design

The experiment was located at the Agricultural Complex for Advanced Research and Extension Systems (AG-CARES), a cooperative site between the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Lubbock and the Lamesa Cotton Growers Association, located near Lamesa, TX, USA (N 32°46′22″, W 101°56′18″; 919 m a.s.l.). The site is classified as a semi-arid ecoregion with a mean (30-year average) annual temperature of 15 °C and mean annual precipitation of 450 mm [13]. Additional environmental information from the experiment site is included in Figure 1. The soil at this location is classified as an Amarillo (fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, thermic Aridic Paleustalfs) series, a benchmark series on the Southern High Plains of Texas. It is described as a fine sandy loam with a pH of 7.5 in the topsoil [14].

The trial was arranged as a randomized complete block design with four replications in 2017 and three replications in 2018 through 2020. The trial area differed between years, but always followed continuous cotton with a terminated rye cover. The plot size was four rows (1 m row spacing) 15 m long in 2017 and eight rows (1 m row spacing) 15 m long in 2018 to 2020. Treatments included a conventionally tilled (CT) check and no-tillage (NT) with cover crop treatments, including two small-grain cover crop species: wheat (W) and rye (R). Cover crop species were seeded at rates of 34 kg ha⁻¹ (L) and 68 kg ha⁻¹ (H) and were terminated 6 to 8 weeks before cotton planting, which is considered the optimum timing for the region. The late termination timing was treated as optimum + two weeks (O + 2w). Cover crops were seeded using a no-till drill on 19 cm spacing (

Table 1. Dates of agronomic practices and precipitation and irrigation quantities from 2017 to 2019.

Agronomic Practice	2017	2018	2019	2020
Cover crop planting	12 December 2016	17 November 2017	18 December 2018	20 November 2019
Cover crop termination
Optimum	27 March	27 March	9 April	23 March
Optimum + 2 weeks	10 April	10 April	23 April	6 April
Cotton planting	24 May	16 May	18 May	20 May
Cotton harvest	20 October	14 November	28 October	20 October
In-season precipitation (mm)	422	229	249	170
In-season irrigation (mm)	234	300	279	290

Cumulative precipitation from cover crop planting until cotton harvest.

) and chemically terminated using glyphosate at 1.12 kg ai ha⁻¹. Immediately before termination, cover crops were harvested from a 1 m² area and oven-dried at 65 °C for seven days to determine aboveground herbage mass on a dry matter (DM) basis.

Cotton was planted at 124,000 seeds ha⁻¹ as either NexGen (NG) 4545 B2XF in 2017 or Deltapine (DP) 1646 B2XF from 2018 to 2020. The cotton stand establishment was determined by counting emerged cotton plants in four-row meters four weeks after planting. Cotton was mechanically harvested using a two-row John Deere 7445 plot stripper (Moline, IL, USA). Grab samples of seed cotton were collected during harvest and ginned at Texas A&M AgriLife in Lubbock, TX, USA, to calculate turnout for lint yield. A high-volume instrument (HVI) at Texas Tech University’s Fiber and Biopolymer Research Institute (Lubbock, TX, USA) was used to determine fiber quality to determine loan value (Cotton Incorporated, Cary, NC, USA).

Fertilizer applications were based on farm practice and were the same for all treatments. Nitrogen applications were split into four timings (one preplant and three in-season applications) and applied via fertigation throughout the growing season at 155 kg N ha⁻¹, 129 kg N ha⁻¹, 134 kg N ha⁻¹, and 134 kg N ha⁻¹ from 2017 to 2020, respectively. Phosphorous totals were 19.6 kg P ha⁻¹ and 17 kg P ha⁻¹ in 2017 and 2018, and based on soil tests, no phosphorous was applied in 2019 and 2020.

Following harvest each year, management varied between the CT and NT treatments. In the CT plots, cotton stalks were shredded and tilled using a chisel plow. Trifluralin was applied at 0.84 kg ai ha⁻¹ and incorporated to a depth of 5 cm using a spring tooth harrow in March, and beds were reformed using a lister. Before planting, beds were prepped using a rod weeder, and in-season cultivation was performed as needed to control weeds and establish dikes for low-energy precision application (LEPA) irrigation. In the NT plots, cover crops were planted into the stalks, and stalks were shredded after cover crop establishment. Pendimethalin was applied at 1.7 kg a.i. ha⁻¹ at the second termination date and incorporated using irrigation. In-season herbicide applications were the same for both CT and NT. Glyphosate was applied at 1.27 kg a.i. ha⁻¹ twice in-season to control emerged weeds, and S-metolachlor was added at the second in-season application for residual control at 1.6 kg a.i. ha⁻¹. The field management practices and farm equipment are thoroughly described in the work by Lewis et al. [12].

2.2. Economic Budget Calculations

Economic budgets were created to calculate the variable costs associated with each management decision based on Lewis et al.’s study [12]. Cotton lint prices were calculated using loan rates from Cotton Incorporated (Cary, NC, USA) to isolate production risk from market risk. Gross revenue (USD ha⁻¹) was calculated by multiplying the loan rate by crop yield. Variable costs (USD ha⁻¹) were originally obtained from the 2016 Texas Agricultural Custom Rate survey for the northern region [15]. Operations for the conventionally tilled plots were estimated at USD 180 ha⁻¹ and included chisel plowing, sand-fighting (two events), cultivating (two events), rotary hoeing, rod-weeding, listing, and trifluralin herbicide incorporation. The cover crop system operations were estimated at USD 94 and USD 127 ha⁻¹ for the 34 and 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rates, respectively, and included seed, drilling, herbicide application, and termination. All other input costs were identical. Following Lewis et al. [12], total variable costs were then subtracted from gross revenue to determine gross margin (USD ha⁻¹). Gross margin is a measure of relative profitability, assuming the operation’s fixed production costs are similar among alternative production activities.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using Proc GLIMMIX at a significance level of α = 0.05 (herbage mass, plant populations, lint yield, loan value, return, and margin) using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Differences in year were observed, so year was analyzed independently. Cover crop herbage mass was analyzed as a multivariate factorial, with the fixed effects being species, seeding rate, and termination timing. Plant populations, cotton lint yield, loan value, gross return, and gross margins were analyzed as a univariate with treatment as the fixed effect. Replication was treated as the random effect for both analyses.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Cover Crop Herbage Mass

The interactive effect of cover crop species, seeding rates, and termination time did not affect cover crop herbage mass in any year of the study (

Table 2. ANOVA table for cover crop herbage mass by year.

Effect	2017	2018	2019	2020
	p-value
Species	0.011	0.002	0.073	<0.001
Seeding Rate (SR)	0.723	0.635	0.101	0.036
Species × SR	0.447	0.383	0.074	0.284
Termination Timing (TT)	<0.001	0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Species × TT	0.418	0.365	0.365	0.804
SR × TT	0.221	0.936	0.540	0.455
Species × SR × TT	0.737	0.956	0.967	0.323

). The main effect of cover crop species was significant in 2017, 2018, and 2020. When averaged across seeding rates and termination timings, the rye produced 846, 812, and 1548 kg ha⁻¹ more herbage mass than the wheat in 2017, 2018, and 2020, respectively (Figure 2a). The seeding rate was significant in 2020, where the high seeding rate produced 464 kg ha⁻¹ more herbage mass than the low seeding rate. In all other years, the seeding rate of 68 kg ha⁻¹ did not produce more herbage mass than 34 kg ha⁻¹ (Figure 2b). Termination timing was significant in all four years, with the late termination producing 2617, 1113, 859, and 1393 kg ha⁻¹ more herbage mass than the optimum termination timing each year, respectively (Figure 2c).

When determining management strategies for cover crop herbage mass production, producers should determine their overall goal to help make their selection. In our study, cereal rye tended to produce more herbage mass than wheat, which is similar to results in other studies [7]. Planting at the lower seeding rate of 34 kg ha⁻¹ allows for savings on seed costs while still producing similar amounts of biomass as a 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate. This has been documented in other studies as well; while similar amounts of herbage mass may be important, considerations for ground cover and potential weed suppression do vary with different seeding rates [7,16]. Termination timing is one of the most important factors impacting herbage mass production, as a two-week delay in termination can increase herbage mass yields by 44 to 63% (Figure 2a). Typically, these two weeks result in vigorous growth as the grain crops transition from vegetative to reproductive growth. Understanding growth stages can ensure efficient termination, which is crucial to managing herbage mass potential. Depending on the species, rye could be terminated earlier in real-world environments to reduce growth. Extending termination timing will increase herbage mass, which can increase soil water use and reduce soil temperatures [9,10]. Low temperatures in the early stages of germination and development can deleteriously influence seedling growth [17]. Soil temperatures warm more slowly compared to bare soil and remain cooler by reducing maximum daily temperatures and insulating from changes [18]. Delaying planting and utilizing soil temperature compared to calendar date may be the best option when planting into residue [5]. This early season problem can help later in the season by keeping the soil cooler in the hot summer months and improving plant performance [19,20]. Conversely, delayed termination timing can result in increasing herbage mass C:N ratios, which can decrease N availability for the subsequent cash crop [21].

3.2. Cotton Plant Populations

A common regional occurrence is reduced cotton lint yields following a cover crop, which has been reported to result from the potential allelopathic effects of rye and wheat. Cotton plant populations were in acceptable ranges for cotton production (>47,000 plants ha⁻¹) in all four years (

Table 3. Cotton plant populations by year and treatment.

Species	Seeding Rate	Termination	2017	2018	2019	2020
	kg ha−1		-------------------------plants ha−1 × 1000-------------------------
Conventional			101	74 ab	104	53
Rye	34	Optimum	117	81 a	106	62
		Late	119	58 cd	110	66
	68	Optimum	105	84 a	86	77
		Late	90	74 ab	87	66
Wheat	34	Optimum	104	71 abc	101	75
		Late	97	47 d	103	77
	68	Optimum	100	61 bc	106	65
		Late	81	65 bc	106	77

Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD test at α < 0.05. Columns with no letter are not significantly different.

). Plant stands ranged from 81,000 to 119,000 plants ha⁻¹ in 2017 (65 and 96% planted seed emergence), with no difference between treatments. In 2018, plant stands ranged from 47,000 to 84,000 plants ha⁻¹ (38 and 68% planted seed emergence). The wheat seeded at 34 kg ha⁻¹ coupled with the late termination had reduced plant stands (47,000 plants ha⁻¹, 38% planted seed emergence), which was directly at the threshold of acceptable stands. There were no differences in 2019 and 2020, with populations ranging from 86,000 to 110,000 (69 and 89% planted seed emergence) and 53,000 to 77,000 plants ha⁻¹ (43 and 62% planted seed emergence), respectively.

In three of the four years (2017, 2019, and 2020), cotton plant populations were not impacted by the cover crop treatments. The addition of cover crops, regardless of species, seeding rate, or termination timing, did not impact the emergence and stand establishment of cotton. In 2018, NT cover crop treatments varied when compared to the CT. The optimum termination timing with rye at both seeding rates and the wheat at the 34 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate had similar cotton populations as the CT. The late termination timing tended to negatively impact cotton plant populations, indicating potential moisture limitations or in-season N immobilization from greater C:N ratios in the cover crop biomass. These data were similar to other studies conducted in the region on cover crops where no differences in plant density were observed [22]. The results contradict those by Li et al. [22], which suggested that the allelochemical release from wheat and rye cover crops might reduce cotton growth and lint yield. Our results indicate that in most years, wheat and rye did not have any impact on cotton plant populations, regardless of seeding rate. An alternative theory suggests that in semi-arid regions, herbage mass decomposition can be reduced by limited moisture, which can increase the potential for N immobilization and limit plant-available N during the cotton growing season [8].

3.3. Cotton Lint Yield

Cotton lint yield varied in each year primarily due to the differences in rainfall and irrigation (

Table 4. Cotton lint yield by year and treatment.

Species	Seeding Rate	Termination	2017	2018	2019	2020
	kg ha−1		---------------------------- kg lint ha−1-----------------------------
Conventional			1495	874 ab	876 a-d	727 abc
Rye	34	Optimum	1505	747 bc	854 cd	623 de
		Late	1132	641 c	860 cd	565 e
	68	Optimum	1290	708 bc	960 ab	801 a
		Late	1203	628 c	865 bcd	686 cd
Wheat	34	Optimum	1552	1014 a	828 d	792 ab
		Late	1265	747 bc	805 d	724 abc
	68	Optimum	1292	666 c	933 abc	705 bcd
		Late	1250	654 c	965 a	687 cd

Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD test at α < 0.05. Columns with no letter are not significantly different.

). In 2017, lint yield ranged from 1132 to 1505 kg lint ha⁻¹_, and no differences existed between treatments. Reduced lint yields occurred in 2018, ranging from 628 to 1014 kg lint ha⁻¹. The greater yielding treatments were the CT and the wheat and rye systems at 34 kg ha⁻¹ and optimum termination timing. Yields in 2019 ranged from 805 to 965 kg lint ha⁻¹. The greatest yielding treatments included the CT, rye at 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate and optimum termination timing, and the wheat at 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate regardless of termination timing (O and O + 2 weeks). The lowest yields were observed in 2020, ranging from 565 to 801 kg lint ha⁻¹. The rye at 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate and optimum termination timing, W + 34 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate at both termination timings, and the CT had the highest yields in 2020.

Other studies on the THPs have produced similar results, where the CT and NT treatments had no differences [23], as well as in the Texas Rolling Plains, where DeLaune et al. [24] observed no differences in yield with CT and NT with different species of cover crops. Others have seen increased yields under NT compared to CT [25]. Lewis et al. [12] had decreased yields in one out of three years with an NT rye cover crop treatment compared to the CT and NT with a mixed-species cover crop in Lamesa, TX, USA, 20 years after cover crop implementation. Li [22] also observed decreased yields in wheat and rye cover crops compared to CT and attributed losses to allelopathic chemicals; water and N availability were not measured, but were cited as possible factors in reduced yields. However, others [26,27,28] have reported greater soil water content following cover crops as opposed to conventional treatments during the cotton growing season despite declines immediately before or after cover crop termination, resulting in similar yields in cotton and greater yields in corn silage on the Southern High Plains. Burke et al. [26,27] attributed this increased precipitation capture, infiltration, and percolation as having been due to cover crops.

3.4. Cotton Loan Values and Gross Economic Returns

No differences in loan value were observed between treatments in any year (

Table 5. Cotton loan value by year and treatment at AG-CARES in Lamesa, TX.

Species	Seeding Rate	Termination	2017	2018	2019	2020
	kg ha−1		-----------------------------USD kg lint−1-----------------------------
Conventional			1.21	1.16	1.18	1.23
Rye	34	Optimum	1.20	1.18	1.16	1.24
		Late	1.21	1.16	1.15	1.23
	68	Optimum	1.23	1.15	1.16	1.26
		Late	1.21	1.19	1.15	1.24
Wheat	34	Optimum	1.20	1.15	1.16	1.25
		Late	1.22	1.17	1.16	1.24
	68	Optimum	1.21	1.14	1.19	1.23
		Late	1.23	1.19	1.19	1.23

). No treatments caused a discount to the base loan value (USD 1.14 kg lint⁻¹), and in every year, a premium on loan value occurred, except for the wheat at a 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate and optimum termination timing in 2018.

Due to little difference in loan values, gross returns follow similar patterns to lint yield (

Table 6. Gross return by year and treatment at AG-CARES in Lamesa, TX.

Species	Seeding Rate	Termination	2017	2018	2019	2020
	kg ha−1		-----------------------------USD ha−1-----------------------------
Conventional			1802	1012 ab	1036 abc	893 bc
Rye	34	Optimum	1809	884 bc	989 bc	768 de
		Late	1364	741 c	986 c	693 e
	68	Optimum	1583	811 bc	1115 a	1006 a
		Late	1455	749 c	994 bc	851 cd
Wheat	34	Optimum	1872	1162 a	961 c	989 ab
		Late	1540	870 bc	933 c	894 bc
	68	Optimum	1563	760 c	1108 ab	864 cd
		Late	1541	776 c	1148 a	844 cd

Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD test at α < 0.05. Columns with no letter are not significantly different.

). No treatments differed in 2017, with gross returns between USD 1364 and USD 1872 ha⁻¹. In 2018, gross returns were greater for wheat at a 34 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate and optimum termination timing and CT. In 2019, gross returns were greater in the CT, rye at a 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate and optimum termination timing, and wheat at a 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate, and both termination timings (O and O + 2 weeks). In 2020, the rye at a 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate and optimum termination timing and the wheat at a 34 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate and optimum termination timing had the greatest gross returns. In two of the four observation years (2018 and 2020), the 68 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate decreased gross returns compared to CT. Overall, the inclusion of cover crops decreased gross returns 19% of the time.

Similarly to gross returns, gross margins followed a similar trend, with no reduction in potential profitability using cover crops in semi-arid cotton production (

Table 7. Gross margins by year and treatment at AG-CARES in Lamesa, TX.

Species	Seeding Rate	Termination	2017	2018	2019	2020
	kg ha−1		-----------------------------USD ha−1-----------------------------
Conventional			1629	834 b	854 c	714 bcd
Rye	34	Optimum	1712	787 b	890 bc	674 cd
		Late	1275	649 b	900 bc	605 d
	68	Optimum	1459	687 b	984 ab	877 a
		Late	1329	620 b	871 c	728 bc
Wheat	34	Optimum	1800	1072 a	867 c	893 a
		Late	1423	779 b	839 c	806 ab
	68	Optimum	1462	632 b	983 ab	740 bc
		Late	1385	651 b	1022 a	718 bcd

Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD test at α < 0.05. Columns with no letter are not significantly different.

). From 2018 to 2020, W resulted in greater gross margins than CT, regardless of seeding rate or termination timing. In a similar study, Lewis et al. [12] determined that the use of NT with cover crops did not significantly reduce gross margins in most years; however, they did reduce margins by USD 53 to USD 73 ha⁻¹ compared to CT cotton, which might deter some producers from implementing cover crops. Conversely, DeLaune et al. [29] concluded that continuous cotton net returns were significantly greater for no-till systems (with and without cover crops) than CT in the Texas Rolling Plains. The use of cover crops also increased the probability of achieving greater net returns than CT and reduced producer risk [30]. Despite the potential improvements associated with conservation agriculture, producer adoption of these practices is still limited [1]. Additional research is needed to better understand the economics of conservation cotton cropping systems and barriers to a producer’s adoption of these conservation practices.

4. Summary and Conclusions

The semi-arid Texas High Plains presents challenging early-season conditions for cotton producers. Cover crops can help mitigate erosion and protect cotton seedlings from wind and sand damage without reducing yields compared to conventional practices if managed appropriately. Effective cover crop management is needed to optimize cotton lint yield compared to conventional tillage systems. We focused on three cover crop management practices: species selection, seeding rate, and termination timing. With regard to species selection, rye produced greater herbage mass in three of the four years. The seeding rate had less of an effect on herbage mass; doubling the seeding rate from 34 to 68 kg ha⁻¹ did not contribute to increased herbage mass. This change in seeding rate only causes an increase in seed costs, and this trend held true for both species and termination timings. Termination timing had the most significant effect on herbage mass, with a two-week delay in termination timing, increasing herbage mass production from 44 to 63%. At the targeted termination time of six to eight weeks before planting, rye and wheat experienced increased growth as they transitioned from vegetative to reproductive growth. This critical period makes termination timing an essential aspect of herbage mass management. Termination timing can also impact the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, where higher C:N at later growth stages can increase N immobilization. While water availability or allelopathy concerns are cited as risks for cotton germination and emergence when using cover crops, cotton plant populations were not affected in this study.

Cotton lint yields were not impacted by increasing cover crop herbage mass, except in 2018, when greater wheat biomass resulted in decreased lint yield compared to the conventional system. In each year, wheat or rye at a 34 kg ha⁻¹ seeding rate and optimum termination timing resulted in cotton lint yields not different than CT. While yield potentials can differ between years depending on precipitation and temperatures, effective cover crop management can help sustain cotton lint yields when compared to CT. Rye seed tends to cost more than wheat, but it grows more rapidly and could be terminated earlier to allow for increased moisture capture and storage between termination and cotton planting. This research demonstrates that with effective cover crop management, the implementation of conservation practices can be successful in semi-arid cropping systems.