|
A Review of Regenerative Agriculture in Cotton Production Systems Across the Semi-Arid Texas High Plains
Christopher Cobos1,*, Nicholas Boogades1, Joseph Burke1, Paul DeLaune2, Katie Lewis1
Published in Journal of the ASABE 69(1): 133-148 (doi: 10.13031/ja.16451). Copyright 2026 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
1 AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Texas A&M University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
2 Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA.
* Correspondence: christopher.cobos@ag.tamu.edu
The authors have paid for open access for this article. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License https://creative commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Submitted for review on 6 June 2025 as manuscript number NRES 16451; approved for publication as an Invited Review Article and as part of the Regenerative Agriculture Collection by Associate Editor Dr. Meetpal Kukal and Community Editor Dr. Kati Migliaccio of the Natural Resources & Environmental Systems Community of ASABE on 7 October 2025.
Citation: Cobos, C., Boogades, N., Burke, J., DeLaune, P., & Lewis, K. (2026). A review of regenerative agriculture in cotton production systems across the semi-arid Texas High Plains. J. ASABE, 69(1), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.16451
Highlights
ABSTRACT. For the Texas High Plains (THP), regenerative agriculture represents a natural progression in conservation and system resiliency. Regenerative agriculture encompasses a broader theme of conservation that includes community-level longevity and economic viability, all while promoting concurrent environmental stewardship. The THP represents a vast region of agricultural production, representing a range of agricultural commodities across semi-arid environments with varying levels of precipitation. Including some of the most profitable cotton-producing counties in the United States, the THP produces approximately 30% of the country’s annual cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) crop and 30% of its fed cattle (Johnson et al., 2013). However, the future agricultural viability and subsequent economic longevity of the region are threatened by two concurrent anthropogenic disasters, global climate change and groundwater withdrawal. With the region’s future at risk, opportunities exist to implement regenerative agricultural practices to increase the sustainability of cotton agroecosystems as producers transition into deficit-irrigated or dryland production systems. Regenerative practices, such as no-tillage, cover cropping, crop rotations, and integrated crop-animal grazing systems, provide prospective solutions that increase carbon sequestration, increase soil water conservation, improve soil health, and reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases. This review encompasses a range of regenerative agricultural practices that may be beneficial to cotton production across the THP region, including the Southern High Plains, Northern High Plains, and Rolling Plains.
With almost six million acres of cotton planted in Texas in 2024 and a net worth of over $1.2 billion, cotton represents a major commodity across the Southern Great Plains (SGP), and for Texas specifically (USDA NASS, 2024). Water remains the most limiting factor for agricultural production across the THP and the largest challenge to continued production across the semi-arid region (Lewis et al., 2018; Baumhardt et al., 2013). As a result, the future sustainability of cotton production across the THP is at risk. The decline of the Ogallala Aquifer represents the most pressing concern for much of the THP, forcing producers to transition into deficit-irrigated and dryland production systems as the primary source of irrigation decreases in capacity. The effect and importance of irrigation on agricultural crops are well documented, often quadrupling yields compared to dryland production systems (Colaizzi et al., 2009). The primary cause of crop losses across semi-arid regions is water stress, reducing yields by 50% or more on average (Marasco et al., 2012). On-going water stress and declining yields further reiterates the necessity to preserve soil water storage, combat soil moisture evaporative losses, and increase plant water-use efficiency, since precipitation alone cannot sustain the current regional crop production. Where the potential evapotranspiration (ET) can be 2–3 times greater than the annual precipitation (Gustavson and Holliday, 1999), the use of irrigation for agriculture is indispensable.
Regional differences in agricultural production and climate across the THP are reflected in irrigation capacities, which, over time, will further affect the discrepancies in groundwater storage. Aquifer depletion may not cause an acute crisis for communities and producers, but the overall effects of depletion in the future will be far-reaching and everlasting, changing one of the most productive and profitable agricultural areas in the southern United States. These at-risk regions can be identified with model projections that integrate current and future land usage, management practices, and economic factors (Deines et al., 2020; Mitchell-McCallister et al., 2021). However, production challenges will be further exacerbated by global climate change, and current model projections could be skewed. There is a general consensus in most climate models for Texas that the state is particularly susceptible to climate change, with projections indicating an average increase in surface air temperature of 2–5°C within the next 80 years (Banner et al., 2010; Modala et al., 2017; USGCRP, 2018; Nielsen-Gammon et al, 2020). Currently, the state averages 10–20 days exceeding 37°C, and models predict over 100 such days annually by 2100 (Banner et al., 2010). The climate models used in Banner et al. (2010) are the American CCSM Model, the Canadian CGCM Model, and the German ECHAM Model. The Canadian Model was also evaluated three separate times using three different initial conditions for future projections (Ensemble Members 1, 2, and 3). The other cited paper, Modala et al. (2017), uses multiple model projections as well: Regional Climate Model Version 3–Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (RCM3-GFDL), Regional Climate Model Version 3–Third Generation Coupled Global Climate Model (RCM3-CGCM3), and Canadian Regional Climate Model–Community Climate System Model (CRCM-CCSM). Multiple models validated by the IPCC were used. Models factored in different IPCC climate scenarios (A2, A1B, and B1). We believe that the inclusion of discussion using these models was more than representative of the Texas portion of the Southern Great Plains region.
It is difficult to predict exactly how global climate change will change the future of agriculture in the THP, but changes in precipitation and temperature will have downstream effects on agricultural commodities, especially on cotton production. The difficulty lies in preemptively determining the combined effects of not just a single environmental change, but a variety of changes and their interrelationships and effects.
Cotton production on the THP can be vulnerable to negative environmental effects, like decreased precipitation and increased heat stress, which could result in decreases in crop production throughout the remainder of the century. Across the THP, cotton is typically grown in continuous monoculture systems, representing one of the historically few regions of the U.S. where continuous cropping has been the prevalent practice (Reeves, 1994). The monoculture norm is, in part, due to the increased potential profitability of continuous cotton, outweighing the economic and ecological benefits of crop rotations (Reeves, 1994). Traditionally, this monoculture production system utilizes several tillage operations, and when paired with limited soil organic matter and inherently low biomass residue remaining after cotton harvest exposes the soil surface to the harsh wind conditions of the THP that can result in significant wind erosion (Reeves, 1994). Regenerative agricultural (RA) practices, such as cover crops, crop rotations, conservation tillage, and integrated livestock systems, are not new to the region but have been slow to be implemented by producers due to concerns over limited water availability and economic restrictions (Johnson et al., 2024). Incorporating RA practices can yield lasting and substantial benefits if properly optimized for semi-arid regions. Increased nutrient availability, soil health, and soil water availability, and decreased wind and water erosion are possible after successful long-term implementation of RA practices in the THP, leading to more drought-resilient agroecosystems (Modala et al. 2017; Lewis et al., 2018; DeLaune et al., 2019; Burke et al., 2021, 2022; Mitchell-McCallister et al., 2021).
Within the context of the THP, RA is faced with additional challenges specific to agriculturally diverse semi-arid regions. The THP covers a range of ecoregions, each with its specific water limitations, agricultural infrastructure, commodities, barriers to adoption, and current and future challenges. Many producers face the challenge of transitioning away from their regional “conventional agriculture” systems, which are no longer sustainable in the increasingly arid region. The southern portion of the THP, the Southern High Plains (SHP), has historically been one of the most productive cotton-producing regions of the United States. As irrigation water sources decline and climate norms shift, cotton production may move further north into the Northern High Plains (NHP) of Texas. This review will focus on regenerative agricultural practices that can be implemented in semi-arid cotton production systems across the THP, as producers transition away from regional conventional practices to dryland or deficit-irrigated RA systems.
Regenerative Agriculture
Regenerative agriculture was first defined by Rodale (1986) and focused on the context of “internal” (biological pest management, nitrogen fixation with legumes, soil health, etc.) and “external” (fertilizer, seed, labor, etc.) inputs within a farm. Rodale’s (1986) definition for RA focuses on a central question: “have [agricultural] inputs unnecessarily diminished the vitality of the internal resources on which farmers depended for all of their production for so many thousands of years?” After addressing that question, Rodale (1986) reiterates that “[producers] can regenerate farms by learning how to use more efficiently the capacity of their farm to create wealth from within its own abundant resources.” Based on Rodale’s supposition, regenerative practices generally seek to improve the overall biological, chemical, and physical aspects of soil health within a system, historically through organic practices (Newton et al., 2020). However, another rising component of RA is the inherent socio-economic factor tied to agricultural systems and larger community-level sustainability (Schreefel et al., 2020); with our current and future climate projections, this implies climate change mitigation and adaptation components as well (carbon sequestration potential, greenhouse gas mitigation, etc.). Profitability within RA systems must remain one of the paramount goals and continues to remain a significant barrier to adoption (Johnson et al., 2024). Agricultural practices cannot be environmentally and ecologically regenerative or sustainable if they are not economically viable for the producer.
Regenerative agriculture has significantly risen in popularity since it was first mentioned in the early 1980s (Newton et al., 2020), with the term seeing an almost exponential increase in its inclusion in the number of scientific publications in recent years. Unfortunately, confusion and skepticism around RA and its goals persist, most likely attributed to the notable lack of a formal definition for the term. However, even as no clear definition remains, the popularity, interest, and research in RA continues to grow. Though there is ambiguity with the term, core themes in RA have remained generally consistent over the years in scientific literature: (1) minimizing soil disturbance, (2) maintaining soil surface coverage, (3) incorporating a living root in the soil for as long as possible, and (4) increasing biodiversity (which can include animal/livestock integration) (Schreefel et al., 2020). For the THP, additional core values to consider include maintaining the economic viability of the system, optimizing soil water conservation, and minimizing the global climate change effects derived from agricultural practices.
Ambiguity and confusion around the term are not trivial and can have lasting negative effects on future policy and on producer perceptions and their willingness to implement regenerative practices. Khangura et al. (2023) and Newton et al. (2020) reiterate the importance and necessity of defining RA within each context and purpose. Here, we define RA in the context of the THP as the continued capacity of agricultural systems to function in a changing climate that supports soil health, communities, economic output, environmental sustainability, and resiliency to the outside threats of those outcomes. Regenerative practices relevant to the THP and associated core values include, but are not limited to, the implementation of cover crops, crop rotations, conservation tillage, and livestock integration. Our definition of RA encompasses recurring themes of conservation agriculture, sustainable agriculture, and climate-smart practices, coalescing philosophies to create a triad of environmental-economic-social resiliency. Inherent outcomes of this definition of RA are common to many definitions and goals of RA, including carbon sequestration, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, soil water conservation, soil erosion mitigation, improved soil health, and increased or maintained crop yields in the semi-arid THP.
The Texas High Plains
To narrow the scope of this review, we isolate the discussion of the THP to specific Texas ecoregions (fig. 1). Regenerative agricultural practices discussed in this review could apply to producers across the greater SGP region. The Texas portion of the SGP includes the SHP, NHP, and the Texas Rolling Plains (TRP), allowing observations on regenerative cotton-production systems across a varying range of climate, groundwater resources, and soil types in one of the most agriculturally productive regions in the United States. General nomenclature of ecoregions will vary based on land use, geological formations, and the overseeing institution (Texas Parks and Wildlife, United States Geological Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, etc.). The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (USDA-NRCS) land resource regions and major land resource areas (MLRA; USDA NRCS, 2022) have been used to define the NHP, SHP, and TRP. MLRAs are delineated and categorized primarily by geological parameters and soil properties within larger identified land resource regions (USDA NRCS, 2022). The purpose of these MLRAs is to provide information and knowledge on regional land use practices, resources, and geography to help in agricultural decision making and agronomic research, as a framework for future conservation programs (USDA NRCS, 2022). Here, we define and group MLRAs into Texas ecoregions with a focus on delineating ecoregions primarily based on agronomic practices, groundwater limitations, and land use in lieu of geological formations to contextualize RA practices in cotton production systems across Texas.
The NHP includes sections of MLRA 77-A, -B, and -E, covering the northern section of the Texas Panhandle. Average annual precipitation across the regions ranges from 380–660 mm yr-1, increasing from west to east (USDA NRCS, 2022). The region overlays the Ogallala Aquifer, drawing most of its irrigation from the unconfined aquifer and relying very little on surface water resources. Dairy and beef cattle operations represent the largest economic commodity for the region, with pastureland being the slightly more dominant land use for the region over row crop production. However, the NHP is still heavily dependent on row crops, producing mainly wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), grain sorghum (Sorghumbicolor), and corn (Zea mays L.). Although the NHP represents a relatively smaller land area compared to the SHP and TRP, cotton production across the region has steadily increased, with the counties across the NHP producing 838,500 bales of cotton over 443,200 harvested acres in 2022 (USDA NASS, 2024). With 14% of the Texas bales harvested across the region for 2022, the NHP alone outperformed California, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arizona, Virginia, Kansas, and New Mexico in cotton production. An important differentiator of the NHP from other Texas ecoregions is the lower number of frost-free days (185–195 day average) due to its northern geography and slightly lower average annual air temperature (11–15°C); an important distinction in the context of the limited cotton production across the NHP compared to the SHP and a potential barrier for increased cotton production across the region. With current climate change models predicting a general increase in average air temperatures moving north, cultivation geographies could potentially concurrently shift, providing a more favorable growing season for cotton across the NHP in the coming decades (Reinsch et al., 2023).
The SHP primarily consists of MLRA 77-C with the inclusion of MLRA 77-D and is approximately 54,300 km2 of semi-arid open plains situated on an elevated plateau with average annual temperatures between 13–17°C and up to 255 frost-free days. The annual precipitation in this area ranges from 400 to 560 mm yr-1; however, precipitation can vary significantly between years and generally occurs in few high-intensity precipitation events, usually during late spring and early fall (USDA NRCS, 2022). The SHP represents a more arid region with more drastic water limitations than both the NHP and TRP.
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of the Southern Great Plains within Texas and the United States (Insert). The Northern High Plains, Southern High Plains, and Rolling Plains are also denoted. Adapted from USDA-NRCS.
The TRP represents an area directly east of the SHP (primarily MLRA 78-B, C with the inclusion of MLRAs 77-A, -C, 80-A, -B; USDA NRCS, 2022) and encompasses over 61,000 km2 of the SGP. The average annual temperature ranges between 13°C and 18°C, with an annual precipitation of 600–700 mm yr-1 (USDA NRCS, 2022). Across the SHP and TRP, elevated temperatures and wind, paired with unpredictable precipitation, also contribute to high ET rates, averaging between 1,500 and 1,800 mm yr-1 (Ale et al., 2021; Evett et al., 2020).
Aquifer characteristics (hydraulic conductivity, specific yield, depth to water, saturated thickness, etc.) differ vastly across the Ogallala Aquifer depending on geographic location and sediment composition, with the SHP experiencing greater aquifer depletion than the NHP (Scanlon et al., 2012). The TRP primarily overlays the Seymour Aquifer, a significantly smaller groundwater resource. However, the groundwater resources of the Seymour Aquifer are nearly completely utilized, preventing any further irrigation expansion across the TRP (Sij et al., 2010). Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is the region’s most productive agricultural crop, with the SHP alone producing 583,800 bales on 416,900 acres in 2022 (USDA NASS, 2024), with a majority under dryland production (Burke et al., 2021). Other notable agricultural crops produced in these areas include corn (Zea mays L.), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), and wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). These three ecoregions of the THP represent the nation’s most productive cotton acres across a gradient of precipitation amounts and water availability in an extremely harsh semi-arid region.
Inherent in the success of RA practices are regional and temporal specificity; optimal regenerative practices will need to be prescriptive across time and at the field scale. The nature of the spatial specificity of regenerative practices contributes, in part, to the difficulty in the successful widespread adoption of these practices. Implementing regenerative practices into new agricultural production systems requires regional data and research to understand how agroecosystems will react agronomically and biogeochemically. Optimizing these practices to succeed on regional and field levels is necessary for agricultural producers to achieve economic sustainability, an essential facet of RA. In the context of the THP, RA must always aim to protect two of the region’s most vital agricultural resources: soil and water. The ability of RA practices to conserve soil water is essential in their long-term success and sustainability. Based on climate and aquifer models in the THP, there will be an increased number of producers transitioning away from irrigated cotton-cropping systems. A litany of factors (land use suitability, producer mentality, lifespan of irrigation capabilities, future technological advances, implementation of policy and regulations, etc.) will determine whether these transitions move towards complete dryland production systems, pastureland, and/or different cropping systems altogether. Any wide-scale transition will likely have drastic lasting effects on regional economies, as agriculture with minimal or no irrigation in semi-arid environments will never be as productive as any currently irrigated systems. The determinants of the severity of change will depend on the speed of transition and preparedness of the region; RA practices have the potential to maintain agricultural sustainability for the THP if optimized for the region.
Regenerative Agricultural Practices in the Southern Great Plains
Cover Crops
Cover crops are an appropriate RA practice for the THP, and their implementation aligns with both beneficial soil health parameters and RA core values. However, like all management practices, optimization for regional success is necessary for semi-arid regions (Lewis et al., 2018). Limitations will exist, and their primary purpose for implementation will differ from “conventional” standards. Cover crops can have varying practices and subsequent definitions. The generally accepted and regionally appropriate definition for cover crops in the THP is “a crop grown in the off-season with the intent to maintain soil coverage and reduce soil wind erosion” (USDA NASS, 2025).
Regional optimization of practices will be critical in cover crop species selection and termination timings. These practices are dependent on the environmental limitations of the region. With cotton being the predominant cash crop grown across the THP, cover crops are generally utilized in continuous cotton production systems, usually simultaneously involving a conservation tillage practice. Precipitation across the THP can limit cover crop establishment and biomass growth with dry winters and recurring spring droughts. The rigid timing of the cotton growing season (approximately May through November) creates difficulty in proper implementation of cover crops across the region. Many environmental factors outside the control of producers must align for the success of cover crops in cotton agroecosystems, especially in dryland production.
Producers across the THP generally have two major concerns: water dynamics (precipitation, WUE, stored soil moisture, etc.) and soil wind erosion. When conditions are optimal, cover crops can help in the management of both issues. The main goal for cover crop usage within the THP, and across many regions of the United States, remains ground cover protection to mitigate soil erosion (Kaspar and Singer, 2011). As stated, environmental factors limit the selection of management options when implementing cover crops in the THP, affecting species selection, biomass growth, termination timing, and subsequent soil moisture and cash crop yield dynamics. Recent promising research and data on cover crop implementation demonstrate the potential for successful management and improvements in stored soil moisture, cotton yields, soil health parameters, and economic vitality of the systems when optimized for semi-arid agroecosystems. However, questions remain on the success of cover crops in the increasingly arid future of the THP and in dryland production systems. Reeves (1994) states that “there are three areas that research on cover crops and crop rotations should address: (1) economics, (2) economics, and (3) economics.” Water dynamics, cover crop species selection, and termination timing are all interconnected with the success and economic viability of cover crop implementation.
Cover Crop Management
Grass species cover crops, namely rye (Secale cereale) or winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), have historically been used across the THP in cotton agroecosystems to reduce soil wind erosion. In the context of RA and increased soil health, hesitation in cover crop usage remains mainly due to the narrative that cover crops reduce plant-available soil moisture before and during the cotton growing season, thereby reducing cotton lint yields. Many studies have focused on soil health parameters, cotton lint yield, and the subsequent economic viability of these grass cover crops across the region. The first management consideration when implementing cover crops is species selection. Research on species selection and evaluations across the THP is ongoing and abundant, though given the harsh environment, single species small grain cover crops dominate more arid regions of the THP (SHP and NHP). The potential for leguminous cover crop species with high N-fixation capabilities is attractive to producers for their many soil health benefits. Unfortunately, many producers are forced to isolate cover crop species selection due to their ecological limitations. Across the SHP, high seed costs, minimal plant establishment, a restrictive growing window, minimal irrigation, and harsh environmental conditions have isolated cover crop species to predominantly rye and winter wheat. With the main goal being soil coverage, seed costs will determine the annual species selection for most producers in the SHP. However, White et al. (2024) concludes that in the SHP, rye cover crops on average can produce more biomass than wheat cover crops. Small grain cover seeding rates can also produce adequate biomass when seeding rates are reduced by half, saving direct costs for the producer. Termination timings for small grain cover had a significant impact on available biomass but will be annually specific based on winter and spring precipitation and forecasted precipitation for cotton planting. Delaying termination timings by just a single week can significantly impact canopy coverage, herbage biomass, downstream nutrient cycling, and subsequent available soil moisture during the cotton growing season. Detailed research observing these termination timing effects is currently being conducted in the SHP and TRP (Cobos et al., 2024).
Research on regenerative agriculture and cover crops has increased in recent years, with many studies focusing specifically on the SHP and cotton agroecosystems. At the Agricultural Complex for Advanced Research and Extension Systems (AG-CARES) in Lamesa, TX, Lewis et al. (2018) evaluated years 18–20 (2014–2017) of an ongoing study on cover crop and regenerative agricultural practices adoption in cotton agroecosystems in the SHP. The authors found significant differences amongst cotton lint yield in continuous cotton systems in 2016 and 2017, with conventional tillage and winter fallow (CT) producing greater lint than no-tillage systems with a rye cover crop (R-NT) and a mixed species cover crop (M-NT). Although yields were different among treatments in years 2016 and 2017 between CT and R-NT, gross margins were not statistically different in all three years or averaged across years. In fact, when averaged across years, CT was numerically greater than the no-tillage systems. When comparing conservation systems, the cost benefit of a single species grass cover crop over species mixes is apparent, as cover crop seed costs for M-NT were $66 ha-1 greater than R-NT, effectively eliminating the benefit of reduced variable costs compared to CT. As crucial as lint yield and available soil moisture are for the producer and the success of the system, evaluating the economics of the system is equally influential in its applicability and success. Input costs, lint revenue, and gross margins were evaluated for all systems across years. Lewis et al. (2018) concluded that, although there are environmental and biological benefits of using cover crops and no-tillage, the economic constraints of these conservation systems will not justify their implementation amongst some producers.
At the same AG-CARES site in 2015–2017, Burke et al. (2021) observed that conservation practices, including no-tillage with a cover crop, increase water storage potential and decrease evaporation during the growing season compared to conventional tillage cotton systems. The profile soil water saw greater increases in R-NT systems following cover crop termination and decreased less than CT during the cotton growing season, where deficit irrigation or timely spring precipitation was available. Soil water differences between the cover crop and CT treatments were greatest in 2017, which was the driest year of the study. These data indicate that terminated cover crops in no-till systems can increase water storage following rainfall or deficit irrigation in some years, especially during drought conditions. These results suggest that, with a termination date at least one month prior to planting, cover crops can provide in-season drought mitigation by reducing evaporative losses and increasing infiltration. Similar soil water results were seen again at the same system in years 2018–2020 (Burke et al., 2022); results indicate that cover crop water usage was most likely not the most limiting factor in cotton lint yield decline in deficit irrigated SHP cotton agroecosystems.
Current research is being conducted to address cover cropping optimization in the SHP for successful implementation and producer adoption. Recent data at the AG-CARES research site in Lamesa, TX, shows significantly greater stored soil moisture when implementing regenerative practices in deficit-irrigated systems during an extreme drought year (Cobos et al., 2022). Experimental plots established in 2014 were evaluated in year seven (2022) of the experiment; the following cropping systems were evaluated: (1) continuous cotton with conventional tillage (2) continuous cotton with no-tillage and winter rye (Secale cereal) cover crop (3) cotton – wheat – summer cover (60% sudangrass [Sorghum drummondii] and 40% cowpea [Vigna unguiculata L.] seeded at 45 kg ha-1) rotation with no-tillage and a (4) cotton – wheat – fallow rotation with no-tillage. Wheat was planted following cotton harvest with a summer cover mix planted into wheat stubble following wheat harvest in system (3) only. All systems were replicated under two varying irrigation levels, base irrigation (60% estimated ET replacement) and low irrigation (irrigation to achieve adequate stands with = 76 mm of early season irrigation, otherwise a dryland cropping system). Preliminary data showed greater soil moisture in systems implementing regenerative practices compared to the conventional system in both base and low irrigation levels. Increased stored soil moisture at planting correlated to significantly greater cotton lint yield for the cotton-wheat-fallow rotational system (923 kg ha-1; 252 kg ha-1) compared to the conventional cotton system (617 kg ha-1; 132 kg ha-1) in both the base and low irrigation levels, respectively. These data reinforce previous results from Burke et al. (2021, 2022), showing regenerative practices can conserve soil moisture throughout the growing season. However, these preliminary data indicate the potential increases in cotton lint yield during an extreme drought year (<210 mm precipitation from March-October) comparable to the historic 2011 Texas drought. With projected future decreases in annual precipitation and a decline in irrigation supply, regenerative practices may be crucial to the success of continued dryland cotton production in the SHP, indicating potential climate adaptation strategies. Further data needs to be collected to evaluate the economic potential of these systems.
Current research also indicates potential further increases in cotton lint yield through proper fertilization management when implementing cover crops across the SHP. Research observing cover crop biomass decomposition, soil N dynamics, and fertilization timings was conducted in both conventional and regenerative agricultural cotton systems in the SHP. Preliminary data at the AG-CARES research site in Lamesa, TX, from 2018–2020 show rye cover biomass potential at approximately 4,630 kg biomass ha-1, indicating 143 kg ha-1 of potential N available to the system. However, with minimal biomass decomposition in the semi-arid region, approximately 80% of the cover crop biomass remained at 125 days post cover crop termination. Previous reductions in cotton lint yields could potentially be caused by N immobilization early in the cotton season when implanting a cover crop. When regular N applications (134 kg ha-1) were split with an early season application (22 kg ha-1 at preplant), an increase in cotton lint yield of 16.4% and was seen in the no-tillage continuous cotton system with a rye cover compared to traditional fertilizer regiments. Average cotton lint yields from 2018–2020 in the no-tillage continuous cotton system with a rye cover was 23.3% greater than the conventional tillage continuous cotton system with winter fallow, corresponding to a 65.5% increase in gross margins (Lewis, 2021).
Cover crops have also demonstrated their potential to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) in the SHP; however, increases are often small, limited to upper soil depths, and take time to develop. Nonetheless, marginal increases in SOC for agroecosystems such as those found in the SHP can still be significant, given the ability of SOC to increase soil water holding capacity, infiltration, and erosion mitigation. In Lamesa, TX, Lewis et al. (2018) measured SOC from 0–15 and 15–60 cm in a conventional and no-till rye cover-cropped cotton systems 17, 18, and 19 years after establishment of the cover-cropped systems (with the conventional system in place 20+ years). The cover crop system had significantly greater SOC from 0–15 cm compared to the conventional system in year 17. However, there were no significant differences between the two systems from 0–15 cm in year 19, or in any year from 15–60 cm. The fluctuation of SOC between the two systems over time is likely due to in-season and year-over-year differences in weather conditions common in the SHP. Combine this with relatively low SOC% of these soils, and a scenario arises where heterotrophic microorganisms break down significant amounts of SOC in response to increased soil moisture from irrigation or rainfall and increased soil N from fertilization or input of low carbon to N ratio biomass (Liang et al., 2023). Burke et al. (2019) investigated in-season carbon dynamics within the same study in Lamesa, TX, and found that immediately following cover crop termination, the cover crop system had roughly 24 Mg ha-1 more SOC compared to the conventional tillage, winter fallow system. Approximately two months later, at cotton planting, the increase was down to roughly 8 Mg ha-1, consistent with levels observed during the previous cotton growing season. This highlights the potential for cover crops to increase SOC by increasing carbon inputs but also highlights the challenges of conserving soil carbon in carbon-poor soils such as those found in the SHP (Burke et al., 2019). McDonald et al. (2019) investigated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with conventional tillage and no-till cotton with a wheat cover crop in Lubbock, TX, supporting the idea that increased CO2 losses result in marginal SOC increases despite significant increases in carbon inputs of cover-cropped cotton. Here, they also reported no significant increase in SOC; however, this was only 2 years after the establishment of the rye cover crop. Although no differences in SOC were determined, cumulative CO2 emissions were significantly greater in the cover-cropped system. This study also included a no-till, no cover crop treatment, allowing for the calculation of the CO2 contributions of wheat cover alone. Subtracting these emissions from the carbon sequestered into wheat biomass, the cover crop was estimated to contribute between 34 and 1,069 kg of carbon to the soil. This led to the conclusion that, over time, the net carbon balance of the cover crop system should result in net SOC accumulation in excess of that in the conventional system. However, only 2 years after implementation, there may not be enough stable SOC built up to show a consistent increase. Similar results were found in Lamesa, TX, when Boogades et al. (2024) compared SOC and CO2 emissions during a single growing season in a conventional cotton system and two regenerative systems: (1) a no-till continuous cotton system with rye cover crop and (2) a no-till cotton-wheat-fallow system. All three systems were over 15 years old at the time. At the end of the growing season, the cover crop system had significantly greater cumulative in-season CO2 emissions than both the conventional system and the rotation, which were not different from each other. Soil organic carbon was significantly greater in both regenerative systems compared to the conventional tillage system; however, this was observed only in the 0–10 cm soil depth. The body of research on cover crops in the SHP depicts a trend similar to the Keeling Curve of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the Industrial Revolution (Keeling et al., 1996), where the general trend is an increase over time, with year-to-year fluctuation cycle that may be positive or negative. Although not to the capacity of practices discussed later in this review, cover crops are a viable method of increasing SOC in soils of the SHPs when compared to conventional cotton production.
Previous research on cover crops across the TRP has begun to understand the soil and water limitations and dynamics within cover cropping systems across the region. Many previous research studies in the region have shown varying results across RA practices in dryland cotton production systems, historically showing no significant improvements in cotton lint yield or reductions in cotton lint yield when implementing various winter cover crops across the region compared to conventional cotton systems (Adams et al., 2020; Baughman et al., 2007; Segarra et al., 1991; Dozier et al., 2017). More recent research findings from the TRP show similar results. DeLaune et al. (2020) evaluated various cover crop species in dryland cotton production systems compared to the conventional cotton system in Chillicothe, TX, over a four-year period (2013–2016). Data collected indicated that there were no negative effects on cotton lint yield when implementing a single species winter cover crop or a multispecies cover crop compared to the conventional tilled continuous cotton system. Higher seed costs were associated with the cover crop treatments; however, there were no ecological or economic improvements with the RA treatments compared to the conventional system. Previous research by DeLaune (2015) observing multiple dryland and irrigated cover crop species (single species and mixed species) compared to conventional cotton systems in Chillicothe, TX, (2012–2014) show significant amounts of cover crop biomass can be achieved in the TRP during extreme drought conditions. Soil moisture measurements indicate a decrease in soil moisture prior to cotton planting with the mixed species cover crop treatment (legume/grass mixture) in both irrigated and dryland systems. In all cover crop systems, soil moisture was decreased compared to the conventional tillage system in the spring prior to cotton planting; however, irrigated systems demonstrated no decrease in soil moisture once irrigation was initiated or precipitation was recorded, which was similar to the results observed by Burke et al. (2021, 2022) in the SHP. These data reiterate that cover crops can potentially increase soil water infiltration in cotton production systems while also depleting soil water that is captured prior to termination. Cover crops in the TRP have been reported to increase soil health properties. Hux et al. (2023) evaluated numerous soil chemical and biological properties, including SOC, total N, inorganic N, water-extractable organic C, water-extractable organic N, C mineralization, and phospholipid fatty acids across different cover crop treatments at various timepoints after cover crop termination. The research was conducted in 2017 in Chillicothe, TX, five years after cover crop implementation. Hux et al. (2023) concluded that a single species of Austrian winter pea cover crop resulted in a 24% increase in SOC and a 28% increase in total N compared to the no-till system without a cover crop and the conventional tillage system. Overall, the cover crop treatments improved the soil quality and increased the amount of plant-available nutrients in the system.
Similar results were reported in various research studies utilizing TRP field-collected data for modeling projections and simulations of cover crops in continuous cotton systems. Singh et al. (2022) utilized observed data obtained from Chillicothe, TX, (2012–2020) to simulate long-term (25 years) trends when implementing single and mixed species cover crops in cotton production systems via the Denitrification and Decomposition (DNDC) model. Simulated trends revealed an increase in SOC and total N with no negative effects on cotton seed yield when implementing cover crops compared to a conventional tillage cotton production systems. Adhiarki et al. (2017) utilized similar filed-collected data from Chillicothe, TX, to evaluate long-term effects (2001–2015) of winter wheat as a cover crop in irrigated and dryland scenarios via two Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) crop modules. Simulations demonstrated no reductions in cotton seed yield and soil water when implementing a winter wheat cover crop across the TRP.
As discussed previously, cover crops are not a new practice for the THP and have been historically used to reduce wind erosion in conjunction with conservation tillage. However, producers have greater hesitancy in adopting cover crops as a regenerative practice. Optimization of cover crop management has progressed with recent research, reducing both the negative impacts and stigma associated with cover crops in semi-arid regions. Research demonstrates the incredible intricacies associated with the implementation of adopting new regenerative practices and the knowledge gap associated with barriers to adoption for producers. Some management decisions may seem trivial to public perception, but management practices in semi-arid regions have significant downstream effects on the biological, chemical, physical, and economic parameters within the system. Producers across the THP must make on-farm decisions that encompass all aspects of regenerative agriculture (biological, ecological, and socio-economic) and do so in an increasingly arid and harsh environment while simultaneously losing the security of irrigation. Yield and economics will remain the foundation of their decision base, reiterating the importance of regenerative agricultural core values for the THP. Fortunately, recent data and research present trends toward regenerative agricultural optimization for the semi-arid THP. Regenerative agroecosystems have the potential to increase sustainability while simultaneously offering climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. The success of regenerative agriculture across the THP will play a key role in the future stability of the region and the nation’s food and climate security.
Crop Rotation
Crop rotations in the THP emerged in the mid-20th century to address concerns over declining saturated thickness of the Ogallala Aquifer, reduced cotton profitability, and compliance with conservation programs. At that time in the SHP, irrigated cotton-sorghum rotations dominated production until the 1960s, when input prices, commodity prices, and other market factors began to favor continuous cotton production systems. However, these continuous systems led to declining cotton yields shortly after implementation, shifting focus back to production systems that increased WUE, reduced input costs, and reversed negative yield trends (Neal and Ethridge, 1986; Bordovsky et al., 1994). Research in the SHP from the 1970s to the 1990s focused on optimizing cotton systems using, primarily, crop rotation and conservation tillage. After this period, research shifted towards optimizing cover crop use for the region, driven in part by the Food Security Act of 1985. The purpose of this bill, in terms of cotton production, was to reestablish the United States’ competitiveness in the global cotton market by providing strong price support to producers, thereby incentivizing cotton production. The result was an overwhelming opportunity cost for producers of the SHP when planting anything other than cotton (Committee on Agriculture 1989; Chen and Anderson, 1990). These economic factors, combined with a separate goal of the bill to increase conservation efforts, explain the abandonment of crop rotations in favor of cover crops, because the latter allows for cotton production on every acre of a farm every year, and increases protective aboveground residue beyond that of a conventional cotton system (Hoag and Young, 1986; Harman et al., 1989).
Before research efforts on crop rotations in the SHP halted in the late 1980s, researchers identified positive impacts on net margins, cotton yield, and soil water, particularly in wheat-cotton rotations, over both cover crop and conventionally tilled, continuous cotton systems (Harman et al., 1989; Segarra et al., 1991; Bordovsky et al., 1994). Criticisms of cotton-grain rotations at the time were of insufficient increases in residue coverage to benefit soil stability and infiltration, particularly under dryland conditions (Unger and Parker, 1976; Lacewell et al., 1989; Baumhardt et al., 1993). In a laboratory experiment utilizing a benchmark soil for the SHP, Unger and Parker (1976) determined 8 Mt ha-1 of wheat residue provided sufficient soil coverage to decrease evaporation and increase water storage, and that 16 and 32 Mt ha-1 of cotton and sorghum residues, respectively, were required to achieve a similar result. While beneficial, these residue quantities are not consistently achieved in production settings, especially in dryland production. Baumhardt et al. (1993) found no significant increases in infiltration from no-till cotton-wheat or cotton-sorghum rotations at three locations across the SHP, compared to conventionally tilled continuous cotton, and failed to meet residue thresholds set by Unger and Parker (1976) in all systems.
Although increases in infiltration are not consistent in cotton rotations with grains, soil water content is often significantly increased and is the biggest benefit to rotations, particularly cotton-wheat rotations. In a three-year study in Halfway, TX, Bordovsky et al. (1994) significantly increased average seasonal soil water content in cotton-wheat rotations compared to conventional cotton, regardless of tillage regime or irrigation status, leading to significant increases in cotton lint yield. This increase is due to a near year-long fallow period between wheat harvest and cotton planting the following year, allowing for significant soil water recharge. The benefit of fallow periods of this length on soil water storage in wheat, sorghum, and cotton systems of the High Plains is well documented and often translates to yield benefits (Unger, 1972; Musick et al., 1977; Unger and Wiese, 1979; Unger, 1984; Baumhardt et al., 1985; Unger et al., 1987). Reducing or eliminating tillage during the fallow period will further increase water storage. Musick et al. (1977) and Unger and Wiese (1979) both increased sorghum yield and soil water storage following wheat fallow with no-till compared to clean till. Baumhardt et al. (1985) investigated tillage treatments in wheat-sorghum rotations under dryland conditions with mixed results, where in the NHP, no-till increased sorghum yields compared to tillage treatments in both years, but in the SHP, no-till increased yields in only one of two years.
There is also a clear difference between cotton rotated with wheat versus sorghum, both in lint production and economic value. The difference is driven by the increase of soil water content at cotton planting following a wheat fallow period that can range from 9 to 11 months, approximately 4 months longer than between sorghum and cotton, allowing more time for soil water recharge. Segarra et al. (1991) compared continuous cotton, cotton with wheat cover crop, and cotton-sorghum and cotton-wheat rotations in Lubbock, TX, from 1987 through 1989, under both irrigated and dryland conditions. The authors found that the cotton-sorghum rotation was the lowest cotton-yielding system under irrigation and only greater than wheat cover in dryland scenarios. In the same study, the cotton-sorghum rotation had the lowest net margin among all systems with irrigation, but it was greater than both continuous cotton and cotton with a wheat cover crop under dryland conditions. Middelton et al. (1996) extended the same study through 1993 and determined that, averaged across all years, reduced tillage continuous cotton, the reduced tillage cotton-wheat rotation, and the reduced tillage cotton-sorghum rotation had average net revenues per acre of $56.25, $52.03, and $38.68, respectively.
Many of the economic and environmental challenges which caused rotations to be the dominant cotton production practice in the THP during the mid-20th century are the same factors affecting producers today, however cotton monocultures still dominate. With renewed interest in crop rotations in regional research, and expanded system evaluation criteria to include metrics such as soil health, crop rotations have potential for expanded adoption in the THP. Research from Lamesa, TX, from 2014–2019 by Braden (2021) mirrored results from studies in the 1970s and 1980s, where average cotton yields of a cotton-wheat rotation were greater than those of cotton with a rye cover crop across three irrigation levels. Gross margins were also increased with the cotton-wheat system, and were positive at all irrigation levels, unlike the cover crop system, which had negative gross margins at the lowest irrigation level. However, when modelling economic risks of continuous cotton without a cover crop versus cotton-sorghum and cotton-wheat rotations, Alcantara (2024) found that continuous cotton provided the greatest economic return and least financial risk within two climate scenarios throughout the remainder of the century for producers of the THP.
Producers of the TRP share similar considerations when implementing crop rotation. Although the Rolling Plains receive roughly 25% more rainfall than the High Plains, increased water use resulting from system intensification remains a significant concern. In contrast to the THP, the TRP’s lengthened growing season allows for double-cropping, particularly in wheat systems. However, historically, these systems have yielded poor results (Bordovsky et al., 1998). Although the ability for producers to grow cover crops to maturity and harvest as a second crop also exists, demonstrating the increased flexibility of the TRP (Schirmacher, 2019). Additionally, the importance of wheat production in the TRP makes wheat a primary focus in most rotations, rather than a complementary crop as it often is in the THP. Research results on crop rotations are similar to that of the THP, where rotations generally result in either reduced or similar yields compared to conventional systems, with other system benefits including increased WUE. For example, Clark et al. (1996) evaluated continuous cotton and cotton in rotation with wheat or sorghum in Chillicothe, TX, for eight years and found no difference between continuous cotton lint yields and cotton lint yields when grown in rotation with sorghum. Interestingly, cotton in rotation with wheat yielded lower than cotton in rotation with sorghum, and had lower WUE, which is in contrast to studies from the THP (Middelton et al., 1996; Segarra et al., 1991).
While the practicality of crop rotations within the THP has fluctuated since the mid-20th century, a body of research still suggests that these rotations can provide agronomic, economic, and environmental benefits in the face of upcoming production challenges. However, as with all RA practices, the success of rotations likely depends on the individual producer, the characteristics of their farm, and their willingness to adopt such practices.
Livestock-Row Crop Integration and Optimization
Deines et al. (2020) predicted up to 24% of currently irrigated lands across the Ogallala Aquifer to be forcibly transitioned to dryland agricultural production systems by 2100 as irrigation capacities quickly deplete. However, after applying an optimized land-use suitability model, it was determined that over half of the transitioned area would be unsustainable for dryland agriculture due to unsuitable soil properties, suggesting conversion to perennial pastures may be more economically and ecologically sustainable in some regions. With the viability of dryland row crop agricultural systems threatened, potential exists in transitioning current agricultural lands into perennial forage systems as a regenerative strategy. Transitioning more land into forage systems for livestock grazing offers the region climate change adaptation solutions and potential in future climate change mitigation with further optimization.
Recent trends in declining pasture acreage across the United States, paired with the goal of doubling agricultural production outputs by 2050 to meet the demand of a growing population, could lead to hardships in meeting future meat and dairy demands. The current situation places the SGP at a critical juncture in its investment to continue being a vital agricultural hub. Given the proximity of livestock operations and the diverse agricultural commodities historically produced across the region, there has been a growing focus on cattle integration in row crop production over the last two decades, especially in the SHP and NHP of Texas. However, the future viability of cattle-grazing and row crop integration is uncertain, as dryland row crop production systems will be highly susceptible to the projected harsher weather conditions of the SHP. A paradigm shift in what is considered sustainable agricultural conservation systems for the region is needed. Perennial forage systems for grazing can maintain ground cover, decrease soil wind erosion, improve soil health, and more efficiently use the remaining groundwater supply that is available. However, both systems can diversify producer income, maintain regional economic stability, increase soil health, and provide the region with potential regenerative agricultural solutions.
Perennial Forage Pasture Systems
The SGP’s vast natural acres of grassland and history of available livestock lend themselves to an abundance of research in perennial grazing systems for the region. These systems consist of perennial grasses grown typically for livestock forage. The SGP’s geological history indicates that its development as a grassland savannah happened concurrently with the formation of the region, approximately 11 million years ago (Wester, 2007). Large herbivorous grazers, most famously Bison (Bison bison), roamed the grassland before the region’s settlement, before largely being replaced by livestock cattle. By 1888, over 9 million head of cattle were located in the SHP, followed by a steep decline in numbers due to overgrazing and harsh environmental factors. However, Texas still currently produces more cattle than any other state in the United States (12.2 M beef cattle in 2025, USDA NASS, 2025), with approximately 30% of all cattle on feed located within the SHP (Wester, 2007). With a growing number of farms transitioning to dryland production systems due to declining irrigation capacity, some producers instead opt to transition their land into perennial forage systems for livestock grazing and to maintain soil surface coverage. As more producers are forced to transition away from irrigated cotton monoculture production, solutions are needed in order to reallocate their groundwater resources to create profitable, resilient, and sustainable agroecosystems in dryland semi-arid regions.
As mentioned previously, Dienes et al. (2020) predicted a significant amount of the SGP to be unable to support irrigated agriculture by the end of the century. Though much of SGP remains stable for agricultural production, land-use will undoubtedly change throughout the THP, and changes will need to be adapted to their specific regional limitations (Drummond et al., 2012). The determining factors in land-use changes will be soil health parameters, available water resources, and environmental changes due to global climate change (Deines et al., 2020; White and Snow, 2012). Adopting agricultural systems that focus on soil and soil water conservation and sustainability while simultaneously maintaining producer income is a necessity in the SGP.
Perennial forage systems can provide adequate soil cover, which can improve soil structure, water infiltration, and the water-use efficiency of the system (Dienes et al., 2020; Neal et al., 2011; Moot et al., 2008). The largest factor contributing to increased water storage and capture in perennial forage systems, and their subsequent success in semi-arid regions, is forage species’ physiological traits, most notably the rooting structure and growth (Ward et al., 2002; Moot et al., 2008; White and Snow, 2012). Forage species composition and mixture can also have drastic impacts on the soil health of the system, improving bulk density with adequate cover and grazing management (Franzluebbers et al., 2012). Wang et al. (2015) also notes the importance of forage quality on the overall GHG emissions potential of a grazing system, showing a potential reduction in GHG emissions by 30% with proper forage quality and cattle digestibility in the SGP. Species composition will be crucial for the successful implementation of perennial forage systems across the THP.
Perennial pastures used for grazing can improve the biological and chemical components of soil health within a system with increased soil microbial activity and nutrient cycling potential (Shawver et al., 2021). Optimal forage grazing systems will prioritize forage production for yield, nutritional quality, and the longevity of the system (Cox et al., 2017). Agricultural producers in the semi-arid THP are not strangers to their environmental limitations and have historically been forced to optimize their systems to fit their environment. Implementing perennial forage systems will be no different, as producers will be limited in available viable forage species. This limitation will negatively affect cattle's gain potential and limit N availability. Interseeding legumes into a forage system can help in increased overall biodiversity and provide plant-available N for the pasture system as well as increase potential cattle gains (Butler and Muir, 2012; Cox et al., 2017). However, low precipitation across the SHP limits the success of legumes in forage systems. Bhandari et al. (2020) investigated the success and soil health parameters when interseeding alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) into a perennial Old-World Bluestem (OWB) system. They determined the alfalfa-OWB interseeding pasture to be a possible viable system in the semi-arid THP that could increase pasture health through enhanced soil microbial activities. Baath et al. (2018) also evaluated a comprehensive list of potential legume species to adopt across the SHP that have been otherwise previously understudied or overlooked. Many of which show excellent potential for adoption due to their inherent heat and drought tolerance.
Though there is an abundance of literature on perennial forage systems in semi-arid environments, there is a dearth of observations when transitioning row crop agriculture into perennial forage systems with limited water availability. As water resources continue to decline in the THP, producers will be forced to transition away from their previously irrigated monoculture systems. The time of implementation will be crucial in regard to available irrigation capacity. Establishing perennial systems in the absence of irrigation can be difficult, increasing the time until available economic returns (Dienes et al., 2020). Soil physical properties can also be negatively impacted through soil compaction in heavily over-grazed systems suggesting a need for further optimization on cattle grazing strategies, especially in transitioning irrigated forage systems. As with all agricultural commodities successfully grown in the SGP, optimization is needed for their success in the region. Changing rotations, interseeding various legume species, utilizing limited available water for transitions are all examples in which the region will need to adjust in the immediate future. When compared to conventional monoculture dryland systems, perennial forage systems for livestock grazing will reduce soil erosion, increase the overall health of the system, and diversify the economic output for producers. More research is critical in understanding the GHG-mitigation dynamics and carbon sequestration potential for perennial forage systems in the SGP in order to create sustainable climate change mitigation systems across the region.
Integrated Crop and Livestock Grazing Systems
Integrated crop and livestock (ICL) grazing systems appropriately fit under the umbrella of RA as they focus on intensifying current agroecosystems by optimizing various land uses and crops over the same area of land. Successful integration will parallel RA principles, where the outputs of one land use are used as inputs into another. To simplify objectives, ICL grazing systems in this paper will be generally limited to integrating beef cattle (Bos taurus) into cotton agroecosystems (monoculture or rotational systems) across the SHP of Texas. In this regard, integration has been relatively slow and unexplored in literature until the late 20th century, given the proximity of the two large agricultural commodities across the SHP. However, ICL grazing systems give opportunities to intensify agroecosystems by adding inputs that increase the biological, ecological, and environmental outputs of the system. Allen et al. (2008) concluded that these systems can improve nutrient cycling, help reduce soil wind erosion, improve water management and conservation, and diversify producer income to reduce risks. These factors will become increasingly vital for continued agricultural production in the harsh future of the SHP.
Interest in ICL grazing system implementation across the SHP grew due to the success of increased wheat yields over time in Australia with an ICL grazing system (Donald, 1981). The expected expiration of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land and the potential for producers to return to row crop production also contributed to the growing interest in ICL systems across the SHP (Krall and Schuman, 1996). In 1997, a group of researchers, agricultural industry members, and practitioners established a long-term ICL grazing-focused research site in the SHP, and their results were first published in 2005 (Allen et al., 2005). A continuous cotton monoculture system with a winter wheat cover crop (“Lockett” Wheat) was compared to a rotational paddock ICL system consisting of approximately half the system in a perennial warm-season forage (WW-B Dahl Bluestem; Bothriochloa bladhii) and the other half split into two equal paddocks containing an alternating Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L)-Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-Fallow-Rye (Secale cereale L.) rotation. All systems were under drip irrigation. This alternating rotation allowed for cotton to be grown each year, along with wheat (spring) and rye (winter), available for grazing, along with the warm-season forage (January-July). After four years of implementation, Allen et al. (2005) reported a 23% decrease in irrigation water use, a 40% decrease in N fertilizer inputs, and a 90% increase in profitability when comparing the ICL grazing system to the cotton monoculture system. After year 10 of the study, Allen et al. (2012) again reported similar results from the same long-term system. The ICL system showed a 25% reduction in irrigation water and a 36% reduction in N fertilizer inputs compared to the cotton monoculture system. Acosta-Martínez et al. (2010) investigated soil health parameters in years 7–10 of the study and observed greater microbial biomass C, total C, and fungal abundance in the grazed rotation compared to conventional tillage cotton. Johnson et al. (2013) conducted an in-depth economic evaluation of the same ICL system described in Allen et al. (2005, 2012) and determined no differences in profitability between the two systems during the 10-year period. However, the monoculture system increased profitability due to the introduction of new cultivars in the latter half of the study. Johnson et al. (2013) suggested that the monoculture system could be more profitable where adequate irrigation is available, further indicating the importance of RA systems for the increasingly arid future of the SHP. These results were also mirrored in Mitchell et al. (2013), who analyzed the same system using a simulation approach. In both studies, the long-term ICL grazing system provided water conservation while maintaining profitability for the producer and enhancing the soil health of the system.
In the TRP, ICL systems are more widespread due to increased precipitation, allowing for sufficient biomass production of mainly winter wheat, or wheat cover for grazing, to occur during fall and early spring. The most common ICL system in the TRP and across much of Oklahoma, Texas, and southern Kansas is a dual-purpose winter wheat-stocker cow system. Dual-purpose systems differ from grain systems in several ways, including planting date, variety selection, and fertility (Carver et al., 2001). With respect to a typical wheat for grain only system in the TRP, a dual-purpose wheat crop has a narrower planting window, between September and October. Grazing starts no earlier than full tillering (Feekes 4.0) and ends before jointing (Feekes 6.0), making the grazing window from November to early March, and grain harvest in May. The SHP dual-purpose wheat timeline is similar; however, grain harvest occurs in June (Kimura et al., 2024). Wheat planting in dual-purpose systems takes place over a month before grain-only systems to benefit fall forage production, which negatively impacts grain yield (Hossain et al., 2003; Darapuneni et al., 2016; Kimura et al., 2024). This leads to highly market-dependent planting considerations for producers committed to dual-purpose systems, where high fall and winter forage prices relative to grain promote early planting and the inverse favors late planting (Hossain et al., 2003). Dual-purpose systems also require more N, with 0.91 kg N kg-1 of grain as a standard recommendation compared to 0.68 kg N for grain only (Kimura et al., 2024). Research in the TRP by Sij et al. (2011) determined 67 kg preplant N ha-1 maximized grain yield, but 0–34 kg preplant N ha-1 with 50 kg N ha-1 side-dressed at tillering was more optimal for economic return. When rainfall and temperatures were not limiting, forage biomass increased with increasing pre-plant N; however, this suggests that environmental conditions are more important for forage production than pre-plant N fertility. Overall, ICL dual-purpose wheat systems in the TRP are highly complex and dynamic, with system optimization required each season. Despite this, the advantages of these systems come when comparing them to wheat fallow systems conventionally practiced in the region. These systems were adopted for their ability to replenish soil moisture, but left soil susceptible to runoff, wind erosion, and declining soil health (Acosta-Martínez et al., 2007; Nielsen and Calderón, 2011).
Reluctance to adopt ICL grazing systems can most likely be attributed to a lack of infrastructure and the knowledge gap between farming and ranching systems and their integration. The “traditional” timeline when implementing a cover in the SHP leaves little time and available biomass for any adequate livestock grazing gains. The long-term system described by Allen et al. (2005, 2012) showcases the importance of optimizing these systems to allow for available grazing across multiple paddocks/fields rotations throughout the duration of the year. Successful integration will require collaboration between commodity groups in order to provide the knowledge and infrastructure needed for ICL grazing systems in the SHP. Though these RA practices have been
reported to increase the soil health of the system and help in increased soil moisture conservation, the success of these systems in an increasingly harsh and arid future will need to be researched. With annual increases in dryland acres across the region, questions remain about the feasibility of adequate biomass growth available for grazing in row crop production systems. In this regard, perennial forage pasture systems with less intensification and inputs could prove to be better suited for the SHP’s future.
Conclusions
These findings showcase the agricultural, ecological, and economic benefits of regenerative practices across the semi-arid THP. However, the data discussed can be applied to other semi-arid agricultural regions that may experience environmental limitations regarding conventional production agriculture and guide researchers and producers on possible regenerative solutions. Regenerative agricultural practices, as discussed, can have varying definitions applicable to specific regions. It is essential to emphasize the core values that regenerative practices aim to accomplish: (1) minimizing soil disturbance, (2) maintaining soil surface coverage, (3) incorporating a living root in the soil for as long as possible, (4) increasing biodiversity (which can include animal/livestock integration), (5) maintaining the economic viability of the system, (6) optimizing soil water conservation, and (7) minimizing the global climate change (greenhouse gas emissions) effects derived from agricultural practices. Cover cropping, reduced tillage, crop rotation, perennial forage systems, and integrated crop-livestock systems show potential to satisfy the core values of RA in the THP, though further research and regional optimization of these practices are necessary for their long-term success in semi-arid regions. It is critical to remember that RA practices cannot be tied to definitive practices, as the THP inevitably transitions into an increasingly harsh and arid environment with time. The success of RA practices will be dependent on regional and temporal optimization and must remain flexible enough to adapt as needed to avoid limitations within a production system.
Emphasizing the economic viability of RA practices is critical for their applicability in an agricultural production setting and essential for successful implementation by agricultural producers. Undoubtedly, maintaining economic viability while increasing our ecological sustainability in semi-arid regions will be extremely difficult, especially while the THP faces a drastic and critical decline in irrigation resources. Regenerative practices may need to be annually prescriptive to be successful, making drastic management changes dependent on yearly environmental conditions. This schema creates inherent difficulty for scientific research and data collection. However, “prescriptive” annual management changes may provide agricultural producers across the THP with the necessary risk mitigation needed moving forward to be sustainable in semi-arid regions. Additional research focusing on the long-term economics of RA practices is needed to help improve producer adoption of these practices.
References
Acosta-Martínez, V., Bell, C. W., Morris, B. E., Zak, J., & Allen, V. G. (2010). Long-term soil microbial community and enzyme activity responses to an integrated cropping-livestock system in a semi-arid region. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 137(3), 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.02.008
Acosta-Martínez, V., Mikha, M. M., & Vigil, M. F. (2007). Microbial communities and enzyme activities in soils under alternative crop rotations compared to wheat-fallow for the Central Great Plains. Appl. Soil Ecol., 37(1), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.03.009
Adams, C., Thapa, S., & DeLaune, P. (2020). Growth and development of irrigated cotton in conservation management systems of the Texas Rolling Plains. Agron. J., 112(3), 1805-1814. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20172
Adhikari, P., Omani, N., Ale, S., DeLaune, P. B., Thorp, K. R., Barnes, E. M., & Hoogenboom, G. (2017). Simulated effects of winter wheat cover crop on cotton production systems of the Texas Rolling Plains. Trans. ASABE, 60(6), 2083-2096. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.12272
Alcantara, R. T. (2024). An economic analysis of climate resilience of irrigated cotton-based cropping systems in the Texas High Plains region. MS thesis. Texas Tech University.
Ale, S., Himanshu, S. K., Mauget, S. A., Hudson, D., Goebel, T. S., Liu, B.,... Gitz, D. C. (2021). Simulated dryland cotton yield response to selected scenario factors associated with soil health. Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.617509
Allen, V. G., Brown, C. P., Kellison, R., Green, P., Zilverberg, C. J., Johnson, P.,... Conkwright, J. C. (2012). Integrating cotton and beef production in the Texas Southern High Plains: I. Water use and measures of productivity. Agron. J., 104(6), 1625-1642. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0121
Allen, V. G., Brown, C. P., Kellison, R., Segarra, E., Wheeler, T., Dotray, P. A.,... Acosta-Martinez, V. (2005). Integrating cotton and beef production to reduce water withdrawal from the Ogallala aquifer in the Southern High Plains. Agron. J., 97(2), 556-567. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0556
Allen, V. G., Brown, C. P., Segarra, E., Green, C. J., Wheeler, T. A., Acosta-Martinez, V., & Zobeck, T. M. (2008). In search of sustainable agricultural systems for the Llano Estacado of the U.S. Southern High Plains. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 124(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.08.006
Baath, G. S., Northup, B. K., Rocateli, A. C., Gowda, P. H., & Neel, J. P. (2018). Forage potential of summer annual grain legumes in the Southern Great Plains. Agron. J., 110(6), 2198-2210. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.12.0726
Banner, J. L., Jackson, C. S., Yang, Z. L., Hayhoe, K., Woodhouse, C., Gulden, L.,... Casteel, R. (2010). Climate change impacts on Texas water: A white paper assessment of the past, present and future recommendations for action. Tex. Water J., 1(1). https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v1i1.1043
Baughman, T. A., Keeling, J. W., & Boman, R. K. (2007). On-farm conservation tillage programs to increase dryland cotton profitability. Final report to Cotton Incorporated. Project No.
Baumhardt, R. L., Keeling, J. W., & Wendt, C. W. (1993). Tillage and residue effects on infiltration into soils cropped to cotton. Agron. J., 85(2), 379-383. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500020038x
Baumhardt, R. L., Schwartz, R., Howell, T., Evett, S. R., & Colaizzi, P. (2013). Residue management effects on water use and yield of deficit irrigated cotton. Agron. J., 105(4), 1026-1034. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0361
Baumhardt, R. L., Zartman, R. E., & Unger, P. W. (1985). Grain sorghum response to tillage method used during fallow and to limited irrigation. Agron. J., 77(4), 643-646. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1985.00021962007700040030x
Bhandari, K. B., West, C. P., & Acosta-Martinez, V. (2020). Assessing the role of interseeding alfalfa into grass on improving pasture soil health in semi-arid Texas High Plains. Appl. Soil Ecol., 147, 103399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.103399
Boogades, N., Lewis, K. L., DeLaune, P. B., Cobos, C., Burke, J., & Keeling, W. (2024). Mitigating carbon dioxide emissions from Texas Plains cotton production through regenerative agriculture. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5069913
Bordovsky, D. G., Choudhary, M., & Gerard, C. J. (1998). Tillage effects on grain sorghum and wheat yields in the Texas Rolling Plains. Agron. J., 90(5), 638-643. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1998.00021962009000050012x
Bordovsky, J. P., Lyle, W. M., & Keeling, J. W. (1994). Crop rotation and tillage effects on soil water and cotton yield. Agron. J., 86(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1994.00021962008600010001x
Braden, C. M. (2021). Profitability impacts of cropping systems in the southern High Plains of Texas. MS thesis. Texas Tech University.
Burke, J. A., Lewis, K. L., DeLaune, P. B., Cobos, C. J., & Keeling, J. W. (2022). Soil water dynamics and cotton production following cover crop use in a semi-arid ecoregion. Agronomy, 12(6), 1306. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12061306
Burke, J. A., Lewis, K. L., Ritchie, G. L., DeLaune, P. B., Keeling, J. W., Acosta-Martinez, V.,... McLendon, T. (2021). Net positive soil water content following cover crops with no tillage in irrigated semi-arid cotton production. Soil Tillage Res., 208, 104869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104869
Burke, J. A., Lewis, K. L., Ritchie, G. L., Moore-Kucera, J., DeLaune, P. B., & Keeling, J. W. (2019). Temporal variability of soil carbon and nitrogen in cotton production on the Texas High Plains. Agron. J., 111(5), 2218-2225. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2019.02.0066
Butler, T. J., & Muir, J. P. (2012). Perspective on forage legume systems for the tallgrass and mixed-grass prairies of the Southern Great Plains of Texas and Oklahoma. Crop Sci., 52(5), 1971-1979. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2011.12.0674
Carver, B. F., Khalil, I., Krenzer, E. G., & MacKown, C. T. (2001). Breeding winter wheat for a dual-purpose management system. Euphytica, 119(1), 231-234. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017543800311
Chen, D. T., & Anderson, C. G. (1990). Cotton market responses to 1985 food security act, dollar devaluation and US weather disturbances. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf.
Clark, L. E., Moore, T. R., & Barnett, J. L. (1996). Response of cotton to cropping and tillage systems in the Texas Rolling Plains. J. Prod. Agric., 9(1), 55-60. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1996.0055
Cobos, C. J., Boogades, N. F., Burke, J. A., Baath, G., DeLaune, P. B., & Lewis, K. L. (2024). Evaluating cover crop termination timings in semi-arid cotton conservation systems. Proc. ASA, CSSA, SSSA Int. Meeting. Retrieved from https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2024am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/159078
Cobos, C. J., Burke, J. A., Lewis, K. L., & Keeling, W. (2022). Soil water dynamics in semi-arid cotton agroecosystems. Proc. ASA, CSSA, SSSA Int. Meeting. Retrieved from https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2022am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/143140
Colaizzi, P. D., Gowda, P. H., Marek, T. H., & Porter, D. O. (2009). Irrigation in the Texas High Plains: A brief history and potential reductions in demand. Irrig. Drain., 58(3), 257-274. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.418
Committee on Agriculture. (1989). Review of Title V of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Upland Cotton Program). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Cox, S., Peel, M. D., Creech, J. E., Waldron, B. L., Eun, J.-S., Zobell, D. R.,... Snyder, D. L. (2017). Forage production of grass–legume binary mixtures on intermountain western USA irrigated pastures. Crop Sci., 57(3), 1742-1753. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.04.0235
Darapuneni, M. K., Morgan, G. D., Shaffer, O. J., & Dodla, S. (2016). Impact of planting date and seeding rate on forage and grain yields of dual-purpose wheat in Central Texas. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag., 2(1). https://doi.org/10.2134/cftm2016.06.0045
Deines, J. M., Schipanski, M. E., Golden, B., Zipper, S. C., Nozari, S., Rottler, C.,... Sharda, V. (2020). Transitions from irrigated to dryland agriculture in the Ogallala Aquifer: Land use suitability and regional economic impacts. Agric. Water Manag., 233, 106061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106061
DeLaune, P. (2015). Impact of cover crops on Texas Rolling Plains cotton production. Proc. 2015 Beltwide Cotton Conf..
DeLaune, P. B., Mubvumba, P., Fan, Y., & Bevers, S. (2020). Agronomic and economic impacts of cover crops in Texas Rolling Plains cotton. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environment, 3(1), e20027. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20027
DeLaune, P. B., Mubvumba, P., Lewis, K. L., & Keeling, J. W. (2019). Rye cover crop impacts soil properties in a long-term cotton system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 83(5), 1451-1458. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2019.03.0069
Donald, C. M. (1981). Innovation in Australian agriculture. In D. G. Williams (Ed.), Agriculture in the Australian economy (pp. 57-86). Sydney, Australia: Sydney Univ. Press.
Dozier, I. A., Behnke, G. D., Davis, A. S., Nafziger, E. D., & Villamil, M. B. (2017). Tillage and cover cropping effects on soil properties and crop production in Illinois. Agron. J., 109(4), 1261-1270. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.10.0613
Drummond, M. A., Auch, R. F., Karstensen, K. A., Sayler, K. L., Taylor, J. L., & Loveland, T. R. (2012). Land change variability and human–environment dynamics in the United States Great Plains. Land Use Policy, 29(3), 710-723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.007
Evett, S. R., Colaizzi, P. D., Lamm, F. R., O’Shaughnessy, S. A., Heeren, D. M., Trout, T. J.,... Lin, X. (2020). Past, present, and future of irrigation on the U.S. Great Plains. Trans. ASABE, 63(3), 703-729. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.13620
Franzluebbers, A. J., Stuedemann, J. A., & Franklin, D. H. (2012). Water infiltration and surface-soil structural properties as influenced by animal traffic in the Southern Piedmont USA. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 27(4), 256-265. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000378
Gustavson, T. C., & Holliday, V. T. (1999). Eolian sedimentation and soil development on a semiarid to subhumid grassland, Tertiary Ogallala and Quaternary Blackwater Draw formations, Texas and New Mexico High Plains. J. Sediment. Res., 69(3), 622-634. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.69.622
Harman, W. L., Michels, G. J., & Wiese, A. F. (1989). A conservation tillage system for profitable cotton production in the Central Texas High Plains. Agron. J., 81(4), 615-618. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100040013x
Hoag, D. L., & Young, D. L. (1986). Commodity and conservation policy impacts on risk and returns. Western J. Agricult. Econom., 11(2), 211-220. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987817
Hossain, I., Epplin, F. M., & Krenzer, E. G. (2003). Planting date influence on dual-purpose winter wheat forage yield, grain yield, and test weight. Agron. J., 95(5), 1179-1188. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2003.1179
Hux, B. A., DeLaune, P. B., Schirmarcher, M. T., Gentry, T. J., & Mubvumba, P. (2023). Winter cover crop impact on soil health in Texas Rolling Plains dryland cotton. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ., 6(1), e20352. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20352
Johnson, P., Zilverberg, C. J., Allen, V. G., Weinheimer, J., Brown, P., Kellison, R., & Segarra, E. (2013). Integrating cotton and beef production in the Texas Southern High Plains: III. An economic evaluation. Agron. J., 105(4), 929-937. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0465
Johnson, T. D., Mitchell-McCallister, D., deVilleneuve, S., & Berthold, T. A. (2024). Producer willingness to accept incentive levels for cover crop adoption in the Southern Great Plains. J. Agric. Appl. Econ., 56(4), 635-649. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2024.30
Kaspar, T. C., & Singer, J. W. (2011). The use of cover crops to manage soil. In J. L. Hatfield, & T. J. Sauer (Eds.), Soil management: Building a stable base for agriculture (pp. 321-337). https://doi.org/10.2136/2011.soilmanagement.c21
Keeling, J. W., Matches, A. G., Brown, C. P., & Karnezos, T. P. (1996). Comparison of interseeded legumes and small grains for cover crop establishment in cotton. Agron. J., 88(2), 219-222. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1996.00021962008800020017x
Khangura, R., Ferris, D., Wagg, C., & Bowyer, J. (2023). Regenerative agriculture — A literature review on the practices and mechanisms used to improve soil health. Sustainability, 15(3), 2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032338
Kimura, E., Bell, J., Trostle, C., & Neely, C. (2024). Winter wheat management calendar for the Rolling Plains and High Plains of Texas. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. Retrieved from https://agrilifeextension.tamu.edu/asset-external/winter-wheat-management-calendar-for-the-rolling-plains-and-high-plains-of-texas/
Krall, J. M., & Schuman, G. E. (1996). Integrated dryland crop and livestock production systems on the great plains: Extent and outlook. J. Prod. Agric., 9(2), 187-191. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1996.0187
Lacewell, R. D., Lee, J. G., Wendt, C. W., Lascano, R. J., & Keeling, J. W. (1989). Crop yield and profit implications of alternative rotations and tillage practices: Texas High Plains. B-1619. Texas A&M University Agriculture Experiment Station B-1619.
Lewis, K. L. (2021). Nutrient management in the semi-arid Texas High Plains. Proc. ASA, CSSA, SSSA Int. Ann. Meeting. Retrieved from https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2021am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/138962
Lewis, K. L., Burke, J. A., Keeling, W. S., McCallister, D. M., DeLaune, P. B., & Keeling, J. W. (2018). Soil benefits and yield limitations of cover crop use in Texas High Plains cotton. Agron. J., 110(4), 1616-1623. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.02.0092
Liang, Z., Rasmussen, J., Poeplau, C., & Elsgaard, L. (2023). Priming effects decrease with the quantity of cover crop residues – Potential implications for soil carbon sequestration. Soil Biol. Biochem., 184, 109110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2023.109110
Marasco, R., Rolli, E., Ettoumi, B., Vigani, G., Mapelli, F., Borin, S.,... Daffonchio, D. (2012). A drought resistance-promoting microbiome is selected by root system under desert farming. PLoS One, 7(10), e48479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048479
McDonald, M. D., Lewis, K. L., Ritchie, G. L., DeLaune, P. B., Casey, K. D., & Slaughter, L. C. (2019). Carbon dioxide mitigation potential of conservation agriculture in a semi-arid agricultural region. AIMS Agric. Food, 4(1), 206-222. https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.206
Middleton, M. R., Segarra, E., & Keeling, J. W. (1996). Evaluation of dryland cotton cropping system effects on yields and returns in the Texas High Plains. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf.
Mitchell, D., Johnson, P. N., Allen, V., Zilverberg, C., Mitchell, D., Johnson, P. N.,... Zilverberg, C. (2013). Integrating cotton and beef production in the Texas Southern High Plains: A simulation approach. Proc. Southern Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA) Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.143053
Mitchell-McCallister, D., McCullough, R., Johnson, P., & Williams, R. B. (2021). An economic analysis on the transition to dryland production in deficit-irrigated cropping systems of the Texas High Plains. Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.531601
Modala, N. R., Ale, S., Goldberg, D. W., Olivares, M., Munster, C. L., Rajan, N., & Feagin, R. A. (2017). Climate change projections for the Texas High Plains and Rolling Plains. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 129(1), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1773-2
Moot, D., Brown, H., Pollock, K., & Mills, A. (2008). Yield and water use of temperate pastures in summer dry environments. New Zealand Grassl. Assoc., 70. https://doi.org/10.33584/jnzg.2008.70.2724
Musick, J. T., Wiese, A. F., & Allen, R. R. (1977). Management of bed-furrow irrigated soil with limited- and no-tillage systems. Trans. ASAE, 20(4), 666-672. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.35625
Neal, J. S., Fulkerson, W. J., & Sutton, B. G. (2011). Differences in water-use efficiency among perennial forages used by the dairy industry under optimum and deficit irrigation. Irrig. Sci., 29(3), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-010-0229-1
Neal, T. J., & Ethridge, D. E. (1986). Analysis of Texas High Plains cotton yields trends. Texas Tech University College of Agriculture Science Publ. T-1-242.
Newton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K., & Johns, C. (2020). What is regenerative agriculture? A review of scholar and practitioner definitions based on processes and outcomes. Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.577723
Nielsen, D. C., & Calderón, F. J. (2011). Fallow effects on soil. In Soil management: Building a stable base for agriculture (pp. 287-300). https://doi.org/10.2136/2011.soilmanagement.c19
Nielsen-Gammon, J., Escobedo, J., Ott, C., Dedrick, J., & Fle, V. (2020). Assessment of historic and future trends of extreme weather in Texas, 1900-2036. Texas A&M University. Office of the Texas State Climatologist. Retrieved from https://climatexas.tamu.edu/products/texas-extreme-weather-report/ClimateReport-NOV2036-2.pdf
Reeves, D. W. (1994). Cover crops and rotations. In Crops residue management (1st ed., pp. 125-172).
Reinsch, W. A., Denamiel, T., & Kerstens, E. (2023). Climate change and US agricultural exports. Center for Strategic & International Studies. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep54070
Rodale, R. (1986). Learning to think regeneratively. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc., 6(1), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046768600600104
Scanlon, B. R., Faunt, C. C., Longuevergne, L., Reedy, R. C., Alley, W. M., McGuire, V. L., & McMahon, P. B. (2012). Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 109(24), 9320-9325. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1200311109
Schirmacher, M. T. (2019). Cover-and double-cropping impacts on soil health and moisture of a dryland winter wheat system in the Texas Rolling Plains. MS thesis.
Schreefel, L., Schulte, R. P., de Boer, I. J., Schrijver, A. P., & van Zanten, H. H. (2020). Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base. Glob. Food Secur., 26, 100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100404
Segarra, E., Keeling, J. W., & Abernathy, J. R. (1991). Tillage and cropping system effects on cotton yield and profitability on the Texas Southern High Plains. J. Prod. Agric., 4(4), 566-571. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1991.0566
Shawver, C. J., Ippolito, J. A., Brummer, J. E., Ahola, J. K., & Rhoades, R. D. (2021). Soil health changes following transition from an annual cropping to perennial management-intensive grazing agroecosystem. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ., 4(2), e20181. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20181
Sij, J. W., Bordovsky, D. G., Jones, D. L., & Slosser, J. E. (2010). Utilizing subsurface drip irrigation and conservation tillage in cotton production systems. SRX Agric., 2010(1), 725381. https://doi.org/10.3814/2010/725381
Sij, J., Belew, M., & Pinchak, W. (2011). Nitrogen management in no-till and conventional-till dual-use wheat/stocker systems. Texas J. Agric. Nat. Res., 24(2011), 38-49.
Singh, J., Ale, S., DeLaune, P. B., Himanshu, S. K., & Barnes, E. M. (2022). Modeling the impacts of cover crops and no-tillage on soil health and cotton yield in an irrigated cropping system of the Texas Rolling Plains. Field Crops Res., 287, 108661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108661
Unger, P. W. (1972). Dryland winter wheat and grain sorghum cropping systems: Northern High Plains of Texas. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin B-1126.
Unger, P. W. (1984). Tillage and residue effects on wheat, sorghum, and sunflower grown in rotation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 48(4), 885-891. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1984.03615995004800040037x
Unger, P. W., & Parker, J. J. (1976). Evaporation reduction from soil with wheat, sorghum, and cotton residues. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 40(6), 938-942. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1976.03615995004000060035x
Unger, P. W., & Wiese, A. F. (1979). Managing irrigated winter wheat residues for water storage and subsequent dryland grain sorghum production. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 43(3), 582-588. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1979.03615995004300030030x
Unger, P. W., Gerard, C. J., Matocha, J. E., Hons, F. M., Bordovsky, D. G., & Wendt, C. W. (1987). Water management with conservation tillage. Proc. Southern Region No-Till Conf.
United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). (2024). Data and Statistics- Quick Stats Retrieved from https://www.nass.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). Cover Crops and Crop Rotations (2025). Retrieved from https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/initiatives-and-highlighted-programs/peoples-garden/soil-health/cover-crops-and-crop-rotation
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). (2022). Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 296.
USGCRP. (2018). Impacts, risks and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, Volume II. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Wang, T., Teague, W. R., Park, S. C., & Bevers, S. (2015). GHG mitigation potential of different grazing strategies in the United States Southern Great Plains. Sustainability, 7(10), 13500-13521. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71013500
Ward, P. R., Dunin, F. X., & Micin, S. F. (2002). Water use and root growth by annual and perennial pastures and subsequent crops in a phase rotation. Agric. Water Manag., 53(1), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(01)00157-3
Wester, D. B. (2007). The Southern High Plains: A history of vegetation, 1540 to present. In R. E. Sosebee, D. B. Wester, C. M. Britton, E. D. McArthur, & S. G. Kitchen (Ed.), Proceedings: Shrubland dynamics - fire and water (pp. 24-47). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
White, C. D., Burke, J. A., Lewis, K. L., Keeling, W. S., DeLaune, P. B., Williams, R. B., & Keeling, J. W. (2024). Cover crop species selection, seeding rate, and termination timing impacts on semi-arid cotton production. Agronomy, 14(7), 1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071524
White, T. A., & Snow, V. O. (2012). A modelling analysis to identify plant traits for enhanced water-use efficiency of pasture. Crop Pasture Sci., 63(1), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1071/cp11250