This dataset was used to generate 3 figures and 5 tables in the publication, "Evaluating the effects of cotton intercropping on cool-season perennial forage persistence, forage mass, and nutritive value in the southeastern United States". All data was collected in Florence, South Carolina at the Clemson University Pee Dee Research and Education Center during 2021 and 2022.

#Description of dataset and file structure

Data is presented in an Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet, with separate tabs for datasets related to each of the 3 figures/subfigures and 5 tables in the published manuscript.

For all data the following treatment abbreviations are used:

Fallow = weedy, unplanted treatment
ARG = annual ryegrass
RC+WC = 50/50 mixture of red and white clover
ARG+RC+WC = 50% annual ryegrass, 25% red clover, and 25% white clover

Data for Figure 1 These data were used to generate Figure 1, featuring mean weather data for the study years, 2021 & 2022, along with 30-year mean weather data for the nearest NOAA weather station (Florence, SC Regional Airport). Units are provided in the column headers.

Data for Figure 2a & 2b These data were used to generate Figures 2a and 2b, featuring the amount of spring forage mass accumulation preceding and in between cotton intercropping. Forage mass in the RC+WC and ARG+RC+WC treatments consited of a mix of weeds and clovers, while ARG and fallow treatments are entirely comprised of weedy biomass

Data for Figure 3a & 3b These data were used to generate Figures 3a and 3b, featuring the red and white clover populations in each treatment for each year of the study.

Data for Figure 3c These data were used to generate figure 3c, featuring the weedy species population changes from spring to fall before, between, and after two seasons of cotton intercropping in 2021 and 2022.Final data in the published figure was Weeds per square meter.

Data for Tables 1 and 2 These data were used to generate Tables 1 & 2, featuring height data for individual clover, annual ryegrass, and weedy species observed among different treatments.

Data for Table 3 These data were used to generate part of table 3, featuring the forage nutritive value data (crude protien, CP; acid detergent fiber, ADF; neutral detergent fiber, NDF; non-fibrous carbohydrates, NFC; total digestible nutrients, TDN; net energy of lactation, NEL; net energy of maintenance, NEM; net energy of gain, NEG)

Data for Tables 3, 4, and 5 These data were used to generate part of Table 3, and Tables 4 and 5, featuring nutrient compositions of the forage plant tissues collected during the trial. All data are in g/kg dry matter.

Sharing Access Information

These data were originated from the published manuscript: https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21625.