## 4 Discussion  
The analysis of the obtained results clearly demonstrated that the tillage system adopted (in 2021) and the type of cover crop (both in 2020 and 2021) significantly influenced economic profitability, as evidenced by the gross salable production (GSP) and gross income (GI). In the first year of the trial (2020), the GSP and GI results obtained with NT and RT were positive and did not differ. Moreover, according to [PERSON] et al. [16], even if the initial production costs may increase as a consequence of factors like seed purchases and cover crop management, conservative agriculture practices adoption benefits (i.e., increasing the soil content of organic matter, reducing reliance on external inputs, enhanced soil health in general) that can contribute to improving economic outcomes over the time. [PERSON] et al. [28], in a trial conducted as part of the same research project (MEOR-BICO), observed lower yields and gross income for strategies involving conservation practices, such as covering crops, compared to conventional tillage strategies (controls). However, starting in the second year, the results of the conservation strategies had already improved. The lower results for the GSP and GI of NT compared to a more ordinary, even if conservative, management method such as RT could be due to the different types of soil compared to the first year. There is a higher silt content in sandy loam soils than loamy sand soils. Thus, in 2021, reduced tillage could probably have mitigated soil compaction, improved aeration, water infiltration, and nutrient availability, thereby promoting tomato development, yield, and economic performance compared to no-tillage [29]. Regarding the results of the effect of the type of cover on GSP, these agree with [30; 31], which supports how cover crops containing legume species (such as clover and Mix in this trial) enrich soil-available N and increase tomato yield and income compared with non-legume or no cover crops. In particular, the lower performance of rye with respect to clover (both in 2020 and 2021) could be related to the high rye C/N ratio (>25), which causes a yield reduction due to decreased nitrogen availability through the process of immobilization [32]. Moreover, considering the economic return perspective, the cumulative advantages in terms of ecosystem services (i.e., biodiversity enhancement, nutrient cycling, and improved  
Figure 8: Estimation of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions for each strategy tested in 2021. NT + Cover—No-Tillage + Cover crop; NT + no Cover—No-Tillage + no Cover crop; RT + Cover—Reduced Tilage + Cover crop; RT + no Cover—Reduced Tilage + no Cover crop. water quality) are decidedly relevant [33]. Though not easily quantifiable, these services play a critical role in providing resilience against climate change and improving farm sustainability. The interplay between economic viability and environmental stewardship underlines the necessity for site-specific evaluations of these practices. Understanding local conditions, including soil type and climate, is essential for tailoring conservation practices to maximize both agronomic and environmental outcomes [20]. For example, adopting cover crops may have varying effects based on local conditions [34]. The best overall results achieved in the second year in terms of GSP and GI can be attributed to the soil type. The sandy loam soil, where the trials were conducted in the second year, offers better water and nutrient retention capacity while maintaining good aeration favorable to root development compared to loamy sand soils [35,36]. Thus, it benefited both the cover crops and the tomato plants, which could exert their positive effects more effectively. Moreover, according to [34], crop yield differences may also be connected to water availability, which was more favorable for tomato production in 2021 than 2020.