Action

Action Synopsis: Soil Fertility About Actions

Amend the soil with non-chemical minerals and mineral wastes

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    35%
  • Certainty
    37%
  • Harms
    23%

Source countries

Key messages

Two replicated studies from Australia and New Zealand measured the effects of adding minerals and mineral wastes to the soil. Both found reduced nutrient loss and one study found reduced erosion.

SOIL TYPES COVERED: Sandy clay, silt loam.

 

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. This controlled, replicated experiment in 2004-2008 on silt loam soil in New Zealand (McDowell & Houlbrooke 2009) found that applying alum (aluminium sulphate) after grazing of forage crops by cattle or sheep reduced phosphorus loss by 29% and 26%, and fine sediment loss by 16% and 43%, respectively, compared to normal forage crop grazing. Grazing cattle or sheep on forage crops increased phosphorus loss from fields by approximately 100% (1.3 kg/ha) and 33% (0.9 kg/ha) respectively, compared to normal sheep grazing on pasture (0.6 kg/ha).  Forage grazing by cattle or sheep increased fine sediment loss by 1,000% (0.7 mg/ha) and 500% (0.4 mg/ha), relative to grazing pasture with sheep (0.06 mg/ha). Twenty-eight 10 × 25 m plots included four replicates of combinations of the following treatments: cattle or sheep grazing on winter forage crops (triticale Triticosecale Wittmack, then kale Brassica oleracea), sheep pasture, restricted grazing, or alum addition on the forage crops (20 kg/ha following grazing).

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled experiment in 2011 using sandy clay in Meckering, Western Australia (Dempster et al. 2012) found that adding clay or biochar to soil reduced nitrate and ammonium loss from soil, by 25% and 20% respectively, compared to the control. Adding biochar saved more nitrate (12.9 mg nitrate remaining in pot) than adding clay (12.1 mg nitrate/pot). Soil was collected from a crop-pasture rotation including wheat Triticum aestivum or cape weed Arctotheca calendula with annual ryegrass Lolium rigidum and clover Trifolium subterraneum. Biochar and clay were either added at 25 t/ha as a layer at 10 cm depth with soil on top, or evenly incorporated into the top 10 cm of soil. Biochar was produced using jarrah Eucalyptus marginata wood and clay was taken from a clay pit close to the soil collection site. Nitrogen fertilizer was added at 40 kg N/ha. Amended soils were watered with the equivalent of 30 mm rainfall daily for 10 days, then on days 13, 15, 17 and 20.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Key, G., Whitfield, M., Dicks, L.V., Sutherland, W.J. & Bardgett, R.D. (2019) Enhancing Soil Fertility. Pages 627-648 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Soil Fertility

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Soil Fertility

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust