Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Use crop rotations

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use crop rotations

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Soil: Use crop rotations

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1983–1996 in a rainfed wheat field in the Henares river valley, Spain, found lower stability in soils with crop rotations, compared to soils without crop rotations, in some comparisons. Organic matter: Similar amounts of organic carbon were found in soils with or without crop rotations (42.3 vs 40.4 Mg C/ha). Soil erosion and aggregation: Lower soil stability was found in soils with crop rotations, compared to soils without crop rotations, in three of four comparisons (in 1–2 mm pre-wetted soil aggregates: 76% vs 79% water stable; in 1–2 mm air-dried soil aggregates: 5.5% vs 6.1%; in 4.38 mm air–dried soil aggregates: 2% vs 7%). Methods: Wheat was grown continuously or in rotation with vetch (12 plots each, 20 x 30 m plots). Fertilizer and post–emergence herbicide were used on all plots. Soil samples were collected in June 1996 (plots with rotations) or July 1996 (plots without rotations), with four samples/subplot. Organic carbon was measured at 0–40 cm depth. Aggregate stability was measured at 0–30 cm depth.

     

  2. Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1983–1996 in a rainfed wheat field in the Henares river valley, Spain, found that tillage had inconsistent effects on soil stability. Soil erosion and aggregation: Lower soil stability was found in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons (1–2 mm pre-wetted soil aggregates: 76.3 vs 77.8% water stable), but higher stability was found in two of four comparisons (1–2 mm air-dried soil aggregates: 11.0 vs 3.5% water stable; 4.38 mm air-dried soil aggregates: 12 vs 2%). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on four plots each. Each plot had two subplots (20 x 30 m, with or without crop rotation). A chisel plough (20 cm depth, in autumn) and a tine cultivator (10–15 cm depth, two passes, in spring) were used for reduced tillage. A seed drill and pre-emergence herbicide were used for no tillage. Fertilizer and post-emergence herbicide were used on all plots. Soil samples were collected in June or July 1996 (0–30 cm, four samples/subplot).

     

  3. Crop production: Use crop rotations

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1983–1996 in a rainfed wheat field in the Henares river valley, Spain, found similar wheat yields in plots with or without crop rotations. Crop yield: Similar wheat yields were found in plots with or without crop rotations (2.5–2.7 vs 2.5–2.8 Mg/ha). Methods: Wheat was grown in continuous monoculture or in rotation with vetch (12 plots each, 20 x 30 m plots). Fertilizer and post–emergence herbicide were used on all plots. Wheat was harvested at maturity (July 1996), and yield was measured in two strips/subplot (1.4 x 30 m strips).

  4. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1983–1996 in a rainfed wheat field in the Henares river valley, Spain, found no differences in soil stability between plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Soil erosion and aggregation: No differences in soil stability were found between plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage (pre-wetted soil aggregates: 78–89% were water-stable; air-dried soil aggregates: 1–4% were water-stable). Methods: Conventional tillage or reduced tillage was used on four plots each. Each plot had two subplots (20 x 30 m, with or without crop rotations). A mouldboard plough (30 cm depth) was used for conventional tillage, in autumn. A chisel plough (20 cm depth) was used for reduced tillage, in autumn. A tine cultivator (10–15 cm depth, two passes) was used for both conventional and reduced tillage, in spring. Fertilizer and post-emergence herbicide were used on all plots. Soil samples were collected in June or July 1996 (0–30 cm, four samples/subplot).

     

  5. Crop production: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1983–1996 in a rainfed wheat field in the Henares river valley, Spain, found similar crop yields in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Crop yield: Similar wheat yields were found in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage (2.7 vs 2.6 Mg/ha). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on four plots each. Each plot had two subplots (20 x 30 m, with or without crop rotations). A chisel plough (20 cm depth, in autumn) and a tine cultivator (10–15 cm depth, two passes, in spring) were used for reduced tillage. A seed drill and pre-emergence herbicide were used for no tillage. Fertilizer and post-emergence herbicide were used on all plots. Wheat was harvested at maturity (July 1996), and yield was measured in two strips/subplot (1.4 x 30 m strips).

     

  6. Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1983–1996 in a rainfed wheat field in the Henares river valley, Spain, found similar crop yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Crop yield: Similar wheat yields were found in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage (2.6 vs 2.5 Mg/ha). Methods: Conventional tillage or reduced tillage was used on four plots each. Each plot had two subplots (20 x 30 m, with or without crop rotations). A mouldboard plough (30 cm depth) was used for conventional tillage, in autumn. A chisel plough (20 cm depth) was used for reduced tillage, in autumn. A tine cultivator (10–15 cm depth, two passes) was used for both conventional and reduced tillage, in spring. Fertilizer and post-emergence herbicide were used on all plots. Wheat was harvested at maturity (July 1996), and yield was measured in two strips/subplot (1.4 x 30 m strips).

     

  7. Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1983–1996 in a rainfed wheat field in the Henares river valley, Spain, found similar crop yields in plots with no tillage or conventional tillage. Crop yield: Similar wheat yields were found in plots with no tillage or conventional tillage (2.7 vs 2.5 Mg/ha). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on four plots each. Each plot had two subplots (20 x 30 m, with or without crop rotation). A mouldboard plough (30 cm depth, in autumn) and a tine cultivator (10–15 cm depth, two passes, in spring) were used for conventional tillage. A seed drill and pre-emergence herbicide were used for no tillage. Fertilizer and post-emergence herbicide were used on all plots. Wheat was harvested at maturity (July 1996), and yield was measured in two strips/subplot (1.4 x 30 m strips).

     

  8. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1983–1996 in a rainfed wheat field in the Henares river valley, Spain, found that tillage had inconsistent effects on soil stability. Soil erosion and aggregation: Lower soil stability was found in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons (1–2 mm pre-wetted soil aggregates: 76.3% vs 78.4% water stable), but higher stability was found in two of four comparisons (1–2 mm air-dried soil aggregates: 11% vs 2.9% water stable; 4.38 mm air-dried soil aggregates: 12% vs 1%). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on four plots each. Each plot had two subplots (20 x 30 m, with or without crop rotation). A mouldboard plough (30 cm depth, in autumn) and a tine cultivator (10–15 cm depth, two passes, in spring) were used for conventional tillage. A seed drill and pre-emergence herbicide were used for no tillage. Fertilizer and post-emergence herbicide were used on all plots. Soil samples were collected in June or July 1996 (0–30 cm, four samples/subplot).

     

Output references
What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the 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 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