Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

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 no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–1999 in three rainfed barley fields in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (8,11,12)), found that tillage had inconsistent effects on nitrogen in soils. Nutrients: Less nitrogen was found in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of nine comparisons (128 vs 176 kg/ha), but more nitrogen was found in one of nine comparisons (165 vs 125 kg/ha). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on 27 plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A cultivator (10–15 cm depth, 1–2 passes) was used for reduced tillage, in September. Herbicide was used for no tillage. Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (50–75 or 100–150 kg N/ha). Barley was sown, with a seed drill, in October–November (month of harvest not reported). Soil samples were collected four times/year (0–50 cm in two of three fields, 0–100 cm in one field, two soil cores/plot).

     

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–1999 in three rainfed barley fields in the Ebro river valley, Spain, found that tillage had inconsistent effects on crop yields. Crop yield: Higher grain yields were found in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of nine comparisons (3,645 vs 2,507 kg/ha), but lower grain yields were found in two of nine comparisons (770–1,247 vs 1,043–1,749 kg/ha). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on 27 plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A cultivator (10–15 cm depth, 1–2 passes) was used for reduced tillage, in September. Herbicide was used for no tillage. Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (50–75 or 100–150 kg N/ha). Barley was sown, with a seed drill, in October–November (month of harvest not reported).

     

  3. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–1999 in three rainfed barley fields in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (20,25,26,30)), found less nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Nutrients: Less nitrogen was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of nine comparisons (125–176 vs 219–247 kg/ha). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on 27 plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A mouldboard plough (25–30 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth, 1–2 passes) were used for conventional tillage, in August–September. A cultivator (10–15 cm depth, 1–2 passes) was used for reduced tillage, in September. Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (50–75 or 100–150 kg N/ha). Barley was sown, with a seed drill, in October–November. Soil samples were collected four times/year (0–50 cm in two of three fields, 0–100 cm in one field, two soil cores/plot).

     

  4. Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–1999 in three rainfed barley fields in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (12-14,17)), found that tillage had inconsistent effects on crop yields. Crop yield: Higher barley yields were found in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of nine comparisons (2,507 vs 1,557 kg grain/ha), but lower barley yields were found in one of nine comparisons (1,043 vs 1,672 kg grain/ha). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on 27 plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A mouldboard plough (25–30 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth, 1–2 passes) were used for conventional tillage, in August–September. A cultivator (10–15 cm depth, 1–2 passes) was used for reduced tillage, in September. Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (50–75 or 100–150 kg N/ha). Barley was sown, with a seed drill, in October–November.

     

  5. Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–1999 in three rainfed barley fields in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (11-13,15)), found that tillage had inconsistent effects on crop yield. Crop yield: Higher grain yields were found in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of nine comparisons (3,645–5,420 vs 1,557–4,229 kg/ha), but lower grain yields were found in two of nine comparisons (770–1,247 vs 1,672–1,888 kg/ha). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on 27 plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A mouldboard plough (25–30 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth, 1–2 passes) were used for conventional tillage, in August–September. Herbicide was used for no tillage. Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (50–75 or 100–150 kg N/ha). Barley was sown, with a seed drill, in October–November.

     

  6. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–1999 in three rainfed barley fields in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (17,23,24,26)), found less nitrogen in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Nutrients: Less nitrogen was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in three of nine comparisons (82–165 vs 104–247 kg/ha). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on 27 plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A mouldboard plough (25–30 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth, 1–2 passes) were used for conventional tillage, in August–September. Herbicide was used for no tillage. Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (50–75 or 100–150 kg N/ha). Barley was sown, with a seed drill, in October–November. Soil samples were collected four times/year (0–50 cm in two of three fields, 0–100 cm in one field, two soil cores/plot).

     

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