Study

Soil management effects on greenhouse gases production at the macroaggregate scale

  • Published source details Plaza-Bonilla D., Cantero-Martínez C. & Álvaro-Fuentes J. (2014) Soil management effects on greenhouse gases production at the macroaggregate scale. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 68, 471-481

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Add slurry to the soil

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Soil: Add slurry to the soil

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2010–2012 in a rainfed barley field in Spain found more nitrate and higher carbon dioxide emissions in plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it. Nutrients: Similar amounts of ammonium were found in plots with or without slurry (2.6 vs 1.9 mg/kg). More nitrate was found in plots with slurry (89 vs 20 mg/kg). Soil organisms: Similar amounts of microbial biomass (measured as carbon) were found in plots with or without slurry (859 vs 893 mg/kg), but more microbial biomass (measured as nitrogen) was found in plots with slurry (338 vs 177 mg/kg). Soil erosion and aggregation: Similar amounts of water-stable aggregates were found in plots with or without slurry (0.2 vs 0.1–0.2 g). Greenhouse gases: Higher carbon dioxide emissions were found in plots with slurry (1,669 vs 1,218 µg/kg macroaggregates/hour). Similar amounts of methane were absorbed by plots with or without slurry (–0.1 vs –0.2 µg/kg macroaggregates/hour). Similar nitrous oxide emissions were found in plots with or without slurry (1 vs 0.6 µg/kg macroaggregates/hour). Methods: Plots had pig slurry (150 kg N/ha) or no fertilizer (three plots each; plot size not clearly reported). Plots had conventional tillage (20 cm depth) or no tillage. Soil samples (0–5 cm depth) and gas samples (15 mL) were collected in March 2012.

     

  2. Soil: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2010–2012 in a rainfed barley field in Spain found higher carbon dioxide emissions in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. Nutrients: Similar amounts of ammonium (3 vs 2 mg/kg) and nitrate (89 vs 85 mg/kg) were found in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Soil organisms: Similar amounts of microbial biomass (measured as carbon) were found in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer (859 vs 978 mg/kg), but more microbial biomass (measured as nitrogen) was found in plots with organic fertilizer (338 vs 183 mg/kg). Soil erosion and aggregation: More water-stable aggregates were found in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one of two comparisons (0.2 vs 0.1 g). Greenhouse gases: Higher carbon dioxide emissions were found in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer (1,669 vs 1,199 µg/kg macroaggregates/hour). Similar methane fluxes were found in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer (–0.1 vs 0.1 µg/kg macroaggregates/hour). Similar nitrous oxide emissions were found in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer (1 vs 0.9 µg/kg macroaggregates/hour). Methods: Plots had organic or inorganic fertilizer (150 kg N/ha) (three plots each; plot size not clearly reported). Plots had conventional tillage (20 cm depth) or no tillage. Soil samples (0–5 cm depth) and gas samples (15 mL) were collected in March 2012.

     

  3. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2010–2012 in a rainfed barley field in northeast Spain found less nitrate and greater stability in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. More greenhouse gas was absorbed by soils with no tillage. Organic matter: Similar amounts of organic matter were found in soils with no tillage or conventional tillage (6 g C/kg dry macroaggregates). Nutrients: Less nitrate was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage (93 vs 110 mg NO3-N/kg dry macroaggregates), but there were similar amounts of ammonium (13 vs 20 mg NH4-N/kg dry macroaggregates). Soil organisms: Similar amounts of microbial biomass (measured as carbon and nitrogen) were found in soils with no tillage or conventional tillage (954 vs 866 mg C/kg soil; 237 vs 228 mg N/kg soil). Soil erosion and aggregation: More water-stable aggregates were found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of three comparisons (0.2 vs 0.1 g). Greenhouse gases: More methane was absorbed by soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage (–0.2 vs 0.07 µg/kg macroaggregates/h). Similar carbon-dioxide emissions (1,406 vs 1,334 µg/kg macroaggregates/h) and nitrous-oxide emissions (0.92 vs 0.75 µg/kg macroaggregates/h) were found in soils with no tillage or conventional tillage. Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on three plots each (plot size not clearly reported). Some plots were fertilized (0–150 kg N/ha). A disk plough (20 cm depth) was used for conventional tillage, in October. Pre-emergence herbicide was used for no tillage. Soil samples (0–5 cm depth) were collected in March 2012 (greenhouse gases were measured in soil samples).

     

Output references

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 the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


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