Study

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 2010–2013 in rainfed barley fields in Spain (same study as (11)) found more ammonium and higher nitrous oxide emissions in plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it. Nutrients: Similar amounts of nitrate were found in plots with or without added slurry (59–107 vs 65 kg/ha). More ammonium was found in plots with added slurry (12–16 vs 3 kg/ha). Greenhouse gases: Higher nitrous oxide emissions were found in plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it, in one of two comparisons (0.2 vs 0.1 mg/m/d) Methods: Plots (40 x 12 m) had pig slurry (75 or 150 kg N/ha) or no fertilizer (three plots for each). Plots had conventional tillage (mouldboard plough: 25 cm depth; cultivator: 15 cm depth) or no tillage. Soil samples were collected at the end of the experiment (two samples/plot; 0–75 cm depth).

     

  2. Soil: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2010–2013 in rainfed barley fields in Spain (same study as (20)) found less nitrate and lower nitrous oxide emissions, but more ammonium, in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. Nutrients: Less nitrate was found in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in two of four comparisons (59 vs 107–148 kg/ha). More ammonium was found in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one of four comparisons (16 vs 9 kg/ha). Greenhouse gases: Lower nitrous oxide emissions were found in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one of four comparisons (0.1 vs 0.3 mg/m/day). Methods: Plots (inorganic: 50 x 6 m or 40 x 6 m; organic: 40 x 12 m) had inorganic fertilizer (60, 75, 120, or 150 kg N/ha) or organic fertilizer (75 or 150 kg N/ha) (three plots for each). Plots had conventional tillage (mouldboard plough: 25 cm depth; cultivator: 15 cm depth) or no tillage. Soil samples (0–5 cm depth) and nitrous oxide samples (closed chambers, 15 mL samples, 0, 30, and 60 minutes after closing), were collected every 2–3 weeks in 2011–2013.

     

  3. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2013 in two rainfed barley fields in northeast Spain (same study as (35)) found less nitrate in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Tillage had inconsistent effects on greenhouse gases. Nutrients: Less nitrate was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of two comparisons (long-term experiment: 36 vs 56 kg/ha), but similar amounts of ammonium were found (10–11 vs 9–11 kg/ha). Greenhouse gases: More nitrous oxide was emitted from soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of two comparisons (short-term experiment: 0.20 vs 0.14 mg N2O-N/m2/day). Less greenhouse gas was emitted, per kilo of barley, in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage (0.05 vs 0.10 kg CO2 equivalent/kg barley). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on three plots each, in each of two fields (2010–2013 in the short-term field, and 1996–2013 in the long-term field; plots size not clearly reported). A mouldboard plough (25 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. For no tillage, the residues were chopped and spread, and pre-emergence herbicide was used. Some plots were fertilized (0–150 kg N/ha). Soil samples (0–5 cm depth) and greenhouse-gas samples (closed chambers, 15 mL samples, 0, 30, and 60 minutes after closing), were collected every 2–3 weeks in 2011–2013.

     

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