Study

Soil properties change in no-till tomato production

  • Published source details Herrero E.V., Mitchell J.P., Lanini W.T., Temple S.R., Miyao E.M., Morse R.D. & Campiglia E. (2001) Soil properties change in no-till tomato production. California Agriculture, 55, 30-34

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Water: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Grow cover crops in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Grow cover crops in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Water: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, controlled study in 1996–1998 in an irrigated tomato field in the San Joaquin Valley, California, USA, found that tillage (and cover crops) had inconsistent effects on water in soil. Water availability: In the tomato-growing season, more water was found in plots that had cover crops in winter and no tillage in spring, compared to plots that had bare soil in winter and tillage in spring, in some comparisons (when irrigated, data not clearly reported), but less water was found in winter and spring, in some comparisons. Methods: There were 12 plots (4.5 x 27.5 m plots) for each of two treatments (two grass-legume mixtures as winter cover crops, sown in October 1996–1997, killed and retained as mulch, with no tillage, in March 1997–1998) and there were 12 control plots (bare-soil fallow in winter, with herbicide, and conventional tillage in spring). Soil water was measured throughout the year with hydroprobes (0–6 feet depth until autumn 1997, then 0–7 feet depth). It was not clear whether these results were a direct effect of cover crops or tillage.

     

  2. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, controlled study in 1996–1998 in an irrigated tomato field in the San Joaquin Valley, California, USA (same study as (2)), found more soil carbon and earthworms in plots with winter cover crops and no tillage, compared to plots with bare soil in winter and conventional tillage in spring. Organic matter: More soil carbon was found in plots with no tillage, compared to tillage (0.66–0.72% vs 0.62% carbon, 0–0.6 inches depth). Soil organisms: More earthworms were found in plots with no tillage, compared to tillage (2.1 vs 0.6 earthworms/square foot). Methods: There were 12 plots (4.5 x 27.5 m plots) for each of two treatments (two grass-legume mixtures as winter cover crops, sown in October 1996–1997, killed and retained as mulch, with no tillage, in March 1997–1998) and there were 12 control plots (bare-soil fallow in winter, with herbicide, and conventional tillage in spring). Soil carbon was sampled in September 1998 (eight subsamples/plot, 0–0.6 inches depth). Earthworms were sampled in March 1998 (two cylinders/plot, 16.5 inches diameter, 6 inches depth, sprinkled with mustard powder so that earthworms would come to the surface). It was not clear whether these results were a direct effect of cover crops or tillage.

     

  3. Soil: Grow cover crops in arable fields

    A replicated, controlled study in 1996–1998 in an irrigated tomato field in the San Joaquin Valley, California, USA (same study as (7)), found more soil carbon and earthworms in plots with winter cover crops (and no tillage), compared to plots with bare fallows (and tillage in spring). Organic matter: More soil carbon was found in plots with cover crops, compared to fallows (0.66–0.72% vs 0.62% carbon, 0–0.6 inches depth). Soil organisms: More earthworms were found in plots with cover crops, compared to fallows (2.1 vs 0.6 earthworms/square foot). Methods: There were 12 plots (4.5 x 27.5 m plots) for each of two treatments (two grass-legume mixtures as winter cover crops, sown in October 1996–1997, killed and retained as mulch, with no tillage, in March 1997–1998) and there were 12 control plots (bare fallow in winter, with herbicide, and conventional tillage in spring). Soil carbon was sampled in September 1998 (eight subsamples/plot, 0–0.6 inches depth). Earthworms were sampled in March 1998 (two cylinders/plot, 16.5 inches diameter, 6 inches depth, sprinkled with mustard powder so that earthworms would come to the surface). It was not clear whether these results were a direct effect of cover crops or tillage.

     

  4. Water: Grow cover crops in arable fields

    A replicated, controlled study in 1996–1998 in an irrigated tomato field in the San Joaquin Valley, California, USA, found that winter cover crops had inconsistent effects on water availability. Water availability: In the tomato-growing season, more water was found in plots with winter cover crops (and no tillage in spring), compared to plots with bare soil in winter (and tillage in spring), in some comparisons (when irrigated; data not clearly reported). However, in in winter and spring, less water was found in plots with cover crops, in some comparisons. Methods: There were 12 plots (4.5 x 27.5 m plots) for each of two treatments (two grass-legume mixtures as winter cover crops, sown in October 1996–1997, killed and retained as mulch, with no tillage, in March 1997–1998) and there were 12 control plots (bare-soil fallows in winter, with herbicide, and conventional tillage in spring). Soil water was measured throughout the year with hydroprobes (0–6 feet depth until autumn 1997, then 0–7 feet depth). It was not clear whether these results were a direct effect of cover crops or tillage.

     

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