Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Grow cover crops in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

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

    A replicated site comparison in 2004–2005 in 11 irrigated tomato fields in the Sacramento Valley, California, USA, found more earthworms, more carbon and nitrogen, and greater soil aggregation in soils with no tillage, compared to tillage. Organic matter: More carbon was found in soils with no tillage, compared to tilled fallows (1.6 times as much total carbon). Nutrients: More nitrogen was found in soils with no tillage, compared to tilled fallows (1.5 times as much total nitrogen). Soil organisms: More earthworms, and larger earthworms, were found in soils with no tillage, compared to tilled fallows (85 vs 19 g earthworms/m2; 2.9 times larger). Soil erosion and aggregation: Greater aggregation was found in soils with no tillage, compared to tilled fallows (larger mean weight diameter; data presented as model results). Methods: Earthworms were collected from 11 tomato fields (four fields that were tilled, incorporating the tomato residues into the soil, and seven fields that were not tilled, retaining the tomato residues as mulch), in three 30 cm3 soil pits/field, in February–April 2005. Organic matter and nutrients were measured in horizontal soil cores, collected from the walls of the soil pits (0–15 cm length). All fields were tilled in 2004, after the tomatoes were harvested. All fields were fertilized and irrigated.

     

  2. Soil: Grow cover crops in arable fields

    A replicated site comparison in 2004–2005 in nine irrigated tomato fields in the Sacramento Valley, California, USA, found similar numbers of earthworms in fields with winter cover crops or bare fallows. Soil organisms: Similar numbers of earthworms were found in fields with cover crops or fallows (26 vs 19 g earthworms/m2). Methods: Earthworms were collected from nine tomato fields (five fields with cover crops, four with bare fallows; three 30 cm3 soil pits/field), in February–April 2005. Organic matter and nutrients were measured in horizontal soil cores, collected from the walls of the soil pits (0–15 cm length). All fields were tilled in 2004, after the tomatoes were harvested, and before the cover crops were planted. The cover crops were legumes. All fields were fertilized and irrigated.

     

  3. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated site comparison in 2004–2005 in 16 irrigated tomato fields in the Sacramento Valley, California, USA, found more earthworms in fields with fewer passes of the plough. Organic matter: More carbon was found in fields with fewer passes of the plough in the year before they were sampled (total carbon; data reported as model results). Nutrients: More nitrogen was found in fields with fewer passes of the plough in the year before they were sampled (total nitrogen; data reported as model results). Soil organisms: More earthworms were found in fields with fewer passes of the plough in the year before they were sampled, in one of three comparisons (individual earthworm biomass; data reported as model results). Methods: Earthworms were collected from 16 tomato fields, in February–April 2005. In 2004, these fields had different numbers of tillage operations (3–10 passes of the plough). Five fields were cover cropped, and seven were mulched with crop residues. All fields were fertilized and irrigated.

     

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