Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Use crop rotations

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Soil: Use crop rotations

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2005–2007 in a wheat field near Madrid, Spain, found less organic matter in soils with wheat-fallow rotations, compared to continuous wheat. Organic matter: Less organic carbon was found in soils with wheat-fallow rotations, compared to soils with continuous wheat, in one of four comparisons (November 2006, 0–7.5 cm depth: 7 vs 8 Mg/ha). Soil erosion and aggregation: No difference in stability was found in soils with or without rotations (25–55% of aggregates were water-stable). Methods: Crop rotation (wheat-fallow) or continuous cropping (wheat-wheat) was used on 12 plots each (10 x 25 m plots) in 2005–2007. All plots were fertilized. Soil samples were collected after the seedbeds were prepared (three samples/plot, 0–15 cm depth), in November 2006 and October 2007.

     

  2. Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1994–2007 in a rainfed wheat field near Madrid, Spain (same study as (19)), found no differences in organic matter or soil stability in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. Organic matter: Similar amounts of organic carbon were found in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage (7–11 Mg C/ha). Soil erosion and aggregation: No differences in soil stability were found in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage (25–65% of aggregates were water-stable). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on eight plots each (10 x 25 m plots), in autumn 1994–2007. A chisel plough (15 cm depth) and a cultivator were used for reduced tillage. Herbicide and direct seeding were used for no tillage. All plots were fertilized. Soil samples were collected after the seedbeds were prepared (three samples/plot, 0–15 cm depth), in November 2006 and October 2007.

     

  3. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1994–2007 in a rainfed wheat field near Madrid, Spain (same study as (6,37,39)), found more organic matter and higher stability in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Organic matter: More organic carbon was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of four comparisons (0–7.5 cm depth: 45% more organic carbon). Soil erosion and aggregation: Higher stability was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons (0–7.5 cm depth, October 2007: 63% vs 38% of aggregates were water-stable). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on eight plots each (10 x 25 m plots), in autumn 1994–2007. A mouldboard plough (20 cm depth) and a cultivator were used for conventional tillage. Herbicide and direct seeding were used for no tillage. All plots were fertilized. Soil samples were collected after the seedbeds were prepared (three samples/plot, 0–15 cm depth), in November 2006 and October 2007.

     

  4. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1994–2007 in a rainfed wheat field near Madrid, Spain (same study as (35,39)), found more organic matter and higher stability in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Organic matter: More organic carbon was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of four comparisons (0–7.5 cm depth: 8–9 vs 6–8 Mg C/ha). Soil erosion and aggregation: Higher stability was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons (0–7.5 cm depth, October 2007: 51 vs 38% of aggregates were water-stable). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on eight plots each (10 x 25 m plots), in autumn 1994–2007. A mouldboard plough (20 cm depth) and a cultivator were used for conventional tillage. A chisel plough (15 cm depth) and a cultivator were used for reduced tillage. All plots were fertilized. Soil samples were collected after the seedbeds were prepared (three samples/plot, 0–15 cm depth), in November 2006 and October 2007.

     

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