Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

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 no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1990–2006 on two rainfed barley fields in Spain (same study as (18)) found that tillage had inconsistent effects on soil organisms. Soil organisms: More microbial biomass (measured as carbon) was found in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of six comparisons (0–5 cm depth, in Zaragoza: 130 vs 60 mg C/kg dry soil), but less was found in one of six comparisons (0–5 cm depth, in Lleida: 360 vs 480). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on nine plots each in Lleida province (50 x 6 m plots, established in 1996) and six plots each in Zaragoza province (33.5 x 10 m plots, established in 1990). A chisel plough (in Zaragoza but not in Lleida, 25–30 cm depth) and a cultivator (10–15 cm depth, 1–2 passes) were used for reduced tillage. A seed drill and herbicide were used for no tillage. Soil samples were collected in March 2006 (0–25 cm depth).

     

  2. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1990–2006 in two rainfed barley fields in Spain (same study as (33,38)) found that tillage had inconsistent effects on soil organisms. Soil organisms: More microbial biomass (measured as carbon) was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in three of six comparisons (0–5 cm depth in Lleida and Zaragoza, and 5–10 cm depth in Lleida: 130–370 vs 100–230 mg C/kg dry soil), but less microbial biomass was found in one of six comparisons (10–25 cm depth, in Zaragoza: 70 vs 110). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on nine plots each in Lleida province (50 x 6 m plots, established in 1996) and six plots each in Zaragoza province (33.5 x 10 m plots, established in 1990). A mouldboard plough (25–40 cm depth) and a cultivator (10–15 cm depth, 1–2 passes) were used for conventional tillage. A seed drill and herbicide were used for no tillage. Soil samples were collected in March 2006 (0–25 cm depth).

     

  3. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1990–2006 on three rainfed farms in Spain found more soil organisms in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Soil organisms: More microbial biomass (measured as carbon) was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of nine comparisons (0–10 cm depth, in Lleida: 420–490 vs 170–230 mg C/kg dry soil). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on nine plots each in Lleida province (50 x 6 m plots, established in 1996), six plots each in Zaragoza province (33.5 x 10 m plots, established in 1990), and three plots each in Sevilla province (22 x 14 m plots). A mouldboard plough (25–40 cm depth, in Zaragoza and Sevilla), a cultivator (10–15 cm depth, 1–3 times/year), a disc harrow (5–15 cm depth, 1–2 times/year, in Sevilla), and herbicide (in Sevilla) were used for conventional tillage. A chisel plough (in Zaragoza but not in Lleida, 25–30 cm depth), a cultivator (10–15 cm depth, 1–2 passes), a disc harrow (5–7 cm depth, in Sevilla), and herbicide (in Sevilla) were used for reduced tillage. Soil samples were collected in March 2006 (0–25 cm depth).

     

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