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 2008–2010 in a rainfed wheat-legume field in southwest Spain (same study as (13)) found similar numbers of soil organisms in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. Soil organisms: Similar amounts of microbial biomass (measured as carbon or nitrogen) were found in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage (199–1,612 vs 120–2,363 mg C/kg soil; 9–40 vs 9–69 mg N/kg soil). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on three plots each (30 x 10 m plots). A chisel plough was used for reduced tillage (10–15 cm depth). A seed drill was used for no tillage. All plots were fertilized. Soil samples were collected in January 2009, June 2009, and January 2010 (three samples/plot, nine soil cores/sample, 0–25 cm depth). No tillage was used on all plots in 1999–2008.

     

  2. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2008–2010 in a rainfed wheat-legume field in southwest Spain (same study as (28)) found more microbial biomass in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of 18 comparisons. Soil organisms: More microbial biomass (measured as carbon and nitrogen) was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of 18 comparisons (0–5 cm depth, in January 2010: 445 vs 263 mg C/kg soil; 31 vs 17 mg N/kg soil). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on three plots each (30 x 10 m plots). A mouldboard plough was used for conventional tillage (25 cm depth). Herbicides and a seed drill were used for no tillage. All plots were fertilized. Soil samples were collected in January 2009, June 2009, and January 2010 (three samples/plot, nine soil cores/sample, 0–25 cm depth). No tillage was used on all plots in 1999–2008.

     

  3. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2008–2010 in a wheat-legume field in southwest Spain (same study as (31)) found more soil organisms in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Soil organisms: More microbial biomass (measured as carbon or nitrogen) was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in four of 18 comparisons (0–5 cm depth, in June 2009 or January 2010: 458–2,363 vs 263–957 mg C/kg soil; 37–69 vs 17–25 mg N/kg soil). Methods: Conventional tillage or reduced tillage was used on three plots each (30 x 10 m plots). A mouldboard plough was used for conventional tillage (25 cm depth). Herbicides and a chisel plough were used for reduced tillage (10–15 cm depth). All plots were fertilized. Soil samples were collected in January 2009, June 2009, and January 2010 (three samples/plot, nine soil cores/sample, 0–25 cm depth). No tillage was used on all plots in 1999–2008.

     

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