Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsOrganic matter (12 studies): One meta-analysis of studies from Mediterranean-type climates and ten replicated, controlled studies (nine randomized, two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more organic matter (mostly measured as carbon) in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from Italy found inconsistent differences in organic matter in soils with or without winter cover crops (sometimes more, sometimes less). Nutrients (22 studies) Nitrogen (21 studies): Ten replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrogen in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. Ten replicated, controlled studies (nine randomized, two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with or without winter cover crops (but see the paragraphs, below, for distinctions between different forms of nitrogen). Phosphorus (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with or without winter cover crops. Potassium (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from the USA found an increase in potassium in soils with winter cover crops, and no increase in soils without them. Soil organisms (12 studies) Microbial biomass (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from Italy found inconsistent differences in microbial biomass (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with or without winter cover crops. Nematodes (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more nematodes in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found a higher ratio of bacteria-feeding nematodes to fungus-feeding nematodes in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them. Earthworms (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found more earthworms in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of earthworms in soils with or without winter cover crops. Bacteria and fungi (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more bacteria and fungi in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found more spores and species of beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (4 studies) Soil erosion (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one replicated and randomized) from Israel and the USA found less erosion of soils with cover crops, compared to soils with fallows or bare soils. Soil aggregation (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more water-stable soil aggregates in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. Greenhouse gases (5 studies) Carbon dioxide (5 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) from Italy and the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with or without cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more carbon dioxide in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Carbon storage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more carbon accumulation in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Nitrous oxide (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more nitrous oxide in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with cover crops or fallows. Implementation options (9 studies): Five studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils that were cover cropped with legumes, compared to non-legumes. One study from the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with different cover crops. One study from the USA found no differences in phosphorus or microbial biomass between soils with different cover crops. One study from Italy found differences in beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) between plots with different cover crops. One study from Spain found higher soil quality in plots with long-term cover crops, compared to short-term. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1345https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1345Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:10:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsCrop yield (24 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Spain and the USA found lower cash crop yields in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Eight replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without cover crops. Seven controlled studies (six replicated, four randomized) from France, Israel, Spain, and the USA found no differences in cash crop yields between plots with or without cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop yields between plots with or without summer cover crops. Crop quality (6 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found no differences in cash crop quality between plots with or without winter cover crops. Two controlled studies (one replicated and randomized) from the USA found some differences in tomato quality between plots with winter cover crops or fallows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop quality between plots with or without winter cover crops. Implementation options (9 studies): Eight studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots that had legumes as winter cover crops, compared to non-legumes. One study from the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots that had a mixture of legumes and grasses, compared to legumes alone.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1351https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1351Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:54:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsCrop yield (11 studies) Grapes (8 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from France and the USA found lower grape yields in plots that were seeded with grass between the vine rows, compared to plots with bare soil between the vine rows, in some or all comparisons. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the USA found similar grape yields in plots with or without ground cover between the vine rows. Other crops (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal found higher chestnut yields in plots with resident vegetation, compared to plots without ground cover, but found no difference in chestnut yields between plots with seeded cover crops and plots without ground cover. One of these studies also found higher mushroom yields in plots with resident vegetation, compared to plots without ground cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found lower avocado yields in plots that were seeded with grasses and legumes, compared to plots with bare soil.   Crop quality (8 studies) Grapes (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Portugal, and the USA found similar sugar contents in grapes with or without ground cover between the vine rows. Three of these studies found similar pH levels, and two of these studies found no differences in titratable acidity, but two of these studies found lower titratable acidity in grapes with ground cover between the vine rows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found heavier grapes with ground cover between the vine rows, but two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain did not. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found other differences in grape quality with ground cover between the vine rows. Other crops (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found larger chestnuts in plots with ground cover, compared to plots without ground cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found no difference in avocado quality in plots with or without ground cover.   Implementation options (6 studies) Ground cover (5 studies) Grapes (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar grape yields in plots with different types of ground cover. However, this study found lighter-weight clusters of grapes in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation, in one of three years, and found inconsistent differences in cluster weights between plots with different types of seeded cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found other differences in grape quality between plots with different types of ground cover. Other crops (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal found lower chestnut yields in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation. One of these studies also found smaller chestnuts and lower mushroom yields. Tillage (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found higher grape yields, and heavier grape clusters, in plots without tillage between the vine rows, in one of six comparisons. Another replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar grape yields, with or without tillage between the vine rows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1352https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1352Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:24:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fieldsCrop yield (23 studies) Crops (22 studies): Eight replicated, controlled studies (seven randomized) from Italy and Spain found higher crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Seven replicated, controlled studies (six randomized) from Italy, Lebanon, Spain, and the USA found lower crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized controlled studies from Italy and Spain found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher with no tillage, sometimes lower). Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Portugal, and Spain found similar crop yields in plots with or without tillage. Crop residues (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found higher straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found inconsistent straw yields (sometimes higher with no tillage, sometimes lower). Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with or without tillage. Crop quality (6 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found less protein in wheat grains from plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found heavier cereal grains in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found other differences in crop quality, but two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA did not.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1355https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1355Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:10:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsWater use (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, one found that cover crops used more water than bare fallows, and one found no difference in water use. Water availability (16 studies) Water content (9 studies): Seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found less water in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more water in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Water loss (6 studies): Five controlled studies (four replicated, three randomized) from France, Israel, Spain, and the USA found that less water was lost (through drainage, runoff, or evaporation) from plots with cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that more water was lost through drainage from plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Water infiltration (3 studies): Of two replicated, controlled studies from the USA, one found that more water filtered into soils with cover crops, and one found no difference in infiltration between plots with or without winter cover crops. One controlled study from the USA found that more water percolated deep into the soil in part of a field with a winter cover crop, compared to part with a winter fallow. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from France found that less herbicide was leached from soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. Nutrients (5 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found that less nitrate was leached from soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from part of a field with a winter cover crop and part with a winter fallow. This study also found less ammonium and dissolved carbon, but more phosphorus, in runoff from the part with the winter cover crop, in some comparisons. Sediments (1 study): One controlled study from the USA found less suspended sediment in runoff from part of a field with a winter cover crop, compared to a winter fallow, in some comparisons. Implementation options (5 studies): One study from Spain found more water in soils with long-term cover crops, compared to short-term, in some comparisons. Two studies from Spain and the USA found differences in water availability between plots with different cover crops. One study from Spain found differences in nitrate leaching between plots with different cover crops. One study from the USA found similar infiltration rates under different cover crops.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1357https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1357Thu, 04 May 2017 13:33:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillageCrop yield (15 studies) Cereals (7 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found higher cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One of these studies also found lower cereal yields in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia, Lebanon, and Spain found similar cereal yields in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage, in all comparisons. Fruits and vegetables (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy found lower fruit or vegetable yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies also found higher yields, in some comparisons. Legumes (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found higher legume yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Lebanon found similar legume yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Oilseeds (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower sunflower seed yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Crop residues (6 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found higher straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Crop quality (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found larger peas, and more peas in a pod, in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found similarly sized faba beans, and similar numbers of beans in a pod, in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found differences in the nutritional values of sunflower seeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. · Crop yield (15 studies) o Cereals (7 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain2,4,13 found higher cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One of these studies10410417Angás, P.Lampurlanés, J.Cantero-Martínez, C.Tillage and N fertilization: Effects on N dynamics and Barley yield under semiarid Mediterranean conditionsSoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research59-71871Conservation tillageNitrogen fertilizationN fertilizer efficiencyPhysiological N use efficiency20065//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198705000991http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.0362 also found lower cereal yields in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain868617López-Garrido, R.Madejón, E.León-Camacho, M.Girón, I.Moreno, F.Murillo, J. M.Reduced tillage as an alternative to no-tillage under Mediterranean conditions: A case studySoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research40-47140Tillage systemsSoil conditionsCrop performanceSeed qualitySunflower20147//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198714000300http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.02.00811 found lower cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia19119117Manalil, SudheeshFlower, KenSoil water conservation and nitrous oxide emissions from different crop sequences and fallow under Mediterranean conditionsSoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research123-129143AustraliaDroughtFallowNitrous oxide201411//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198714001214http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.06.00612, Lebanon777717Yau, S. K.Sidahmed, M.Haidar, M.Conservation versus Conventional Tillage on Performance of Three Different CropsAgronomy JournalAgronomy Journal269-2761022010Madison, WIAmerican Society of Agronomyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.024210.2134/agronj2009.0242English3, and Spain848417Hernanz, J. L.López, R.Navarrete, L.Sánchez-Girón, V.Long-term effects of tillage systems and rotations on soil structural stability and organic carbon stratification in semiarid central SpainSoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research129-141662Long-term effectTillageCrop rotationAggregate stabilitySoil organic carbonSemiarid conditions20027//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198702000211http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00021-11 found similar cereal yields in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage, in all comparisons. o Fruits and vegetables (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy9,10,15 found lower fruit or vegetable yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies9,15 also found higher yields, in some comparisons. o Legumes (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy10710717Giambalvo, DarioRuisi, PaoloSaia, SergioDi Miceli, GiuseppeFrenda, Alfonso SalvatoreAmato, GaetanoFaba bean grain yield, N2 fixation, and weed infestation in a long-term tillage experiment under rainfed Mediterranean conditionsPlant and SoilPlant and Soil215-227360120122012//1573-5036http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1224-510.1007/s11104-012-1224-57 and Spain838317Santín-Montanyá, M. I.Zambrana, E.Fernández-Getino, A. P.Tenorio, J. L.Dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) yielding and weed infestation response, under different tillage conditionsCrop ProtectionCrop Protection122-12865DiversityLegume-cropsSemi-arid conditionsYieldWeeds201411//0261-2194http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219414002373http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.017 Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1358https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1358Fri, 05 May 2017 11:33:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsCrop yield (25 studies) Cereals (16 studies): Nine replicated, controlled studies from Egypt, France, Spain, and Turkey found higher cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three of these studies also found lower cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found lower cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Four replicated, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found similar cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that crops failed in plots with conventional tillage, but not in plots with reduced tillage, in one of three comparisons. Fruits and vegetables (7 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found higher fruit or vegetable yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies also found lower fruit or vegetable yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found similar fruit yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. All fruit or vegetable plots were irrigated, in contrast to most cereal or legume plots. Legumes (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower legume yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Lebanon found similar legume yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. No studies found higher legume yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Oilseeds (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher rapeseed yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop residues (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found lower straw yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher straw yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found higher cover crop biomass in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop quality (7 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that sunflower seeds had more oil, more monounsaturated fatty acid, and less polyunsaturated fatty acid in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found that wheat had a lower protein content in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Turkey found similar seed weights in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that lettuce or broccoli plants were larger in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons, but they were smaller in other comparisons. Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found higher wheat yields in plots that were tilled at slower speeds. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found higher wheat yields, but lower vetch yields, in plots with one type of reduced tillage (rototilling and disking), compared to another type (double disking).Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1359Fri, 05 May 2017 12:03:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Add compost to the soilOrganic matter (12 studies): Twelve replicated, controlled studies (ten randomized) from Italy, Spain, Syria, Turkey, and the USA found more organic matter in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Nutrients (10 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Syria found more nutrients in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen between soils with or without added compost. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found no differences in phosphorus between soils with or without added compost. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar pH levels in soils with or without added compost. Soil organisms (10 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with or without added compost. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found inconsistent differences in bacterial abundance between plots with or without added compost. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found differences in bacteria communities, in some comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (5 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Spain found less erosion of soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found that soils with added compost were more stable than soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Greenhouse gases (10 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more greenhouse gas in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found no differences in greenhouse gas between soils with or without added compost. Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Syria found more nitrogen in soils with compost added every two years, compared to soils with compost added every four years. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found inconsistent differences in bacteria abundance between soils with different amounts of added compost.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1362https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1362Mon, 08 May 2017 13:08:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Add slurry to the soilOrganic matter (4 studies): Three studies (two replicated, randomized, controlled; one meta-analysis) from Spain and multiple Mediterranean countries found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with or without added slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more organic matter in soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons. Nutrients (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more nitrate in soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found similar amounts of nitrate in soils with or without added slurry. One of these studies also found more ammonium, but another one did not. Soil organisms (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more microbial biomass in soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it, but another one did not. Soil erosion and aggregation (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more stable soils in plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it, in some comparisons. Greenhouse gases (8 studies) Carbon dioxide (3 studies): Of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, two studies found higher carbon dioxide emissions in soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it, but one study did not. Methane (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that less methane was absorbed by soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar methane fluxes in soils with or without added slurry. Nitrous oxide (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found higher nitrous oxide emissions in soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar nitrous oxide emissions in soils with or without added slurry. Implementation options (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found no differences in organic matter or greenhouse-gas emissions between plots with different amounts of slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with or without added slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar nitrous oxide emissions in soils with digested or untreated pig slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar carbon dioxide and methane emissions in soils with digested or untreated slurry.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1365https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1365Tue, 09 May 2017 14:27:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicOrganic matter (13 studies): Eight replicated studies (including one meta-analysis) from France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and Mediterranean countries found more organic matter in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Greece, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Nutrients (14 studies) Nitrogen (9 studies): Four replicated studies (three controlled, two randomized; one site comparison) from France, Italy, and Spain found more nitrogen in soils with organic fertilizers, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Greece, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Ammonium (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found more ammonium in soils with organic fertilizer, compared inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of ammonium in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Nitrate (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less nitrate in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found similar amounts of nitrate in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Phosphorus (5 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found more phosphorus in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some or all comparisons. One replicated site comparison from France found less phosphorous in soils with organic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorous in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Potassium (6 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found more potassium in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Three replicated studies (two controlled, one site comparison) from France and Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. pH (6 studies): Four replicated studies (three randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from France, Italy, and Spain found similar pH levels in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found higher pH levels in soils with organic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower pH levels in soils with organic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Soil organisms (7 studies) Microbial biomass (4 studies): Four replicated studies (three randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from France, Italy, and Spain found more microbial biomass in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Other soil organisms (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found fewer bacteria in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one comparison. One replicated site comparison from France found fewer nematodes in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found fewer mites in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found inconsistent differences in microbes between plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Soil erosion and aggregation (5 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Turkey and Spain found greater aggregation in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found no difference in aggregation between soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Greenhouse gases (11 studies) Carbon dioxide (5 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found higher carbon dioxide emissions from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar carbon dioxide emissions from plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Methane (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that more methane was absorbed by soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that similar amounts of methane were absorbed by soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Nitrous oxide (8 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar nitrous oxide emissions from plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Three studies (including one meta-analysis and two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) from Spain, the USA, and Mediterranean countries found lower nitrous oxide emissions from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Implementation options (4 studies): One study from Spain found that plots with slurry absorbed methane, but plots with manure emitted methane. One study from Italy found more organic matter, nutrients, and microbial biomass in plots fertilized with compost, compared to manure. One meta-analysis found lower nitrous oxide emissions after adding solid organic fertilizer, but not liquid organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. One study found inconsistent differences in soil bacteria with a single or double application of organic fertilizer.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1366https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1366Tue, 09 May 2017 15:33:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsOrganic matter (12 studies): Ten studies (eight replicated, randomized, and controlled, and two site comparisons) from Chile, France, Spain, and the USA found more organic matter in soils with ground cover, compared to soils without ground cover, in some or all comparisons. Two meta-analyses of studies from Mediterranean climates also found more organic matter in plots with ground cover. Implementation options (4 studies): One study from France found more organic matter in soils with permanent ground cover, compared to temporary ground cover, in one of three comparisons. Two studies from the USA found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with resident vegetation or seeded cover crops. One study from Spain found more organic matter where cover crops were incorporated into the soil. Nutrients (12 studies) Nitrogen (9 studies): Five studies (four replicated, randomized, and controlled, and one site comparison) from Chile and Spain found more nitrogen in soils with ground cover, compared to soils without ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrogen in soils with ground cover, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen between soils with or without ground cover. One replicated site comparison from France found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with or without ground cover. Implementation options (5 studies): Two studies from Spain and the USA found more nitrogen in soils that were cover cropped with legumes, compared to non-legumes, in some or all comparisons. Two studies from vineyards in the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with resident vegetation or seeded cover crops. One of these studies also found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with different types of seeded cover crops, and in soils with or without tillage (both with ground cover). One study from Spain found more nitrogen where cover crops were incorporated into the soil. Phosphorus (4 studies): One replicated site comparison from France found more phosphorus in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils, in one of six comparisons. Two studies (one replicated, randomized, and controlled, and one site comparison) from Spain and the USA found less phosphorus in soils with seeded cover crops, compared to tilled soils, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with seeded cover crops and bare soils. Implementation options (3 studies): One study from France found more phosphorus in soils with permanent ground cover, compared to temporary ground cover, in one of three comparisons. One study from the USA found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with resident vegetation or seeded cover crops. One study from Spain found different amounts of phosphorus in soils with different types of seeded cover crops. Potassium (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found more potassium in soils with seeded cover crops, compared to bare soils. Two site comparisons (one replicated) from France and Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with ground cover, compared to tilled or bare soil. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found similar amounts of potassium in soils with resident vegetation or seeded cover crops. pH (4 studies): Two studies (one replicated, randomized, and controlled, and one site comparison) from Spain and the USA found lower pH levels in soils with ground cover, compared to soils without ground cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found higher pH levels in soils with ground cover. One replicated site comparison from France found similar pH levels in soils with or without ground cover. Soil organisms (6 studies) Microbial biomass (4 studies): Four replicated studies (three randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from France and the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with ground cover, compared to bare or tilled soils, in some or all comparisons. Implementation options (1 study): One study from France found more microbial biomass in soils with permanent ground cover, compared to temporary ground cover, in some comparisons. Fungi (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found more symbiotic fungi (mycorrhizae) in soils with seeded cover crops, compared to tilled soils, in some comparisons, but found similar numbers of roots that were colonized by mycorrhizae. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in mycorrhizae in soils with seeded cover crops or tilled soils. Bacteria (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more bacteria, but similar levels of bacterial diversity, in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils. Nematodes (1 study): One replicated site comparison from France found more nematodes in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils. Implementation options (1 study): One study from France found more nematodes in soils with permanent ground cover, compared to temporary ground cover, in one of three comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (10 studies) Soil erosion (7 studies): Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Chile, Italy, Spain, and the USA found less erosion of soils with ground cover, compared to bare or tilled soils, in some comparisons or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from France found similar amounts of erosion in plots with or without ground cover. Implementation options (1 study): One study from Italy found the least erosion with permanent cover crops, and the most erosion with temporary cover crops. Soil aggregation (5 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Chile and Spain found that soil aggregates were more water-stable in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to tilled or bare soils, in some or all comparisons. One site comparison from Spain found inconsistent differences in water stability between soils with seeded cover crops and bare soils. Greenhouse gases (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from a vineyard in the USA found more carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide in soils with cover crops, compared to tilled soils. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from an olive orchard in Spain found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with cover crops, compared to tilled soils. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with different types of ground cover.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1367https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1367Mon, 15 May 2017 14:10:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use crop rotationsOrganic matter (9 studies): Five replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Portugal, and Spain found less organic matter in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Syria found more organic matter in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops, in some comparisons. Three replicated, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with or without crop rotations. Nutrients (5 studies) Nitrogen (5 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Australia found more nitrogen in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops, in one of four comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found less nitrogen in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found inconsistent differences in nitrogen in soils with or without crop rotations. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with or without crop rotations. Phosphorus (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found less phosphorus in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops, in some comparisons. pH (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found similar pH levels in soils with or without crop rotations. Soil organisms (3 studies) Microbial biomass (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found more microbial biomass in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less microbial biomass in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops, in some comparisons. Bacteria and fungi (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found more fungi, but similar amounts of bacteria, in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops. Soil erosion and aggregation (4 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Syria found higher water-stability in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower water-stability in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found inconsistent differences in water-stability in soils with or without crop rotations. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found no differences in water-stability. Greenhouse gases (4 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found higher carbon dioxide emissions from soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar carbon dioxide emissions from soils with or without crop rotations. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Australia found lower nitrous oxide and methane emissions from soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous crops, but another one found no differences in nitrous oxide emissions. Implementation options (2 studies): Two studies from Syria and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with two-year or four-year rotations. One of these studies also found similar amounts of organic matter.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1368https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1368Mon, 15 May 2017 14:21:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use no tillage in arable fieldsOrganic matter (20 studies): One meta-analysis of studies from Mediterranean countries found more organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Fourteen replicated studies (eleven randomized and controlled, one controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found less organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more organic matter, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with or without tillage. Nutrients (19 studies) Nitrogen (18 studies): Six replicated studies (five randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils without tillage, compared soil with tillage, in some or all comparisons. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less nitrogen in soils without tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain and the USA sometimes found more nitrogen and sometimes found less nitrogen in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with or without tillage. Phosphorus (5 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more phosphorus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found less phosphorus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with or without tillage. Potassium (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more potassium in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA sometimes found more potassium and sometimes found less potassium in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with or without tillage. pH (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found lower pH levels in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar pH levels in soils with or without tillage. Soil organisms (18 studies) Microbial biomass (13 studies): Five replicated, controlled studies (four randomized) from Italy and Spain found more microbial biomass in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain sometimes found more microbial biomass, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with or without tillage. Earthworms (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one controlled, one site comparison) from the USA found more earthworms in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Nematodes (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found similar numbers of nematodes in soils with or without tillage. However, one of these studies found different communities of nematodes in soils with or without tillage. Mites (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found different communities of mites, but similar numbers of mites, in soils with or without tillage. Other soil organisms (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of denitrifying bacteria in soils with or without tillage. Another replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more microorganisms in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found more fungus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Soil erosion and aggregation (9 studies): Seven replicated studies (six randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Spain and the USA found that soils without tillage were more stable than tilled soils, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that soils without tillage were sometimes more stable, and were sometimes less stable, than tilled soils. Greenhouse gases (10 studies) Carbon dioxide (7 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found more carbon dioxide in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less carbon dioxide in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain sometimes found more carbon dioxide, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with or without tillage. Nitrous oxide (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more nitrous oxide, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with or without tillage. Methane (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less methane in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more methane, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of methane in soils with or without tillage. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more organic matter in soils that had not been tilled for a long time, compared to a short time, in one comparison. This study also found greater stability in soils that had not been tilled for a long time, in some comparisons.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1369https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1369Mon, 15 May 2017 14:26:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillageOrganic matter (6 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more organic matter in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. No studies found less organic matter in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Nutrients (7 studies) Nitrogen (6 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found more nitrogen in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies also found less nitrogen in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less nitrogen in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Phosphorus (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more phosphorus in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. No studies found less phosphorus in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Potassium (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. No studies found less potassium in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Soil organisms (8 studies) Microbial biomass (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more microbial biomass in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons, but found less in some comparisons. Bacteria (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found fewer denitrifying bacteria in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Other soil organisms (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of mites and nematodes, but different communities of mites and nematodes, in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more mites in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Soil erosion and aggregation (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more large aggregates in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar aggregates in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher water-stability in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons, but found lower water-stability in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar water-stability in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. Greenhouse gases (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less greenhouse gas in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia and Spain found similar amounts of greenhouse gas in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1370https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1370Mon, 15 May 2017 14:40:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsOrganic matter (14 studies): One meta-analysis from multiple Mediterranean countries found more organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Eleven replicated studies (ten randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, Syria, and the USA found more organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. No studies found less organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Nutrients (15 studies) Nitrogen (14 studies): Seven replicated studies (five randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Three of these studies also found less nitrogen in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, Syria, and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Phosphorus (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more phosphorus in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Potassium (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more potassium in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in all comparisons. pH (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar pH levels in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Soil organisms (16 studies) Microbial biomass (15 studies): Eleven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Syria found less microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Bacteria (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more denitrifying bacteria in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Other soil organisms (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of mites and nematodes, but differences in mite and nematode communities, in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more earthworms in fields with fewer passes of the plough, in one of three comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (9 studies) Soil aggregation (8 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that soil aggregates had higher water-stability in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found that soil aggregates had lower water-stability in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that water-stability was similar in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more large aggregates in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found smaller aggregates in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of aggregation in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Soil erosion (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found less erosion with less tillage (one pass with the tractor, compared to two), but found more erosion with shallower tillage, compared to deeper. Greenhouse gases (11 studies) Carbon dioxide (9 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found less carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Nitrous oxide (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more nitrous oxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Methane (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of methane in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that less soil was lost in runoff water from plots that were tilled at slower tractor speeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1371https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1371Mon, 15 May 2017 14:50:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsWater use (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found that plants used more water in plots with ground cover, compared to plots with bare soil. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found inconsistent differences in water use (sometimes less, sometimes more) between plots with ground cover and plots with tilled soil. Implementation options (2 studies): Two studies from Portugal and the USA found that plants used similar amounts of water in plots with different types of ground cover. Water availability (17 studies) Water content (13 studies): Four studies (three replicated, randomized, and controlled; one site comparison) from Spain and the USA found less water, or less available water in some comparisons, in soils with seeded cover crops, compared to tilled soils. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and the USA found more water, or more available water, in soils with ground cover, compared to tilled soils, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from France and the USA found inconsistent differences in water content (sometimes less, sometimes more) in soils with seeded cover crops, compared to bare or tilled soils. Three replicated studies (two randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Chile, France, and Portugal found similar amounts of water in soils with or without ground cover. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Chile and the USA found greater water infiltration or soil porosity in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to bare soil, but one replicated, controlled study from France did not. Water loss (7 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Chile, France, Italy, Spain, and the USA found that less water was lost as runoff from plots with seeded cover crops, compared to bare or tilled plots, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found inconsistent differences in runoff between plots with ground cover and plots with tilled soil. Implementation options (5 studies): Three studies from vineyards in the USA found different amounts of water in soils with different types of ground cover, but two studies from Portugal and the USA did not. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found less nitrogen, phosphorus, and dissolved organic carbon in runoff from plots with seeded cover crops, compared to plots with bare soil. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of nitrate, nitrogen, and phosphorus in runoff from plots with seeded cover crops, compared to bare soils. Sediments (4 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Chile, Spain, and the USA found less sediment in runoff from plots with ground cover, compared to bare or tilled soil, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from France found similar amounts of sediment in runoff from plots with seeded cover crops or bare soil.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1382https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1382Mon, 15 May 2017 15:42:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use no tillage in arable fieldsWater use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that barley used water more efficiently in plots without tillage, compared to plots with tillage, in some comparisons. Water availability (14 studies): Nine controlled studies (eight replicated and randomized) from Spain and the USA found more water in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Lebanon found less water in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Spain and the USA sometimes found more water, and sometimes found less water, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower porosity in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1384https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1384Mon, 15 May 2017 15:49:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsWater use (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found that crops used water more efficiently in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that crops used water more efficiently in plots with less-frequent tillage (one pass with a plough, compared to two), but crops used water less efficiently in plots with shallow tillage, compared to deep tillage. Water availability (14 studies) Water content (12 studies): Six controlled studies (five replicated and randomized) from Egypt and Spain found more water in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two of these studies also found less water in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and the USA found less water in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Four controlled studies from Egypt, Italy, and Spain (three of which were replicated and randomized), found similar amounts of water in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Water loss (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from France found that less water was lost through drainage from soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, during the growing season, but more water was lost during the fallow season, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that less water was lost through runoff from soils with less-frequent tillage (one pass with a plough, compared to two), but more water was lost through runoff from soils with shallow tillage, compared deep tillage. Water infiltration (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that water infiltration rates were faster in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found that water infiltration rates were similar in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from France found that less herbicide was leached from soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found more water and faster water infiltration rates in soils that were tilled at slower tractor speeds, but found that water losses and water-use efficiencies were similar in plots that were tilled at different tractor speeds. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found that water-use efficiencies were similar in plots with different types of reduced tillage (rototilling and disking, compared to double disking).Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1386https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1386Mon, 15 May 2017 15:58:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsPest regulation (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that fewer aphids were parasitized in plots with cover crops (living mulches) between broccoli plants, compared to plots without cover crops, in some comparisons. Crop damage (6 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) from the USA found similar numbers of diseased broccoli seedlings or tomato plants in plots with or without winter cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found less-severely diseased lettuces in plots with winter cover crops, compared to winter fallows, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in tomato damage between plots with cover crops or fallows. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (14 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Israel and Italy found fewer weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more weeds in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Italy and the USA found that winter cover crops had inconsistent effects on weeds (sometimes more, sometimes fewer, compared to plots without winter cover crops). One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of weeds in plots with winter cover crops or fallows. Weed species (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found fewer weed species in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in one of three comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found different weed communities in plots with or without winter cover crops. Other pests (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found fewer aphids in plots with cover crops (living mulches) between broccoli plants, compared to plots without cover crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more mites (in some comparisons), but similar numbers of centipedes and springtails, in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of leafminers in plots with or without winter cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of fungus in soils with or without winter cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in nematode numbers between soils with cover crops or fallows. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (13 studies): Nine studies from Israel, Italy, and the USA found that different cover crops had different effects on crop damage or pest numbers. Two studies from the USA found that different cover crops (living mulches) did not have different effects on pest regulation or pest numbers. Two studies from the USA found that different methods of seeding cover crops had different effects on pest numbers.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1394https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1394Mon, 15 May 2017 16:19:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsPest regulation (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that more leafhopper eggs were parasitized in plots with cover crops, compared to bare fallows, in one of six comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found inconsistent differences or no differences in the parasitism of leafhopper eggs between plots with or without ground cover. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that more grapes were damaged by pests in plots with cover crops, compared to bare fallows, in some comparisons. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (12 studies) Weeds (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in an olive orchard in Spain found fewer weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from a vineyard in the USA found more weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, in one of nine comparisons. Implementation options (4 studies): Three studies from vineyards in the USA found different numbers of weeds or weed species in plots with different types of ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One study from the USA found similar numbers of weeds in vine rows with or without cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that plant diversity decreased over time in plots without tillage, but increased in plots with tillage. This study found that tillage had no effects on the number of plant species and had inconsistent effects on plant biomass. Insects (5 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found fewer leafhoppers in plots with cover crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more leafhoppers, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of leafhoppers. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more navel orangeworm moths in plots with resident vegetation, compared to tilled soil, in one of two comparisons. Implementation options (2 studies): Two studies from the USA found fewer pests in plots with mown ground cover, compared to unmown ground cover or ground cover before mowing. Mammals (1 study) Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more gophers in plots with clover, compared to other cover crops. Natural enemy numbers (6 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Spain and the USA found more natural enemies in plots with ground cover, compared to plots without ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found fewer parasitoids in plots with ground cover, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in the numbers of spiders between plots with or without ground cover. One of these studies found no difference in the number of spider species between plots with or without ground cover, and another one found no difference in the composition of spider communities. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more natural enemies in plots with mown cover crops, one week after mowing, compared to before mowing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1395https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1395Mon, 15 May 2017 16:22:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fieldsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Syria found no differences in most diseases between plots with no tillage or conventional tillage, but found a higher incidence of Aschochyta blight in plots with no tillage. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (9 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found more weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found inconsistent differences in weeds (sometimes more weeds in plots with no tillage, sometimes fewer). One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Lebanon found similar numbers of weeds in plots with or without tillage. Weed species (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more weed species in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar numbers of weed species in plots with or without tillage. Other pests (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found fewer parasitic plants (broomrapes) in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in plots with or without tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1397https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1397Fri, 19 May 2017 09:00:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercoursesAmphibians (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of amphibian species in restored and remnant sites. Birds (8 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from Spain and the USA found similar numbers of bird species in restored and remnant sites. Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found fewer bird species in restored riparian sites, compared to remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from Spain found similar numbers of birds and bird species in restored contaminated sites and uncontaminated sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found that an endangered bird nested in restored sites, and had similar nesting success in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found that bird populations increased with the area of restored habitat in the landscape, in some comparisons. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar levels of nest parasitism in restored and remnant sites. Fish (1 study): One before-and-after site comparison from the USA found differences in fish communities, before and after changing river flow. Invertebrates (3 studies): One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer native ants, but similar numbers of invasive ants, in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One before-and-after site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of freshwater invertebrates in restored and reference sites, after restoration. One replicated, before-and-after study from the USA found more invertebrates and invertebrate species in plots with added gravel, compared to plots without added gravel, in some comparisons. One replicated before-and-after study from France found relatively more alien species after restoring river flow. Mammals (2 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found similar numbers of mammal species in restored and remnant sites. Plants (11 studies) Abundance (6 studies): Four replicated site comparisons from Spain and the USA found lower plant cover in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One of these studies also found higher cover of exotic plants, but another one did not. One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of flowers in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more seeds, but fewer native seed, in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to orchards next to remnant habitats. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar exotic plant cover in remnant and restored forests. Diversity (6 studies): Two replicated studies from the USA found fewer native plant species in restored forests, compared to remnant forests. One of these studies also found more exotic species, but another one did not. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more plant species in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of flower species in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer seed species and native seed species in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to remnant riparian habitats. One controlled study from the USA found different plant communities in restored and unrestored habitats. Survival (2 studies): One replicated study from the USA found that about one-third of planted willows survived for one year. One site comparison from the USA found that some species survived after planting, as part of riparian restoration, but others did not. Habitat suitability (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found that vegetation at one of five sites met the criteria for Bell’s Vireo nesting habitat. Size (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found smaller elderberry plants in restored sites. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of reptile species in remnant and restored sites. Implementation options (7 studies) Plants (3 studies): One study from the USA found more tree, shrub, vine, and perennial species, higher canopy cover, and higher native tree cover, in older restored plots, compared to younger restored plots, but this study also found fewer annual plant species, lower vegetation cover, lower annual forb cover, and lower grass cover. One study from the USA found an increase in native species and overstorey cover in restored sites, over time, but it found similar numbers of species and overstorey cover in sites planted at different densities. One study from the USA found that willow cuttings planted on the stream bottom had a higher survival rate than those planted on the streambank or terrace. Birds (3 studies): Three studies from the USA found more birds or bird species in older restored plots, compared to younger restored plots. One of these studies also found that the populations of some bird species increased with tree-planting density. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1416Fri, 19 May 2017 09:54:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Exclude grazersAmphibians (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no difference in the abundance of Yosemite toads between areas with cattle excluded and grazed areas. Birds (2 studies): One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found more bird species, and more species that were nesting, in areas with sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. Two replicated site comparisons in desert and wetlands found higher abundances of some or all species of birds in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. The wetland study also found lower abundances, in some comparisons. Fish (2 studies): One replicated site comparison in grasslands in the USA found higher biomass and abundance of golden trout in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas. Another one found fewer trout nests in part of a stream with a livestock exclosure, compared to part without a livestock exclosure. Invertebrates (5 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in wetlands and grasslands in the USA found more species or families of invertebrates in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas, for some or all groups. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found fewer aquatic invertebrate species in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in grasslands in the USA found no difference in invertebrate abundance between ungrazed and cattle-grazed plots. One replicated, before-and-after site comparison in grasslands in the USA found that populations of a threatened, endemic butterfly declined in sites with cattle excluded, but also declined in cattle-grazed sites. Mammals (4 studies): Two replicated site comparisons in deserts and grasslands in Spain and the USA found more mammal species in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. One of these studies also found higher mammal diversity, and both studies found higher mammal abundance, in areas with grazers excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found lower abundances of black-tailed hares in ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites, and one replicated, randomized, controlled study in wooded grassland in the USA found no difference in ground squirrel abundance between ungrazed plots and cattle-grazed plots. Plants (41 studies) Abundance (38 studies): Thirty-two studies (13 replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, deserts, and mixed habitats in the USA, Israel, Chile, Spain, and Australia found higher biomass, cover, or abundance of some or all plant groups (or lower cover of non-native species), in areas with cattle, sheep, goats, or alpacas excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Fourteen studies (four replicated, randomized and controlled) from the USA, Israel, Spain, and Australia found lower biomass, cover, or abundance of some or all plant groups (or higher cover of non-native species), in areas with grazers excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Five replicated, controlled studies (four randomized) in grasslands in the USA found no difference in the cover of plants (and/or non-native plants) between ungrazed and grazed areas. Diversity (19 studies): Five studies (three replicated) in forests, shrublands, and grasslands in Israel, Spain, and the USA found more species, or fewer non-native species, in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Nine studies in grasslands and shrublands in Australia, Israel, Spain, and the USA found fewer species or native species, larger decreases in the number of species, or smaller increases in the number of species, in areas with cattle, sheep, or alpacas excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Six studies in grasslands, wetlands, and deserts in the USA found no differences in the number of species between areas grazed by cattle, sheep, or alpacas, and ungrazed areas. Four studies in shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands in the USA and Israel found higher plant diversity, or different community composition, in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Three studies in wetlands and grasslands in the USA found lower plant diversity in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Three studies in deserts and shrublands in the USA and Israel found no difference in plant diversity between plots with cattle or sheep excluded and grazed plots. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study along creeks in the USA found that similar percentages of planted willows survived in pastures with or without cattle excluded. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found higher plant survival in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found lower abundances of reptiles, and of some reptile species, in areas with sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Implementation options (1 study): One site comparison in the USA found that more plant species were found in historically cultivated sites that were ungrazed, compared to grazed, but similar numbers of plant species were found in historically uncultivated sites that were ungrazed or grazed.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1417Fri, 19 May 2017 11:18:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Use fewer grazersAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found more families of insects in streams in areas grazed by cattle at lower, compared to higher, intensities. Mammals (0 studies) Plants (11 studies) Abundance (11 studies): Six studies (four replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands or wood pasture in the USA, Chile, and Israel found higher cover of some species of plants, herbaceous plants, or native plants in areas grazed by cattle or sheep at lower, compared to higher, intensities. One controlled study in forest in Israel found higher cover of woody vegetation in areas with lower grazing intensity. Four of these studies also found lower cover or biomass of some groups of plants in sites with lower grazing intensity. Four studies in grasslands in the USA and Israel found no effect of grazing intensity on biomass, cover, or abundance of plants. Diversity (6 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in grasslands and wet grasslands in the USA and Israel found no differences in plant diversity between sites with different cattle-grazing intensities, in some or all comparisons. One of these also found higher diversity in some comparisons and lower diversity in others. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found that plant community composition differed in sites with different cattle-grazing intensities, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in grasslands and wet grasslands in Israel and the USA found no differences in the number of plant species between sites with different cattle grazing intensities, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies also found more species in some comparisons and fewer species in others. One controlled study in wood pasture in Chile found fewer native species and more non-native species in paddocks with lower sheep-grazing intensities. Survival (3 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) in grasslands in the USA and forests in Israel found no difference in native grass, tree, or shrub survival in areas grazed by cows at lower, compared to higher, intensities. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1418https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1418Fri, 19 May 2017 11:23:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Use grazers to manage vegetationAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found higher densities of dabbling duck nests, but similar nesting success, in cattle-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Invertebrates (4 studies): Two replicated studies (one controlled, one site comparison) in grasslands in the USA and Spain found more invertebrates in sheep-, goat-, or cattle-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some or all comparisons. One before-and-after study in grassland in the USA found that a threatened, endemic butterfly species did not recolonize a site after grazing was reintroduced. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found fewer invertebrates in plots with simulated grazing, compared to ungrazed plots, but found similar numbers of invertebrate species. One replicated site comparison in forested grasslands in Spain found higher beetle diversity in grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in one of two beetle groups. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in grasslands in the USA and Spain found different invertebrate communities in grazed and ungrazed plots. Mammals (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized before-and-after study) in grasslands in the USA found that abundances of some or all rodents were higher, or increased more, on sheep- or cow-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. However, they also found that some species were less abundant or monthly survival was lower on grazed plots. Plants (15 studies) Abundance (14 studies): Eight studies (two meta-analyses; two replicated, randomized, and controlled) from grasslands, shrublands, and forests in the USA, Spain, and France found higher cover or higher abundance of some groups of plants (or lower cover of undesirable plants), on cattle-, sheep-, or goat-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Six studies (five replicated; one randomized and controlled) from grasslands in Spain and the USA found lower cover or lower abundance of some groups of plants on cattle-, sheep-, or goat-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots (or after grazers were reintroduced). Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from grasslands in the USA found similar cover or biomass on grazed or ungrazed plots. Diversity (7 studies): Three studies (one meta-analysis; two replicated site comparisons) from grasslands in the USA found more plant species on grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies also found fewer species of some plant groups on grazed plots, and two of these stuides also found more non-native species on grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) in grasslands in the USA and France found no difference in the number of plant species between cattle- or sheep-grazed plots and ungrazed plots. Two replicated controlled studies (one randomized) from grasslands in the USA and France found no difference in plant diversity between cattle- or sheep-grazed plots and ungrazed plots. One replicated, randomized, controlled study grasslands and woodlands in the USA found that plant community composition varied between cattle-grazed and ungrazed plots. Survival (3 studies): Of two studies on purple needlegrass mortality from grasslands in the USA, one replicated, randomized, controlled study found lower mortality on sheep-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some comparisons, but found higher mortality in other comparisons, and one replicated, controlled study found no difference in mortality between cattle-grazed plots and ungrazed plots. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from grasslands in the USA found lower germination rates in purple needlegrass seeds from sheep-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some comparisons. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found that the abundance of some lizard species increased at a greater rate on cattle-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more invertebrates on plots with simulated grazing, compared to ungrazed plots, when these plots were planted with non-native plants. One study in shrublands in Spain found lower gorse cover in plots grazed by goats, compared to sheep, as well as other differences in plant biomass and cover.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1419https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1419Fri, 19 May 2017 11:26:09 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

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, 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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue