Collected 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: 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: Soil: Plant hedgerowsOrganic matter (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Soil organisms (0 studies) Soil erosion and aggregation (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar particle sizes in soils with or without planted hedgerows. Greenhouse gases (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1373https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1373Mon, 15 May 2017 15:03:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Restore habitat along watercoursesOrganic matter (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found less carbon in soils at restored sites, compared to natural sites. Nutrients (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found less nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in soils at restored sites, compared to natural sites. Soil organisms (1 study): One controlled study from the USA found different nematode communities in restored and unrestored areas. Soil erosion and aggregation (0 studies) Greenhouse gases (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found less carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous in soils at older restored sites compared to younger restored sites.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1374https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1374Mon, 15 May 2017 15:07:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use fewer grazersOrganic matter (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One controlled study in wood pasture in Chile found more nitrogen and phosphorus in paddocks grazed at lower intensities, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found no difference in nitrogen between areas with low or high levels of simulated grazing. Soil organisms (0 studies) Soil erosion and aggregation (0 studies) Greenhouse gases (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found no differences in rates of soil respiration between areas with low or high levels of simulated grazing.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1376https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1376Mon, 15 May 2017 15:13:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add compost to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Turkey and the USA found more water in soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of water in soil with or without added compost. One replicated, controlled study from Spain found that less water was lost as runoff from soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in runoff from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in one of four comparisons. Sediments (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more organic matter in runoff from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from plots with or without added compost, if the compost was split into two small applications, compared to one large application.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1377Mon, 15 May 2017 15:18:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add manure to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found more water in soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Greece and the USA found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added manure. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more dissolved organic carbon, but similar amounts of nitrate, in runoff from plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that more nitrate, ammonium, phosphorus, potassium, and organic matter was leached from soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure. Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1378https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1378Mon, 15 May 2017 15:21:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add sewage sludge to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found less runoff from plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it, in one of four comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added sewage sludge. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (1 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from plots with a split application of sewage sludge, but not with a single application, compared to plots without added sewage sludge.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1379https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1379Mon, 15 May 2017 15:23:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add slurry to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added slurry, and another one found similar amounts of water-filled pore space. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that more nitrate was leached from plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it. One of these studies also found that more nitrate was lost in runoff from plots with added slurry, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from plots with or without added slurry. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more dissolved organic matter in soils, or leached from soils, with added slurry. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (3 studies): One study from Spain found that less nitrate was leached from plots with surface application, compared to injection, of slurry. One study from Spain found that less nitrate was lost through runoff and leaching from plots with less added slurry, compared to more. One study from Spain found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in soils with digested or untreated pig slurry, and another found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in plots with less or more added slurry.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1380https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1380Mon, 15 May 2017 15:25:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicWater use (0 studies) Water availability (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from France and Turkey found more water in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less water in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one of two comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found that less nitrate was lost from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found that more dissolved organic matter was lost, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more nitrate in runoff from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Portugal and Spain found that similar amounts of nitrogen were lost from plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found that less nitrate, but more organic matter, was leached from plots that were fertilized with manure, compared to slurry.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1381https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1381Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:47 +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 crop rotationsWater use (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found higher water-use efficiency in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower water-use efficiency in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in some comparisons. Water availability (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia found similar amounts of water in soils with crop rotations or continuous crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found inconsistent differences in water storage in soils with or without crop rotations. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found no difference in water-use efficiency between plots with different crop rotations.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1383https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1383Mon, 15 May 2017 15:45:50 +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 no tillage instead of reduced tillageWater use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that crops used water more efficiently in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons. Water availability (9 studies): Six controlled studies from Spain (five of which were replicated and randomized) found more water in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less water in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of fifteen comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia and Lebanon found similar amounts of water in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1385https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1385Mon, 15 May 2017 15:53:00 +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: Water: Plant buffer stripsWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more soil moisture in plots with buffers, compared to plots without buffers, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that similar amounts of water were lost as runoff from plots with or without buffers. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated study from the USA found that grass buffer strips decreased the amount of Cryptosporidium parvum (a protozoan pathogen) in runoff, after bovine manure was applied to slopes. Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrate in runoff from irrigated pastures with buffer strips, but another one found no differences in nitrate or phosphorus in runoff from pastures with or without buffer strips. Sediments (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found less sediment in runoff from irrigated fields or pastures with buffers, compared to those without buffers, in some or all comparisons. Implementation options (3 studies): One replicated study from the USA found less C. parvum (a protozoan pathogen) in runoff from flatter buffer strips, compared to steeper. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more soil moisture in plots with narrower buffer strips, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that buffers trapped more runoff in the four weeks after fertilizer application, compared to the next 10 weeks.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1387Mon, 15 May 2017 16:00:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Restore habitat along watercoursesWater use (0 studies) Water availability (1 study): One replicated site comparison in the USA found similar amounts of water, in soils, in restored and remnant riparian habitats. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1388https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1388Mon, 15 May 2017 16:02:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Exclude grazersWater use (0 studies) Water availability (4 studies): Four studies (three replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands and shrublands in the USA and Spain found less water in areas with cattle and sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in wet grasslands in the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen, phosphorus, and pH in surface water in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas. One of these studies found more nitrate in stream water in ungrazed areas, compared to grazed areas, in one of two experiments. Sediments (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no difference in surface water turbidity between areas with cattle excluded and grazed areas.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1389Mon, 15 May 2017 16:04:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use fewer grazersWater use (0 studies) Water availability (0 studies) Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no differences in nitrate and pH levels in surface water between areas grazed by cattle at low or moderate intensities. Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1390https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1390Mon, 15 May 2017 16:07:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use seasonal grazingWater use (0 studies) Water availability (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found that pools were wet for longer in continuously, compared to seasonally, grazed plots. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1391https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1391Mon, 15 May 2017 16:09:39 +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