Study

Influence of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation on soil microbial biomass and catabolic diversity

  • Published source details Govaerts B., Mezzalama M., Unno Y., Sayre K.D., Luna-Guido M., Vanherck K., Dendooven L. & Deckers J. (2007) Influence of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation on soil microbial biomass and catabolic diversity. Applied Soil Ecology, 37, 18-30.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Retain crop residues

Action Link
Soil Fertility

Change tillage practices

Action Link
Soil Fertility
  1. Retain crop residues

    A replicated experiment in 2005 on a sandy-loam in El Batán, Mexico (Govaerts et al. 2007) found greater soil microbial biomass when crop residues were retained (shown by 387 mg C/kg of microbial activity and 515 mg C/kg of microorganism growth), than when they were removed (319 mg C/kg and 384 mg C/kg, in both tillage treatments. Soil microbial biomass was higher in wheat Triticum aestivum compared to maize Zea mays. Zero and conventional tillage treatments were tested. Within tillage treatments were two residue treatments (retained or removed) and within these were plots of maize and wheat crops. Crop plots (continuous wheat, continuous maize, and rotated wheat and maize) were 7.5 x 22 m and fertilized at 120 kg N/ha. There were two replications of each treatment combination. Soil samples were collected to 15 cm depth from all plots. Total nitrogen and organic carbon were measured.

     

  2. Change tillage practices

    A replicated experiment in 2005 on sandy loam in El Batán, Mexico (Govaerts et al. 2007) found that the rate at which microbes used carbon (metabolic activity) was higher when under conventional tillage with residue retention compared to zero tillage with residue removal, in maize. Soil microbial biomass was higher in wheat Triticum aestivum (369 mg C/kg) compared to maize Zea mays (319 mg C/kg). There were two tillage treatments: zero and conventional tillage. Within these were two residue treatments; removed or retained. Within these were maize and wheat crops, which were fertilized at 120 kgN/ha. Crop rotation plots (continuous wheat/maize, wheat and maize) were 7.5 x 22 m. There were two replications. Soil samples were collected to 15 cm depth from all plots. Total nitrogen and organic carbon were measured.

     

Output references
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 18

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust