Study

Interrill soil erosion as affected by tillage and residue cover

  • Published source details Bradford J.M. & Huang C. (1994) Interrill soil erosion as affected by tillage and residue cover. Soil & Tillage Research, 31, 353-361.

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 1992 on silt loam at three sites in Illinois, USA (Bradford and Huang 1994) found decreased water infiltration rates and increased soil loss under both no-tillage (from >70 to 47.1 mm/h and 0.01-0.15 kg/m2/h) and tillage (from 64.1 to 37.2 mm/h and 0.1-0.6 kg/m2/h respectively) when crop remains were removed at site 1. Removing crop remains from a no-till system increased soil loss at site 2 from 0.01-0.13 kg/m2/h and site 3 from 0.01-0.16 kg/m2/h. The three sites were under corn Zea mays-soybean Glycine max rotations. Site 1 was under conventional tillage and treatments were: tilled vs. tilled with crop remains removed. Sites 2 and 3 had been under no-tillage for more than 15 years. Site 2 treatments were: no-tillage, no-tillage with crop remains removed, tillage residue replaced on the soil surface, and tillage residue removed. Site 3 treatments were: no-tillage, no-tillage with crop remains removed, tillage with residue removed, and tillage residue removed after three soil-drying days. Plots were 1 x 2 m and treatments were replicated six times at each site. Rainfall was simulated at an intensity of 70 mm/h on each plot for 90 minutes.

     

  2. Change tillage practices

    A replicated experiment in 1992 on silt loam in Illinois, USA (Bradford and Huang, 1994) found  decreased infiltration rates and increased soil loss under both no-till (from >70 to 47.1 mm/h and 0.01-0.15 kg/m2/h) and till (from 64.1 to 37.2 mm/h and 0.1-0.6 kg/m2/h respectively), when crop residue was removed. Removing residue from a no-till system increased soil loss at Site 2 from 0.01-0.13 kg/m2/h and Site 3 from 0.01-0.16 kg/m2/h. There were three sites under corn Zea mays-soybean Glycine max rotations. Site 1 was under conventional tillage and treatments were: tilled and tilled residue removed. Sites 2 and 3 had been no-till for more than 15 years. Site 2 treatments were: no-till, no-till residue removed, tillage residue replaced on surface, and tillage residue removed. Site 3 treatments were: no-till, no-till residue removed, tillage residue removed, and tillage residue removed again after three soil-drying days. Plots were 1 x 2 m and respective treatments were replicated six times at each site. Rainfall was simulated at an intensity of 70 mm/h on each plot for 90 minutes.

     

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