Study

Influence of two organic amendments on the soil physical properties, soil losses, sediments and runoff water quality

  • Published source details Tejada M. & Gonzalez J.L. (2008) Influence of two organic amendments on the soil physical properties, soil losses, sediments and runoff water quality. Geoderma, 145, 325-334.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Amend the soil with organic processing wastes or their composts

Action Link
Soil Fertility

Water: Add manure to the soil

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Add manure to the soil

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Add compost to the soil

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Add compost to the soil

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Amend the soil with organic processing wastes or their composts

    A controlled, randomized, replicated experiment in 2001-2004 on silty- and sandy-clay soils in Seville, Spain (Tejada & Gonzalez, 2008) found that high application rates (7,120 kg/ha/year) of both crushed cotton gin compost and poultry manure reduced soil aggregate instability (see background section) (by 21% and 18%, respectively), soil density (20% and 17%) and soil loss (29% and 25%) compared to the control treatment. Nutrient loss was higher in water from amended soils (19 mg organic carbon/l for cotton compost and 22 mg/l for poultry manure) than the control soil (0 mg/l). Lower application rates of cotton compost and poultry manure also reduced soil instability, soil loss and nutrient loss, but to a lesser extent. There were four replicates of five treatments: untreated soil, cotton compost applied at 3,560 kg organic matter/ha/year, cotton compost at 7,120 kg/ha/yr, poultry manure at 3,560 kg/ha/year, and poultry manure at 7,120 kg/ha/year. Soil samples were collected from each plot to 25 cm depth.

     

  2. Water: Add manure to the soil

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2001–2005 in the Guadalquivir Valley, Andalusia, Spain, found more nutrients and sediments in runoff from soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure, after rainfall. Nutrients: More nitrate, ammonium, phosphorus, and potassium were found in runoff from plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, after rainfall (60 mm rainfall/hour, nitrate: 0.15–0.40 vs 0.07–0.09; ammonium: 6–10 vs 1; phosphorus: 0.3–0.7 vs 0; potassium: 4.1–7.9 vs 1–1.4 mg/litre water) (140 mm rainfall/hour, nitrate: 0.42–0.85 vs 0.10–0.19; ammonium: 16–31 vs 2–3; phosphorus: 0.9–1.8 vs 0; potassium: 11.4–22.3 vs 0.9–2.5 mg/litre water). Sediments: More organic matter was found in runoff from soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure, after rainfall (60 mm rainfall/hour: 7–10 vs 0 mg C/litre water; 140 mm rainfall/hour: 16–26 vs 0). Methods: There were four plots (9 x 9 m) for each of two treatments (5.8 or 11.6 t poultry manure/ha) and four control plots (no manure). The manure was added in October 2001–2004, and soils were ploughed (25 cm depth). Soils were watered to simulate rainfall in October 2002–2005 (60 or 140 mm rainfall/hour), and soil loss was measured in plots (1 x 1 m) that overlapped the borders of the treatment and control plots by 0.5 m.

     

  3. Soil: Add manure to the soil

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2001–2005 in the Guadalquivir Valley, Andalusia, Spain, found greater stability and less erosion in soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure. Soil erosion and aggregation: More stable soils were found in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, in two of four years (data reported as log instability index). Less soil was lost from plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, after rainfall (60 mm rainfall/hour, in two of four years: 175–192 vs 210–211 kg/ha; 140 mm rainfall/hour, in three of four years: 390–439 vs 508–520). Methods: There were four plots (9 x 9 m) for each of two treatments (5.8 or 11.6 t poultry manure/ha) and there wre four control plots (no manure). The manure was added in October 2001–2004, and soils were ploughed (25 cm depth). Soil samples were collected one day before the manure was added, in 2002–2004, and also in October 2005 (30 mm diameter gauge augers, 25 cm depth). Soils were watered to simulate rainfall in October 2002–2005 (60 or 140 mm rainfall/hour), and soil loss was measured in plots (1 x 1 m) that overlapped the borders of the treatment and control plots by 0.5 m.

     

  4. Water: Add compost to the soil

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2001–2005 in the Guadalquivir Valley, Andalusia, Spain, found more nutrients and sediments in runoff water from soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, after rainfall. Nutrients: More nitrate was found in runoff from soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, after rainfall (60 mm rainfall/hour: 0.12–0.35 vs 0.07–0.09 mg/litre water; 140 mm rainfall/hour: 0.31–0.67 vs 0.10–0.19). More ammonium was found in runoff from soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, after rainfall (60 mm rainfall/hour: 5–9 vs 1 mg/litre water; 140 mm rainfall/hour: 13–23 vs 2–3). More phosphorus was found in runoff from soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, after rainfall (60 mm rainfall/hour: 0.2–0.7 vs 0 mg/litre water; 140 mm rainfall/hour: 0.7–1.3 vs 0). More potassium was found in runoff from soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, after rainfall (60 mm rainfall/hour: 3.5–6.8 vs 1–1.4 mg/litre water; 140 mm rainfall/hour: 8.5–16.1 vs 0.9–2.5). Sediments: More organic matter was found in runoff from soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, after rainfall (60 mm rainfall/hour: 6–9 vs 0 mg C/litre water; 140 mm rainfall/hour: 14–21 vs 0). Methods: There were four plots (9 x 9 m) for each of two treatments (10 or 20 t compost/ha) and one control (no compost). The compost was added in October 2001–2004, and soils were ploughed to a depth of 25 cm. Soils were watered to simulate rainfall and runoff water was collected in October 2002–2005 (60 or 140 mm rainfall/hour).

     

  5. Soil: Add compost to the soil

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2001–2005 in the Guadalquivir Valley, Andalusia, Spain, found greater stability and less erosion in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost. Soil erosion and aggregation: More stable soils were found in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in two of four years (data reported as log instability index). Less soil was lost from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, after rainfall (60 mm rainfall/hour, in two of four years: 171–182 vs 210–211 kg/ha; 140 mm rainfall/hour, in three of four years: 366–430 vs 508–520). Methods: There were four plots (9 x 9 m) for each of two treatments (10 or 20 t compost/ha) and one control (no compost). The compost was added in October 2001–2004, and soils were ploughed to a depth of 25 cm. Soil samples were collected one day before the compost was added, in 2002–2004, and also in October 2005 (gauge augers, 30 mm diameter, 25 cm depth). Soils were watered to simulate rainfall in October 2002–2005 (60 or 140 mm rainfall/hour), and soil loss was measured in plots (1 x 1 m) that overlapped the borders of the treatment and control plots by 0.5 m.

     

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