Study

Management effects on soil carbon dioxide fluxes under semi-arid Mediterranean conditions

  • Published source details Álvaro-Fuentes J., López M.V., Arrúe J.L. & Cantero-Martínez C. (2008) Management effects on soil carbon dioxide fluxes under semi-arid Mediterranean conditions. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 72, 194-200.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2002–2005 on three rainfed farms in the Ebro river valley, Spain, found lower crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop yield: Lower barley yields were found in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in four of 10 comparisons (730–3,083 vs 1,314–3,514 kg/ha). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on ten plots each (Peñaflor: three plots each, 33 x 10 m plots; Agramunt: four plots each, 9 x 50 m plots; Selvanera: three plots each, 7 x 50 m plots). In Peñaflor, a mouldboard plough (30–40 cm depth) and a cultivator (10–15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. In Agramunt, a mouldboard plough (25–30 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. In Selvanera, a subsoil plough (40 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. Herbicide and a seed drill were used for no tillage.

     

  2. Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2002–2005 on three rainfed farms in the Ebro river valley, Spain, found that tillage had inconsistent effects on crop yield. Crop yield: Lower crop yields were found in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in three of 10 comparisons (barley: 2,273–3,071 vs 2,493–3,514 kg/ha; wheat: 1,830 vs 2,703), but higher yields were found in two of 10 comparisons (rapeseed: 1,783 vs 1,261 kg/ha; wheat: 911 vs 798). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on ten plots each (Peñaflor: three plots each, 33 x 10 m plots; Agramunt: four plots each, 9 x 50 m plots; Selvanera: three plots each, 7 x 50 m plots). In Peñaflor, a mouldboard plough (30–40 cm depth) and a cultivator (10–15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. In Agramunt, a mouldboard plough (25–30 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. In Selvanera, a subsoil plough (40 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. A cultivator (Agramunt and Selvanera: 15 cm depth) or chisel plough (Peñaflor: 25–30 cm depth) was used for reduced tillage.

     

  3. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2002–2005 on three rainfed farms in the Ebro river valley, Spain, found similar amounts of greenhouse gas in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Greenhouse gases: Similar amounts of carbon dioxide were found in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage (0.11–1.65 vs 0.12–1.76 g CO2/m2/hour). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on ten plots each (Peñaflor: three plots each, 33 x 10 m plots; Agramunt: four plots each, 9 x 50 m plots; Selvanera: three plots each, 7 x 50 m plots). In Peñaflor, a mouldboard plough (30–40 cm depth) and a cultivator (10–15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. In Agramunt, a mouldboard plough (25–30 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. In Selvanera, a subsoil plough (40 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. A cultivator (Agramunt and Selvanera: 15 cm) or chisel plough (Peñaflor: 25–30 cm depth) was used for reduced tillage. Carbon dioxide samples were collected from December 2002 (Peñaflor, twice/month) or December 2003 (Agramunt and Selvanera, once/month) to June 2005, with an open chamber (900 mL airflow/minute, 21 cm diameter).

     

  4. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2002–2005 on three rainfed farms in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (5)), found less greenhouse gas in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Greenhouse gases: Less carbon dioxide was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in three of 13 comparisons (0.27–0.85 vs 0.54–1.19 g CO2/m2/hour). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on ten plots each (Peñaflor: three plots each, 33 x 10 m plots; Agramunt: four plots each, 9 x 50 m plots; Selvanera: three plots each, 7 x 50 m plots). In Peñaflor, a mouldboard plough (30–40 cm depth) and a cultivator (10–15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. In Agramunt, a mouldboard plough (25–30 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. In Selvanera, a subsoil plough (40 cm depth) and a cultivator (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. Herbicide and a seed drill were used for no tillage. Carbon dioxide samples were collected from December 2002 (Peñaflor, twice/month) or December 2003 (Agramunt and Selvanera, once/month) to June 2005, with an open chamber (900 mL airflow/minute, 21 cm diameter).

     

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