Study

Root Growth of Barley as Affected by Tillage Systems and Nitrogen Fertilization in a Semiarid Mediterranean Agroecosystem

  • Published source details Morell F.J., Cantero-Martínez C., Álvaro-Fuentes J. & Lampurlanés J. (2011) Root Growth of Barley as Affected by Tillage Systems and Nitrogen Fertilization in a Semiarid Mediterranean Agroecosystem. Agronomy Journal, 103, 1270-1275

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Water: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Water: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2009 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (3,5)), found more water in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Water availability: More water was found in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in seven of 16 comparisons (120–215 vs 105–195 g water/g soil). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A cultivator was used for reduced tillage (10–15 cm depth, 50% incorporation of crop residues), in October or November. A seed drill and herbicide were used for no tillage. Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Soil samples were collected four times/year in 2005–2009 (0–100 cm depth).

     

  2. Crop production: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2009 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (4,5)), found less barley straw in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of nine comparisons. Crop yield: Less barley straw was found in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of nine comparisons (321 vs 456 g/m2). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A cultivator was used for reduced tillage (10–15 cm depth, 50% incorporation of crop residues). A seed drill and herbicide were used for no tillage. Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Mature barley was harvested in June 2006–2009 (three samples/plot, 50 cm of one row/sample).

     

  3. Water: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2009 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (5,9)), found that tillage had inconsistent effects on water in soils. Water availability: More water was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in five of 16 comparisons (160–235 vs 135–215 g water/g soil), but less water was found in one of 16 comparisons (100 vs 115). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m plots), in October or November. A mouldboard plough was used for conventional tillage (25–30 cm depth, 100% incorporation of crop residues). A cultivator was used for reduced tillage (10–15 cm depth, 50% incorporation of crop residues). Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Soil samples were collected four times/year in 2005–2009 (0–100 cm depth).

     

  4. Water: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2009 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (6,8)), found that tillage had inconsistent effects on water in soils. Water availability: More water was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in 11 of 16 comparisons (110–240 vs 90–215 g water/g soil), but less water was found in one of 16 comparisons (100 vs 115). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A mouldboard plough was used for conventional tillage (25–30 cm depth, 100% incorporation of crop residues), in October or November. A seed drill and herbicide were used for no tillage. Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Soil samples were collected four times/year in 2005–2009 (0–100 cm depth).

     

  5. Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2009 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (4,11,13,15)), found higher crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop yield: Higher barley yields were found in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in six of nine comparisons (1,350–2,500 vs 300–700 kg/ha). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A mouldboard plough was used for conventional tillage (25–30 cm depth, 100% incorporation of crop residues), in October or November. A seed drill and herbicide were used for no tillage. Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Mature barley was harvested in June 2006–2009.

     

  6. Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2009 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (3,12,14,17)), found more barley straw in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop yield: More barley straw was found in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of six comparisons (456–484 vs 210–242 g/m2). In one of three years, the barley crop failed with conventional tillage, but not with reduced tillage. Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m plots). A mouldboard plough was used for conventional tillage (25–30 cm depth, 100% incorporation of crop residues). A cultivator was used for reduced tillage (10–15 cm depth, 50% incorporation of crop residues). Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Mature barley was harvested in June 2006–2009 (three samples/plot, 50 cm of one row/sample).

     

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