Study

Yield and water use efficiency of barley in a semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem: Long-term effects of tillage and N fertilization

  • Published source details Morell F.J., Lampurlanés J., Álvaro-Fuentes J. & Cantero-Martínez C. (2011) Yield and water use efficiency of barley in a semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem: Long-term effects of tillage and N fertilization. Soil & Tillage Research, 117, 76-84

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Crop production: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. 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 (5,6)), found higher barley yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Crop yield: Higher barley yields were found in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage (2,062 vs 1,792 kg/ha). 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). Mature barley was harvested in June 2006–2009.

     

  2. 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 (3,6)), found higher water-use efficiency in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons. Water use: Higher water-use efficiency was found in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons (6.0 vs 4.3 kg barley grain/mm rainfall). 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 five times/year (two samples/plot, 4 cm diameter soil auger, 0–100 cm depth) in 2005–2009. Mature barley was harvested in June 2006–2009.

     

  3. 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 (6,9)), found that barley used water more efficiently in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of three comparisons. Water use: Higher water-use efficiency was found in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of three comparisons (5.7–6.0 vs 1.8–2.1 kg barley grain/mm rainfall). 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 five times/year (two samples/plot, 4 cm diameter soil auger, 0–100 cm depth) in 2005–2009. Mature barley was harvested in June 2006–2009.

     

  4. 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 (5,8)), found higher water-use efficiency in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of three comparisons. Water use: Higher water-use efficiency was found in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of three comparisons (4.3–5.2 vs 1.8–2.1 kg barley grain/mm rainfall). 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 five times/year (two samples/plot, 4 cm diameter soil auger, 0–100 cm depth) in 2005–2009. Mature barley was harvested in June 2006–2009.

     

  5. Soil: 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 (2,8,12)), found less nitrate in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Nutrients: Less nitrate was found in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage (270 vs 461 kg N–NO3/ha), but no differences in ammonium were found (amounts of ammonium not reported). 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 when sowing the crop in November 2005–2008 (two samples/plot, 4 cm diameter soil auger, 0–100 cm depth).

     

  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 higher crop yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop yield: Higher barley yields were found in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in six of nine comparisons (1,050–1,950 vs 300–700 kg/ha). 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). Mature barley was harvested in June 2006–2009.

     

  7. 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 (4,11,12,15)), found higher barley 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 (2,062 vs 1,155 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.

     

  8. Soil: 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 (4,17,24,26)), found less nitrate in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of two comparisons. Nutrients: Less nitrate was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage (270 vs 852 kg N–NO3/ha), but no differences in ammonium were found (amounts of ammonium not reported). 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 when sowing the crop in November 2005–2008 (two samples/plot, 4 cm diameter soil auger, 0–100 cm depth).

     

  9. Soil: 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 (3,20,25,30)), found less nitrate in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Nutrients: Less nitrate was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage (461 vs 852 kg N-NO3/ha), but no differences in ammonium were found (amounts of ammonium not reported). 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 when sowing the crop in November 2005–2008 (two samples/plot, 4 cm diameter soil auger, 0–100 cm depth).

     

Output references

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, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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