Study

Dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) yielding and weed infestation response, under different tillage conditions

  • Published source details Santín-Montanyá M.I., Zambrana E., Fernández-Getino A.P. & Tenorio J.L. (2014) Dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) yielding and weed infestation response, under different tillage conditions. Crop Protection, 65, 122-128

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Pest regulation: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Pest regulation: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

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. Pest regulation: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1994–2009 in a rainfed pea-cereal field near Madrid, Spain, found fewer weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Pest numbers: Fewer weeds were found in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in two of four comparisons (5.1–11.9 vs 11.5–15.4 plants/m2). Similar numbers of weed species were found in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage (data reported as an index of species richness). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on four plots each (each with three 10 x 25 m sub-plots, with different pea-cereal rotations), in October or November. A chisel plough was used for reduced tillage (10 cm depth). A seed drill and herbicide were used for no tillage. The peas were not fertilized. Weeds were identified and counted in four quadrats/sub-plot (0.125 m2 quadrats).

     

  2. Pest regulation: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1994–2009 in a rainfed pea-cereal field near Madrid, Spain, found more weeds in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Pest numbers: More weeds were found in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of four comparisons (11.2–15.4 vs 8.8–12.4 plants/m2). Similar numbers of weed species were found in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage (data reported as an index of species richness). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on four plots each (each with three 10 x 25 m sub-plots, with different pea-cereal rotations), in October or November. A mouldboard plough was used for conventional tillage (30 cm depth). A chisel plough was used for reduced tillage (10 cm depth). The peas were not fertilized. Weeds were identified and counted in four quadrats/sub-plot (0.125 m2 quadrats).

     

  3. Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1994–2009 in a rainfed pea-cereal field near Madrid, Spain, found that tillage had inconsistent effects on weeds. Pest numbers: Fewer weeds were found in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons (5.1 vs 9.3 plants/m2), but more weeds were found in one of four comparisons (6.7 vs 3.4). Similar numbers of weed species were found in plots with no tillage or conventional tillage (data reported as an index of species richness). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on four plots each (each with three 10 x 25 m sub-plots, with different pea-cereal rotations), in October or November. A mouldboard plough was used for conventional tillage (30 cm depth). A seed drill and herbicide were used for no tillage. The peas were not fertilized. Weeds were identified and counted in four quadrats/sub-plot (0.125 m2 quadrats).

     

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1994–2009 in a rainfed pea-cereal field near Madrid, Spain, found higher pea yields, larger peas, and/or more peas/pod in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Crop yield: Higher grain and straw yields were found in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons (peas, grain: 0.6 vs 0.08 t/ha; straw: 2.9 vs 1.5 t/ha). Crop quality: Larger peas and more peas/pod were found in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons (154 vs 80 g/1,000 peas; 5.4 vs 4.8 peas/pod), but no difference in the length of pea pods was found (5.9–7.0 vs 5.7–7.0 cm). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on four plots each (each with three 10 x 25 m sub-plots, with different pea-cereal rotations), in October or November. A chisel plough was used for reduced tillage (10 cm depth). A seed drill and herbicide were used for no tillage. Peas were planted in November 2005–2008 and harvested in June 2006–2009. The peas were not fertilized.

     

  5. Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1994–2009 in a pea field near Madrid, Spain, found higher pea yields and different crop qualities in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop yield: Higher pea yields were found in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons (0.6 vs 0.3 t/ha), but no differences in straw yields were found (2.6–3.5 vs 2.3–3.3 t/ha). Crop quality: Smaller peas were found in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons (238 vs 267 g/1,000 peas). Longer pea pods were found in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons (7.0 vs 6.5 cm), but shorter pods, with fewer peas, were found in one of four comparisons (5.9 vs 6.6 cm pods, 5.4 vs 6.4 peas/pod). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on four plots each (each with three 10 x 25 m sub-plots, with different pea-cereal rotations), in October or November. A mouldboard plough was used for conventional tillage (30 cm depth). A seed drill and herbicide were used for no tillage. Peas were planted in November 2005–2008 and harvested in June 2006–2009. The peas were not fertilized.

     

  6. Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1994–2009 in a rainfed pea-cereal field near Madrid, Spain, found lower pea yields and differences in crop quality in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop yield: Lower grain yields were found in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons (peas: 0.08 vs 0.3 t/ha), and lower straw yields were found in two of four comparisons (1.5–2.4 vs 2.3–2.8 t/ha). Crop quality: Smaller peas, shorter pods, and fewer peas/pod were found in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons (80 vs 156 g/1,000 seeds; 5.7 vs 6.6 cm/pod; 4.8 vs 6.4 seeds/pod), but longer pods were found in one of four comparisons (7.0 vs 6.5 cm/pod). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on four plots each (with three 10 x 25 m sub-plots each, with different pea-cereal rotations), in October or November. A mouldboard plough was used for conventional tillage (30 cm depth). A chisel plough was used for reduced tillage (10 cm depth). Peas were planted in November 2005–2008 and harvested in June 2006–2009. The peas were not fertilized.

     

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