Study

The soil quality concept as a framework to assess management practices in vulnerable agroecosystems: A case study in Mediterranean vineyards

  • Published source details Salomé C., Coll P., Lardo E., Metay A., Villenave C., Marsden C., Blanchart E., Hinsinger P. & Le C.E. (2016) The soil quality concept as a framework to assess management practices in vulnerable agroecosystems: A case study in Mediterranean vineyards. Ecological Indicators, 61, Part 2, 456-465

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Water: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Water: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

    A replicated site comparison in 2009 in rainfed vineyards in southern France found greater water retention in organically-fertilized soils, compared to inorganically-fertilized soils. Water availability: Greater water retention was found in organically-fertilized soils, compared to inorganically-fertilized soils, in one of three comparisons (22% vs 14% water content at field capacity, by weight). Methods: In 146 plots of three soil types, inorganic fertilizer only (37–69% of plots in each soil type) or at least some organic fertilizer (31–63%) was used for at least five years before soil sampling. Soil samples were collected from the interrows in March–May 2009 (10 homogenized samples/plot, 0–15 cm depth).

     

  2. Water: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

    A replicated site comparison in 2009 in rainfed vineyards in southern France found similar water retention in soils with or without ground cover. Water availability: Similar water retention was found in soils with or without cover crops (data on water content at field capacity not reported). Methods: In 146 plots of three soil types, there was permanent vegetation (4–22% of plots in each soil type), temporary vegetation (48–68%), or bare soil (16–42%) between the vine rows, for at least five years before soil sampling. Soil samples were collected from the interrows in March–May 2009 (10 homogenized samples/plot, 0–15 cm depth).

     

  3. Soil: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

    A replicated site comparison in 2009 in rainfed vineyards in southern France found more organic matter, phosphorus, and soil organisms in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils. Organic matter: More organic carbon was found in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils, in three of six comparisons (permanent cover crops: 12–20 vs 6–14 g C/kg soil). Nutrients: More phosphorus was found in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils, in one of six comparisons (permanent ground cover: 11 vs 7 mg available P/kg soil). Similar amounts of nitrogen and potassium, and similar pH levels, were found in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils (data not reported). Soil organisms: More microbial biomass (measured as carbon) was found in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils, in four of six comparisons (50–140 vs 30–90 mg C/kg soil), and more nematodes were found in one of three comparisons (747–1,371 vs 351 total nematodes/100 g soil). Implementation options: More organic carbon was found in soils with permanent ground cover, compared to temporary ground cover, in one of three comparisons (18 vs 13 g C/kg soil), and more phosphorus was found in one of three comparisons (11 vs 7 mg available P/kg soil). More microbial biomass (measured as carbon) was found in soils with permanent ground cover, compared to temporary, in two of three comparisons (120–150 vs 90–120 mg C/kg soil), and more nematodes were found in one of three comparisons (1,371 vs 747 total nematodes/100 g soil). Methods: In 146 plots of three soil types, there was permanent vegetation (4–22% of plots in each soil type), temporary vegetation (48–68%), or bare soil (16–42%) between the vine rows, for at least five years before soil sampling. Soil samples were collected from the interrows in March–May 2009 (10 homogenized samples/plot, 0–15 cm depth).

     

  4. Soil: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

    A replicated site comparison in 2009 in rainfed vineyards in southern France found more organic matter, nitrogen, and microbial biomass, but less phosphorus and fewer nematodes, in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. Organic matter: More organic carbon was found in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one of three comparisons (11 vs 7 g C/kg soil). Nutrients: More nitrogen was found in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one of three comparisons (1.1 vs 0.7 g N/kg soil), but less phosphorus was found in one of three comparisons (6 vs 8 mg P/kg soil). Similar amounts of potassium and similar pH levels were found in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer (data not reported). Soil organisms: More microbial biomass (measured as carbon) was found in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one of three comparisons (49 vs 23 mg C/kg soil), and fewer nematodes were found in one of three comparisons (616 vs 860 total nematodes/100 g soil). Methods: In 146 plots of three soil types, inorganic fertilizer only (37–69% of plots in each soil type) or at least some organic fertilizer (31–63%) was used for at least five years before soil sampling. Soil samples were collected from the interrows in March–May 2009 (10 homogenized samples/plot, 0–15 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