Study

Effect of land use and management on the early stages of soil water erosion in French Mediterranean vineyards

  • Published source details Blavet D., De N.G., Le B.Y., Leonard M., Maillo L., Laurent J.Y., Asseline J., Leprun J.C., Arshad M.a. & Roose E. (2009) Effect of land use and management on the early stages of soil water erosion in French Mediterranean vineyards. Soil and Tillage Research, 106, 124-136

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Soil: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

    A replicated, controlled study in 1999 in a vineyard in southern France found similar amounts of erosion in plots with grass or bare soil between the vine rows. Soil erosion and aggregation: Similar amounts of soil were lost in runoff water from plots with grass or bare soil between the vine rows (26–112 vs 45–207 g soil/m2). Methods: One interrow was cultivated (10 cm depth) and planted with grasses, and one interrow was managed conventionally (with herbicide), for four months each. Rainfall was simulated in three plots, in each interrow, in June 1999 (1 x 1 m plots, 60 mm water/hour, for 60 minutes). Soil loss was measured in each plot (200 observation points/m2).

     

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

    A replicated, controlled study in 1999 in a vineyard in southern France found less runoff from plots with grass, compared to bare soil, between the vine rows. Water availability: Less water was lost as runoff from plots with grass between the vine rows (17–45 vs 26–60 mm runoff/100 mm simulated rainfall). Similar amounts of water infiltration were found in plots with grass or bare soil between the vine rows (9 vs 10 mm). Sediments: Similar amounts of sediment were found in runoff from plots with grass or bare soil between the vine rows (2.7–4.9 vs 3.8–5.7 g soil/litre water). Methods: One interrow was cultivated (10 cm depth) and planted with grasses (without herbicide), and another interrow was chemically weeded (with herbicide: conventional management), for four months each. Rainfall was simulated in three plots (1 x 1 m plots) in each interrow (1 x 1 m plots, 60 mm water/hour, for 60 minutes). Soil samples were collected in each plot (200 observation points/m2; 5 topsoil samples/plot, 0–5 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