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 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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust