Study

Soil carbon dioxide fluxes following tillage in semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystems

  • Published source details Álvaro-Fuentes J., Cantero-Martínez C., López M.V. & Arrúe J.L. (2007) Soil carbon dioxide fluxes following tillage in semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystems. Soil and Tillage Research, 96, 331-341.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Water: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: 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 in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Water: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2005 on rainfed farms in the Ebro river valley, Spain, found more water in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Water availability: More water was found in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in 10 of 18 comparisons, in the two days after tillage (0.08–0.26 vs 0.05–0.23 g water/g soil). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on seven plots each (33–50 x 7–10 m plots), on a total of two farms, with multiple crops. A cultivator (15 cm depth) or chisel plough (25–30 cm depth) was used on plots with reduced tillage. Herbicide was used on plots with no tillage. Water was measured in soil samples (5 cm depth), at three times (0, 24, and 48 hours after tillage).

     

  2. Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2005 on rainfed farms in the Ebro river valley, Spain, found less greenhouse gas in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Greenhouse gases: Less carbon dioxide was found in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in six of 20 comparisons, in the two days after tillage (0.1–0.6 vs 0.1–6.4 g CO2/m2/hour). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on seven plots each (33–50 x 7–10 m plots), on a total of two farms, with multiple crops. A cultivator (15 cm depth) or chisel plough (25–30 cm depth) was used for reduced tillage. Herbicide was used for no tillage. Carbon dioxide was measured with a dynamic chamber (21 cm diameter, 900 mL airflow/minute, two samples/plot), 4–6 times in the 48 hours after tillage.

     

  3. Water: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2005 on rainfed farms in the Ebro river valley, Spain, found that tillage had inconsistent effects on water in soils. Water availability: More water was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in 11 of 24 comparisons, in the two days after tillage (0.04–0.26 vs 0.02–0.20 g water/g soil), but less water was found in 3 of 24 comparisons (0.08–0.11 vs 0.09–0.14). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on ten plots each (33–50 x 7–10 m plots), on a total of three farms, with multiple crops. A mouldboard or subsoil plough was used on plots with conventional tillage (25–40 cm depth). Herbicide was used on plots with no tillage. Water was measured in soil samples (5 cm depth), at three times (0, 24, and 48 hours after tillage).

     

  4. Water: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2005 on rainfed farms in the Ebro river valley, Spain, found that tillage had inconsistent effects on water in soils. Water availability: More water was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in 4 of 18 comparisons, in the two days after tillage (0.10–0.23 vs 0.09–0.20 g water/g soil), but less water was found in 6 of 18 comparisons (0.05–0.11 vs 0.08–0.14). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on seven plots each (33–50 x 7–10 m plots), on a total of two farms, with multiple crops. A mouldboard or subsoil plough was used on plots with conventional tillage (25–40 cm depth). A cultivator (15 cm depth) or chisel plough (25–30 cm depth) was used on plots with reduced tillage. Water was measured in soil samples (5 cm depth), at three times (0, 24, and 48 hours after tillage).

     

  5. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2005 on rainfed farms in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (10)), found less greenhouse gas in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Greenhouse gases: Less carbon dioxide was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in 18 of 39 comparisons, in the two days after tillage (0.1–2.3 vs 0.1–13.3 g CO2/m2/hour). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on ten plots each (33–50 x 7–10 m plots), on a total of three farms, with multiple crops. A mouldboard or subsoil plough was used on plots with conventional tillage (25–40 cm depth). Herbicide was used on plots with no tillage. Carbon dioxide was measured with a dynamic chamber (21 cm diameter, 900 mL airflow/minute, two samples/plot), 4–6 times in the 48 hours after tillage.

     

  6. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2005 on rainfed farms in the Ebro river valley, Spain, found less greenhouse gas in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Greenhouse gases: Less carbon dioxide was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in 12 of 30 comparisons, in the two days after tillage (0.1–6.4 vs 0.1–13.3 g CO2/m2/hour). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on seven plots each (33–50 x 7–10 m plots), on a total of two farms, with multiple crops. A mouldboard or subsoil plough was used for conventional tillage (25–40 cm depth). A cultivator (15 cm depth) or chisel plough (25–30 cm depth) was used for reduced tillage. Carbon dioxide was measured with a dynamic chamber (21 cm diameter, 900 mL airflow/minute, two samples/plot), 4–6 times in the 48 hours after tillage.

     

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 18

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 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