Study

Soil CO2 fluxes following tillage and rainfall events in a semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem: Effects of tillage systems and nitrogen fertilization

  • Published source details Morell F.J., Álvaro-Fuentes J., Lampurlanés J. & Cantero-Martínez C. (2010) Soil CO2 fluxes following tillage and rainfall events in a semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem: Effects of tillage systems and nitrogen fertilization. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 139, 167-173

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Water: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

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 1996–2008 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (5,6)) 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 (0.09–0.25 vs 0.06–0.21 g water/g dry soil). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m). A cultivator was used for reduced tillage (10–15 cm depth, 50% incorporation of crop residues). Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Water content was measured in soil samples (0–5 cm depth).

     

  2. Water: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2008 in a rainfed barley field in northeast Spain (same study as (8,9)) found more water in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Water availability: More water was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in 10 of 16 comparisons (0.07–0.21 vs 0.05–0.18 g water/g dry soil). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m). A mouldboard plough or a disc plough was used for conventional tillage (25–30 cm depth, 100% incorporation of crop residues). A cultivator was used for reduced tillage (10–15 cm depth, 50% incorporation of crop residues). Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Water content was measured in soil samples (0–5 cm depth).

     

  3. Water: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2008 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (8,9)), found more water in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Water availability: More water was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage (0.09–0.25 vs 0.05–0.18 g water/g dry soil). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m). A mouldboard plough or a disk plough was used for conventional tillage (25–30 cm depth, 100% incorporation of crop residues). Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Water content was measured in soil samples (0–5 cm depth).

     

  4. Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2008 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (2,11,12)), found similar amounts of greenhouse gas in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. Greenhouse gases: Similar amounts of carbon dioxide were found in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage (amounts of carbon dioxide not reported). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m). A cultivator was used for reduced tillage (10–15 cm depth, 50% incorporation of crop residues). Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Greenhouse gas was sampled with an open chamber (2 samples/plot, 21 cm diameter, 900 mL airflow/minute), in 2005–2008 (several samples within 2 days before and after tillage).

     

  5. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2008 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (4,23,24,26)), found more greenhouse gas in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Greenhouse gases: More carbon dioxide was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage (amounts of carbon dioxide not reported). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m). A mouldboard plough or a disk plough was used for conventional tillage (25–30 cm depth, 100% incorporation of crop residues). Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Greenhouse gas was sampled in 2005–2008 (two samples/plot, open chamber, 21 cm diameter, 900 mL airflow/minute, several samples within two days before and after tillage).

     

  6. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2008 in a rainfed barley field in the Ebro river valley, Spain (same study as (3,25,26,30)), found more greenhouse gas in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Greenhouse gases: More carbon dioxide was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage (amount of carbon dioxide not reported). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on nine plots each (50 x 6 m). A mouldboard plough or a disc plough was used for conventional tillage (25–30 cm depth, 100% incorporation of crop residues). A cultivator was used for reduced tillage (10–15 cm depth, 50% incorporation of crop residues). Two-thirds of the plots were fertilized (60 or 120 kg N/ha). Greenhouse gas was sampled with an open chamber (2 samples/plot, 21 cm diameter, 900 mL airflow/minute), in 2005–2008 (several samples within 2 days before and after tillage).

     

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 the 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