Study

Design of riparian buffer strips affects soil quality parameters

  • Published source details Cardinali A., Carletti P., Nardi S. & Zanin G. (2014) Design of riparian buffer strips affects soil quality parameters. Applied Soil Ecology, 80, 67-76.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Plant buffer strips

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Plant buffer strips

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Soil: Plant buffer strips

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in (1997–2010) in a maize field in the Po Valley, Italy, found more organic matter, nitrogen, and microbial biomass in buffered plots, compared to unbuffered plots. Organic matter: More organic matter was found in buffered plots, in seven of eight comparisons (0.25–0.35% vs 0.22%). Nutrients: More nitrogen was found in buffered plots, in seven of eight comparisons (0.13–0.14% vs 0.1%). Soil organisms: More microbial biomass (measured as carbon) was found in buffered plots, in six of eight comparisons (316–566 vs 257 mg/kg dry soil), and more microbial biomass (measured as nitrogen) was found in two of eight comparisons (40–47 vs 27 mg/kg dry soil). Implementation options: More organic matter was found in plots with 3 m buffers, compared to 6 m buffers (0.30–0.34% vs 0.25–0.27%). Similar soil nitrogen was found in plots with 3 m buffers and 6 m buffers (1%). Less microbial biomass (measured as carbon) was found in plots with 3 m buffers, compared to 6 m buffers, in one of two comparisons (450 vs 541 mg/kg dry soil), but more was found in one of two comparisons (391 vs 327 mg). Less microbial biomass (measured as nitrogen) was found in plots with 3 m buffers, in one of two comparisons (33 vs 40 mg/kg dry soil). Similar amounts of organic matter were found in plots that had buffers with one or two tree rows (0.20–0.28%). More nitrogen was found in plots that had buffers with one tree row, compared to two, in one of two comparisons (0.14% vs 0.12%). Similar amounts of microbial biomass (measured as carbon) were found in plots that had buffers with one or two tree rows (316–565 mg/kg dry soil). More microbial biomass (measured as nitrogen) was found in plots that had buffers with one tree row, compared to two, in one of two comparisons (40 vs 34 mg/kg dry soil). Methods: Maize plots had grass buffers (3 m grass: tall fescue Festuca arudinacea), grass and woody buffers (3 m grass with one tree row; 6 m grass with one tree row; 6 m grass with two tree rows), or no buffers (two replicates of each plot). Trees included guelder-rose Viburnum opulus and London sycamore Platanus hybrida. Plots were ploughed (35–40 cm depth) and harrowed before sowing crops. Fertilizers were applied (April: 400 kg/ha of NPK; May: 450 kg/ha of urea). Grass buffers were mown twice a year in growing season (residues were not removed) and tree offshoots were removed. Trees were coppiced in 2003 and 2010. Soil samples were taken (0–15 cm) in April and October 2010.

     

  2. Water: Plant buffer strips

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1997–2010 in arable farmland in the Po Valley, Italy, found more soil moisture in plots with buffers, compared to plots without buffers. Water availability: Soil moisture was higher in buffered plots, compared to unbuffered plots, in two of eight comparisons (20% vs 19%). Implementation options: Soil moisture was higher in plots with 3 m buffers, compared to 6 m buffers, in one of two comparisons (20% vs 18%). Methods: Maize plots had grass buffers (3 m grass: tall fescue Festuca arudinacea), grass and woody buffers (3 m grass with one tree row; 6 m grass with one tree row; 6 m grass with two tree rows), or no buffers (two replicates of each plot). Trees included guelder-rose Viburnum opulus and London sycamore Platanus hybrida. Plots were ploughed (35–40 cm depth) and harrowed before sowing crops. Fertilizers were applied (April: 400 kg/ha of NPK; May: 450 kg/ha of urea). Grass buffers were mown twice a year in growing season (residues were not removed) and tree offshoots were removed. Trees were coppiced in 2003 and 2010. Soil samples were taken (0–15 cm) in April and October 2010.

     

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