Study

Grazing, tilling and canopy effects on carbon dioxide fluxes in a Spanish dehesa

  • Published source details Uribe C., Inclán R., Hernando L., Román M., Clavero M.A., Roig S. & Miegroet H.V. (2015) Grazing, tilling and canopy effects on carbon dioxide fluxes in a Spanish dehesa. Agroforestry Systems, 89, 305-318

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Exclude grazers

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Exclude grazers

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Soil: Exclude grazers

    A replicated site comparison in 2008–2010 in shrubland in central Spain found less carbon and nitrogen, and higher carbon dioxide emissions, in soils in ungrazed sites, compared to sheep-and-cattle-grazed sites. Organic matter: There was less carbon in soils in ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites, in one of two comparisons (in untilled soils: 3.8–9.6 vs 6.5–15.8 Mg C/ha). Nutrients: There was less nitrogen in soils in ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites, in one of two comparisons (in untilled soils: 0.3–0.7 vs 0.8–1.3 Mg N/ha). Greenhouse gases: More carbon dioxide was lost through soil respiration in ungrazed plots, compared to grazed plots (720–740 vs 640–655 g C/m2/year). Implementation options: Differences in carbon and nitrogen, due to grazing, were found in untilled soils, but not in tilled soils (see above for data on tilled soils). Methods: Eight holm oak Quercus ilex trees were selected in each of two areas grazed by sheep and cattle and in two ungrazed areas. Soils surrounding four trees in each area were tilled in April 2008. Soil respiration was measured nine times in July 2008–February 2010. Soil samples were collected in February 2010 (to measure carbon and nitrogen).

     

  2. Water: Exclude grazers

    A replicated site comparison in 2008–2010 in shrubland in central Spain found less soil moisture in ungrazed plots, compared to sheep-and-cattle-grazed plots. Water availability: Less soil moisture was found in ungrazed plots, compared to grazed plots (4.4–6.5% vs 6.3–7.7%). Methods: Eight holm oak Quercus ilex trees were selected in each of two grazed and two ungrazed areas. Soils surrounding four trees in each area were tilled in April 2008. Soil moisture at 10 cm depth was measured nine times in July 2008–February 2010.

     

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