Study

Tillage system did not affect weed diversity in a 23-year experiment in Mediterranean dryland

  • Published source details Plaza E.H., Kozak M., Navarrete L. & Gonzalez-Andujar J.L. (2011) Tillage system did not affect weed diversity in a 23-year experiment in Mediterranean dryland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 140, 102-105

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Pest regulation: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Pest regulation: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fields

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1985–2008 in a rainfed wheat-vetch field near Madrid, Spain, found fewer weed species in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Pest numbers: Fewer weed species were found in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage (6.7 vs 8.3 species), but no differences in the evenness or diversity of weed communities were found (reported as Pielou’s index and Shannon’s index). Methods: Reduced tillage or no tillage was used on four plots each (20 x 40 m). A cultivator and/or a chisel plough were used for reduced tillage (depths not reported). Pre-emergence herbicide was used for no tillage (and the wheat stubble was chopped, before the vetch was planted). Wheat and vetch were grown in rotation. Post-emergence herbicide was used on all plots, when the wheat was tillering. Fertilizer and a seed drill were used on all plots. Weeds were sampled when wheat was tillering or vetch stems were elongating (February–April 1986–2008, 5–20 samples/plot, 30 x 33 cm sampling areas).

     

  2. Pest regulation: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1985–2008 in a rainfed wheat-vetch field near Madrid, Spain, found more weed species in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Pest numbers: More weed species were found in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage (8.3 vs 7.3 species), but no differences in the evenness or diversity of weed communities were found (reported as Pielou’s index and Shannon’s index). Methods: Conventional tillage or reduced tillage was used on four plots each (20 x 40 m). A mouldboard plough and a cultivator were used for conventional tillage (depths not reported). A cultivator and/or a chisel plough were used for reduced tillage (depths not reported). Wheat and vetch were grown in rotation. Post-emergence herbicide was used on all plots, when the wheat was tillering. All plots were fertilized. Weeds were sampled when the wheat was tillering or the vetch stems were elongating (February–April 1986–2008, 5–20 samples/plot, 30 x 33 cm sampling areas).

     

  3. Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1985–2008 in a rainfed wheat-vetch field near Madrid, Spain, found similar numbers of weed species in plots with no tillage or conventional tillage. Pest numbers: Similar numbers of weed species were found in plots with or without tillage (6.7 vs 7.3 species), and no differences in the evenness or diversity of weed communities were found (reported as Pielou’s index and Shannon’s index). Methods: Wheat and vetch were grown in rotation. Conventional tillage or no tillage was used on four plots each (20 x 40 m). A mouldboard plough and a cultivator were used for conventional tillage (depths not reported). Pre-emergence herbicide was used for no tillage (and the wheat stubble was chopped, before the vetch was planted). Post-emergence herbicide was used on all plots, when the wheat was tillering. Fertilizer and a seed drill were used on all plots. Weeds were sampled when the wheat was tillering or the vetch stems were elongating (February–April 1986–2008, 5–20 samples/plot, 30 x 33 cm sampling areas).

     

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, 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