Water: Add sewage sludge to the soil

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 3
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

19%
Certainty

20%
Harms

35%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Study locations

Key messages

Water use (0 studies)

Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found less runoff from plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it, in one of four comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added sewage sludge.

Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies)

Nutrients (1 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons.

Sediments (0 studies)

Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from plots with a split application of sewage sludge, but not with a single application, compared to plots without added sewage sludge.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, controlled study in 1997–1998 in irrigated fallow land in California, USA, found similar moisture content in plots with or without added sewage sludge. Water availability: Similar moisture content was found in plots with or without added sewage sludge (117 vs 108 g/kg). Methods: Plots (2 x 2 m) had sewage sludge (25 Mg/ha) or no added fertilizer (five plots each). Sewage sludge was added in April 1987, February 1988, and October 1988 and was immediately incorporated into the soil (15 cm depth). Plots were irrigated weekly (100 mm/day). Five soil samples (25–100 mm depth) were taken from each plot.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Martens D.A. & Frankenberger W.T. (1992) Modification of infiltration rates in an organic-amended irrigated soil. Agronomy Journal, 84, 707-717.
A replicated, controlled study (years not reported) on a slope in Murcia, Spain, found that less water was lost from plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it. Water availability: Less water was lost as runoff from plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it, after rainfall events (eight initial events: 2.1 vs 6.0 litres water/m²; later events: 5.7 vs 12.6). Methods: Sewage sludge was added to three treatment plots, but not three control plots (10 x 3 m plots, 15% slope). Runoff water was collected from the lower edge of each plot, after each rainfall event. Enough sewage sludge was added to the soil to increase its organic carbon content by 2%. The soil was rotovated (20 cm depth), to incorporate the sewage sludge.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Ros M., Garcia C. & Hernandez T. (2001) The use of urban organic wastes in the control of erosion in a semiarid Mediterranean soil. Soil Use and Management, 17, 292-293.
A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2006–2008 in a cereal field in the Castelo Branco region, Portugal, found that more nitrate was leached from soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it. Nutrients: More nitrate was leached from soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it, in one of four comparisons (145 vs 49 kg NO₃-N/ha). Implementation options: With a split application of sewage sludge (some in spring, some in autumn), more nitrate was leached from soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it, in 2006/2007 (145 vs 49 kg NO_3-N/ha). However, with a single application in the spring, there was not a significant difference between soils with or without added sewage sludge (2006/2007: 101 vs 49 kg NO₃-N/ha; 2007/2008: 26 vs 23 kg). Methods: Water in the soil was collected in porous ceramic suction cup samplers (four/plot; 0.6–0.7 m depth; 50 kPa for 24 hours), whenever drainage occurred (October–November and April–May; 16 samples in total). There were three plots (5.6 x 8 m) for each of two treatments (single application or split application of sewage sludge) and there were two control plots (no sewage sludge). Maize was grown in spring–summer, and oats were grown in autumn–winter.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Carneiro J.P., Coutinho J. & Trindade H. (2012) Nitrate leaching from a maize × oats double-cropping forage system fertilized with organic residues under Mediterranean conditions. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 160, 29-39.

Please cite as:

Shackelford, G. E., Kelsey, R., Robertson, R. J., Williams, D. R. & Dicks, L. V. (2017) Sustainable Agriculture in California and Mediterranean Climates: Evidence for the effects of selected interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Mediterranean Farmland

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fields Action Link	Trade-off between benefit and harms	26	Synopsis Link
Other biodiversity: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link
Pest regulation: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage Action Link	Trade-off between benefit and harms	8	Synopsis Link