Action

Water: Use crop rotations

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    20%
  • Certainty
    20%
  • Harms
    19%

Study locations

Key messages

Water use (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found higher water-use efficiency in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower water-use efficiency in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in some comparisons.

Water availability (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia found similar amounts of water in soils with crop rotations or continuous crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found inconsistent differences in water storage in soils with or without crop rotations.

Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies)

Nutrients (0 studies)

Sediments (0 studies)

Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found no difference in water-use efficiency between plots with different crop rotations.

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

  1. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1999–2005 in a rainfed cereal field in northeast Spain found that wheat used water less efficiently in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat. Water use: Wheat used water less efficiently in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in two of four comparisons (7–8 vs 9 kg grain/mm water/ha), but there was not a significant difference in water-use efficiency in barley, with or without crop rotations (10–11 vs 9). Similar amounts of water were used by cereals, in plots with or without rotations (wheat phase: 335–345 vs 300 mm; barley phase: 288–297 vs 293 mm). Implementation options: There was no difference in the water-use efficiency of cereals between wheat-barley-rapeseed and wheat-barley-vetch rotations (wheat: 7.2 vs 7.5 kg grain/mm water/ha; barley: 10.3 vs 10.9). Methods: Continuous wheat (one plot), continuous barley (one plot), a wheat-barley-rapeseed Brassica napus rotation (one plot/phase), or a wheat-barley-vetch Vicia sativa rotation (one plot/phase) were grown in each of three blocks. Each plot was 50 x 8 m. Wheat and barley were sown in early November (450 seeds/m2). Vetch and rapeseed were sown in late September to early October (150 and 80 seeds seeds/m2, respectively). Fertilizer was used on all plots (except vetch phases) in January and February. Herbicide was used in all plots.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2005 in a rainfed winter wheat field in Central Anatolia, Turkey, found that wheat used water to produce grain more efficiently in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, but there were inconsistent differences in soil water storage between plots with or without crop rotations. Water use: Wheat used water more efficiently in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat (5.4–9.4 vs 2.3 kg/ha/mm). Water availability: Less water was found in soils with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in five of 30 comparisons (116–154 vs 150–167 mm), but more water was found in two of 30 comparisons (156–163 vs 125 mm). Methods: Wheat was grown continuously (three plots) or in rotation with one of five other phases (three plots each: winter lentil, chickpea, sunflower, spring lentil, or fallow). Each plot was 5 x 15 m. All plots were fertilized. Before the experiment, these rotations had been used for 21 years in this field. The wheat was harvested in July. Soil moisture was measured with a neutron probe (0–90 cm depth) and soil water storage was calculated from the change in soil moisture.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2009–2010 in a rainfed wheat field in the Wongan Hills, Western Australia, found similar amounts of water in soils with a lupin-wheat sequence or a wheat-wheat sequence. Water availability: Similar amounts of water were found in soils with or without crop rotation (8.1–17% median water-filled pore space). Methods: Wheat or lupin Lupinus angustifolius was planted on six 150 m2 plots each, in June 2009. In June 2010, wheat was planted on all plots. Lime was added to half of the plots (3.5 t/ha). Different fertilizers were used on each crop (e.g., no nitrogen was used on lupin). No plots were tilled. Volumetric water content was measured with moisture probes (10 cm depth, in eight of 12 plots, every 30 minutes, for two years). Soil samples were collected every 7–14 days for two years (0–10 cm depth, eight samples/plot).

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2010–2011 in a rainfed field in Western Australia found similar amounts of water in soils with a canola-wheat sequence or a wheat-wheat sequence. Water availability: Similar amounts of water were found in soils with or without rotations (volumetric soil moisture content: 10–19% at 0–10 cm depth during the growing season in 2011; water content: 156–177 mm in 2011). Methods: Wheat or canola was grown on three plots each, in 2010, and wheat was grown on all plots in 2011. Each plot was 1.4 x 40 m. Fertilizer (150 kg/ha/year) and herbicide were used on all plots. Soil water was measured with a neutron moisture meter (10–150 cm depth, calibrated by measurements of gravimetric water content and bulk density at the same depths) in September 2010–December 2011.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Mediterranean Farmland

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Mediterranean Farmland
Mediterranean Farmland

Mediterranean Farmland - Published 2017

Mediterranean Farmland synopsis

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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust