Study

Soil organic matter degradation in an agricultural chronosequence under different tillage regimes evaluated by organic matter pools, enzymatic activities and CPMAS ¹³C NMR

  • Published source details Panettieri M., Knicker H., Murillo J.M., Madejón E. & Hatcher P.G. (2014) Soil organic matter degradation in an agricultural chronosequence under different tillage regimes evaluated by organic matter pools, enzymatic activities and CPMAS ¹³C NMR. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 78, 170-181.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2008–2011 in a rainfed wheat-sunflower-pea field near Seville, Spain (same study as (6)), found similar amounts of organic matter and soil organisms in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. Organic matter: Similar amounts of organic carbon were found in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage (7–10 vs 6–9 g C/kg soil). Soil organisms: Similar amounts of microbial biomass (measured as carbon) were found in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage (581–746 vs 740–958 mg C/kg soil). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on three plots each (20 x 9 m plots). A chisel plough (15–20 cm depth, every other year) and a disc harrow (5–7 cm depth) were used for reduced tillage. A seed drill was used for no tillage. More than 60% of crop residues were retained in all plots. Soil samples were collected in January 2011 (0–25 cm depth, five samples/plot).

     

  2. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2004–2011 in rainfed wheat-sunflower-pea fields near Seville, Spain (same study as (13,38)), found more organic matter in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Organic matter: More organic carbon was found in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of three comparisons, in medium-term plots (2004–2011, 0–5 cm depth: 11 vs 9 g C/kg soil), but no differences were found in short-term plots (2008–2011: 7–10 vs 7–9 g C/kg soil). Soil organisms: Similar amounts of microbial biomass (measured as carbon) were found in soils with no tillage or conventional tillage (581–746 vs 604–858 mg C/kg soil). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on three plots each (20 x 9 m plots), in each of two experiments: a short-term experiment (2008–2011), and a medium-term experiment (2004–2011). A mouldboard plough (25–30 cm depth), a cultivator (15–20 cm depth, two passes), and a disk harrow (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. A seed drill was used for no tillage, and crop residues were retained (>60% cover). Soil samples were collected in January 2011 (0–25 cm depth, five samples/plot).

     

  3. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1991–2011 in rainfed wheat-sunflower-pea fields near Seville, Spain (same study as (16,37)), found more organic matter and more soil organisms in soils with twenty years of reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Organic matter: More organic carbon was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in two of three comparisons, in long-term plots (1991–2011, 0–10 cm depth: 13–14 vs 10–11 g C/kg soil), but no differences were found in short-term plots (2008–2011: 6–9 vs 7–9 g C/kg soil). Soil organisms: More microbial biomass (measured as carbon) was found in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of three comparisons, in long-term plots (1991–2011, 0–5 cm depth: 580 vs 474 mg C/kg soil), but no differences were found in short-term plots (2008–2011: 740–958 vs 689–868 mg C/kg soil). Methods: Reduced tillage or conventional tillage was used on three plots each, in each of two experiments: a short-term experiment (2008–2011, 20 x 9 m plots), and a long-term experiment (1991–2011, 20 x 14 m plots). A mouldboard plough (25–30 cm depth), a cultivator (15–20 cm depth, two passes), and a disc harrow (15 cm depth) were used for conventional tillage. A chisel plough (15–20 cm depth, every other year) and a disc harrow (5–7 cm depth) were used for reduced tillage, and crop residues were retained (>60% cover). Soil samples were collected in January 2011 (0–25 cm depth, five samples/plot).

     

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 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