No abstract

Summary This paper reports the range and statistical distribution of oxidation rates of atmospheric CH4 in soils found in Northern Europe in an international study, and compares them with published data for various other ecosystems. It reassesses the size, and the uncertainty in, the global terrestrial CH4 sink, and examines the effect of land‐use change and other factors on the oxidation rate. Only soils with a very high water table were sources of CH4; all others were sinks. Oxidation rates varied from 1 to nearly 200 μg CH4 m−2 h−1; annual rates for sites measured for ≥1 y were 0.1–9.1 kg CH4 ha−1 y−1, with a log‐normal distribution (log‐mean ≈ 1.6 kg CH4 ha−1 y−1). Conversion of natural soils to agriculture reduced oxidation rates by two‐thirds –‐ closely similar to results reported for other regions. N inputs also decreased oxidation rates. Full recovery of rates after these disturbances takes > 100 y. Soil bulk density, water content and gas diffusivity had major impacts on oxidation rates. Trends were similar to those derived from other published work. Increasing acidity reduced oxidation, partially but not wholly explained by poor diffusion through litter layers which did not themselves contribute to the oxidation. The effect of temperature was small, attributed to substrate limitation and low atmospheric concentration. Analysis of all available data for CH4 oxidation rates in situ showed similar log‐normal distributions to those obtained for our results, with generally little difference between different natural ecosystems, or between short‐and longer‐term studies. The overall global terrestrial sink was estimated at 29 Tg CH4 y−1, close to the current IPCC assessment, but with a much wider uncertainty range (7 to > 100 Tg CH4 y−1). Little or no information is available for many major ecosystems; these should receive high priority in future research.

No abstract

Conservation tillage covers a range of tillage practices, mostly non‐inversion, which aim to conserve soil moisture and reduce soil erosion by leaving more than one‐third of the soil surface covered by crop residues. Organic farmers are encouraged to adopt conservation tillage to preserve soil quality and fertility and to prevent soil degradation – mainly erosion and compaction. The potential advantages of conservation tillage in organic farming are reduced erosion, greater macroporosity in the soil surface due to larger number of earthworms, more microbial activity and carbon storage, less run‐off and leaching of nutrients, reduced fuel use and faster tillage. The disadvantages of conservation tillage in organic farming are greater pressure from grass weeds, less suitable than ploughing for poorly drained, unstable soils or high rainfall areas, restricted N availability and restricted crop choice. The success of conservation tillage in organic farming hinges on the choice of crop rotation to ensure weed and disease control and nitrogen availability. Rotation of tillage depth according to crop type, in conjunction with compaction control measures is also required. A high standard of management is required, tailored to local soil and site conditions. Innovative approaches for the application of conservation tillage, such as perennial mulches, mechanical control of cover crops, rotational tillage and controlled traffic, require further practical assessment.

Increased awareness of the role of soil structure in defining the physical fertility or quality of soil has led to the need for a simple assessment relevant to the environmental and economic sustainability of soil productivity. A test is required that is usable by farmer, consultant and researcher alike. Here an assessment of soil structure quality (Sq) is described which is based on a visual key linked to criteria chosen to be as objective as possible. The influences of operator, tillage and crop type on Sq value were tested. The test takes 5–15 min per location and enough replicates were obtained for statistical comparison of data sets. The assessments of individual operators were influenced to an extent by differences between fields, making the use of multiple operators desirable. Differences in soil management were revealed by the test and related to differences in soil physical properties (bulk density, penetration resistance and porosity) and crop growth. Indicative thresholds of soil management are suggested. The assessment should be viewed as complementary to conventional laboratory assessments of soil structure. Visual soil structure assessment can indicate to the soil scientist where to sample and what soil measurements are likely to be worthwhile.