Is the cover crop practice suitable for soil and water conservation in olive tree cropping? Rainfall, runoff, sediments, nutrient and organic carbon losses from 8 x60-m plots were measured during four hydrological years (2002 to 2007) in a field trial, in which two different soil management systems were used to confirm this hypothesis: a cover crop, (CC), and conventional tillage, (CT). The plots were located in a private olive tree farm on a sandy-loam soil, near Seville, southern Spain. The cover crop, as compared to conventional tillage, efficiently reduced runoff and sediment yield down to tolerable levels, 5.68% of the rainfall being converted to runoff, and the soil loss reaching 0.04 kg m-2 year-1 , as the average of four years. Additionally, in the cover crop treatment, the values of the nutrient export either dissolved in the runoff water or adsorbed in the sediment, were lower than the analogous values of the conventional tillage treatment: 0.631 and 0.065 kg m-2 year-1 of organic carbon and nitrogen, respectively, 0.175 and 0.0333 kg m-2 year-1 of soluble K and P, respectively, and 0.010 and 0.002 kg m-2 year-1 of available K and P, 2 respectively. The adoption of a cover crop as a soil management practice can be a feasible way to reach sustainability in many olive-cropped soils of southern Spain, although this method is not always easy to implement due to technical problems such as seed selection, its maintenance, and the choice of the correct killing date to avoid water competition. These difficulties could explain the slow rate of its adoption by many farmers. Further exploration of these aspects is required, as well as a specific agricultural extension campaign.

At the global scale, vineyards are usually managed intensively to optimize wine production without considering possible negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) such as high soil erosion rates, degradation of soil fertility or contamination of groundwater. Winegrowers regulate competition for water and nutrients between the vines and inter‐row vegetation by tilling, mulching and/or herbicide application. Strategies for more sustainable viticulture recommend maintaining vegetation cover in inter‐rows, however, there is a lack of knowledge as to what extent this less intensive inter‐row management affects biodiversity and associated ES.We performed a hierarchical meta‐analysis to quantify the effects of extensive vineyard inter‐row vegetation management in comparison to more intensive management (like soil tillage or herbicide use) on biodiversity and ES from 74 studies covering four continents and 13 wine‐producing countries.Overall, extensive vegetation management increased above‐ and below‐ground biodiversity and ecosystem service provision by 20% in comparison to intensive management. Organic management together with management without herbicides showed a stronger positive effect on ES and biodiversity provision than inter‐row soil tillage.Soil loss parameters showed the largest positive response to inter‐row vegetation cover. The second highest positive response was observed for biodiversity variables, followed by carbon sequestration, pest control and soil fertility. We found no trade‐off between grape yield and quality vs. biodiversity or other ES. Synthesis and applications. Our meta‐analysis concludes that vegetation cover in inter‐rows contributes to biodiversity conservation and provides multiple ecosystem services. However, in drier climates grape yield might decrease without irrigation and careful vegetation management. Agri‐environmental policies should therefore focus on granting subsidies for the establishment of locally adapted diverse vegetation cover in vineyard inter‐rows. Future studies should focus on analysing the combined effects of local vineyard management and landscape composition and advance research in wine‐growing regions in Asia and in the southern hemisphere.

No abstract

No abstract

A 3-year experiment compared in an olive orchard the effect of different cover crops' composition on runoff, water erosion, diversity of annual plants, and arthropod communities which could provide an alternative to conventional management based on tillage (CT). The cover crops evaluated were a seeded homogeneous grass (GC), a seeded mix of ten different species (MC), and a non-seeded cover by vegetation naturally present at the farm after 20 years of mowing (MC). The results suggest that heterogeneous cover crops can provide a viable alternative to homogeneous ones in olives, providing similar benefits in reducing runoff and soil losses compared to management based on bare soil. The reduction in soil loss was particularly large: 46.7 in CT to 6.5 and 7.9 t ha year in GC and MC, respectively. The heterogeneous cover crops resulted in greater diversity of plant species and a modification of the arthropod communities with an increased number of predators for pests. The reduction of the cost of implanting heterogeneous cover crops, improvement of the seeding techniques, and selection of species included in the mixes require additional research to promote the use of this practice which can deliver enhanced environmental benefits.

Alternative management practices such as no‐tillage compared to conventional tillage are expected to recover or increase soil quality and productivity, even though all of these aspects are rarely studied together. Long‐term field experiments (LTEs) enable analysis of alternative management practices over time. This study investigated a total of 251 European LTEs in which alternative management practices such as crop rotation, catch crops, cover crops/green manure, no‐tillage, non‐inversion tillage and organic fertilization were applied. Response ratios of indicators for soil quality, climate change and productivity between alternative and reference management practices were derived from a total of 260 publications. Both positive and negative effects of alternative management practices on the different indicators were shown and, as expected, no alternative management practice could comply with all objectives simultaneously. Productivity was hampered by non‐inversion tillage, FYM amendments and incorporation of crop residues. SOC contents were increased significantly following organic fertilizers and non‐inversion tillage. GHG emissions were increased by slurry application and incorporation of crop residues. Our study showed that alternative management practices beneficial to one group of indicators (e.g. organic fertilizers for biological soil quality indicators) are not necessarily beneficial to other indicators (e.g. increase of crop yields). We conclude that LTEs are valuable for finding ways forward in protecting European soils as well as finding evidence‐based alternative management practices for the future; however, experiments should focus more on biological soil quality indicators as well as GHG emissions to enable better evaluation of trade‐offs and mutual benefits of management practices.

No abstract

No abstract