25 research outputs found

    Tillage versus no-tillage. soil properties and hydrology in an organic persimmon farm in eastern Iberian Peninsula

    Get PDF
    There is an urgent need to implement environmentally friendly agriculture management practices to achieve the Sustainable Goals for Development (SDGs) of the United Nations by 2030. Mediterranean agriculture is characterized by intense and millennia-old tillage management and as a consequence degraded soil. No-Tillage has been widely examined as a solution for soil degradation but No-Tillage relies more on the application of herbicides that reduce plant cover, which in turn enhances soil erosion. However, No-Tillage with weed cover should be researched to promote organic farming and sustainable agriculture. Therefore, we compare Tillage against No-Tillage using weed cover as an alternative strategy to reduce soil losses in persimmon plantations, both of them under organic farming management. To achieve these goals, two plots were established at "La Canyadeta" experimental station on 25-years old Persimmon plantations, which are managed with Tillage and No-Tillage for 3 years. A survey of the soil cover, soil properties, runoff generation and initial soil losses using rainfall simulation experiments at 55 mm h-1 in 0.25 m2 plot was carried out. Soils under Tillage are bare (96.7%) in comparison to the No-Tillage (16.17% bare soil), with similar organic matter (1.71 vs. 1.88%) and with lower bulk densities (1.23 vs. 1.37 g cm3). Tillage induces faster ponding (60 vs. 92 s), runoff (90 vs. 320 s) and runoff outlet (200 vs. 70 s). The runoff discharge was 5.57 times higher in the Tillage plots, 8.64 for sediment concentration and 48.4 for soil losses. We conclude that No-tillage shifted the fate of the tilled field after 3 years with the use of weeds as a soil cover conservation strategy. This immediate effect of No-Tillage under organic farming conditions is very promising to achieve the SDGs

    Current Wildland Fire Patterns and Challenges in Europe: A Synthesis of National Perspectives

    Get PDF
    Changes in climate, land use, and land management impact the occurrence and severity of wildland fires in many parts of the world. This is particularly evident in Europe, where ongoing changes in land use have strongly modified fire patterns over the last decades. Although satellite data by the European Forest Fire Information System provide large-scale wildland fire statistics across European countries, there is still a crucial need to collect and summarize in-depth local analysis and understanding of the wildland fire condition and associated challenges across Europe. This article aims to provide a general overview of the current wildland fire patterns and challenges as perceived by national representatives, supplemented by national fire statistics (2009–2018) across Europe. For each of the 31 countries included, we present a perspective authored by scientists or practitioners from each respective country, representing a wide range of disciplines and cultural backgrounds. The authors were selected from members of the COST Action “Fire and the Earth System: Science & Society” funded by the European Commission with the aim to share knowledge and improve communication about wildland fire. Where relevant, a brief overview of key studies, particular wildland fire challenges a country is facing, and an overview of notable recent fire events are also presented. Key perceived challenges included (1) the lack of consistent and detailed records for wildland fire events, within and across countries, (2) an increase in wildland fires that pose a risk to properties and human life due to high population densities and sprawl into forested regions, and (3) the view that, irrespective of changes in management, climate change is likely to increase the frequency and impact of wildland fires in the coming decades. Addressing challenge (1) will not only be valuable in advancing national and pan-European wildland fire management strategies, but also in evaluating perceptions (2) and (3) against more robust quantitative evidence
    corecore