Action Synopsis: Soil Fertility About Actions

Grow cover crops beneath the main crop (living mulches) or between crop rows

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

Biodiversity: One randomized, replicated study from Spain found that cover crops increased bacterial numbers and activity.

Erosion: Two studies from France and the USA showed reduced erosion under cover crops. One controlled study showed that soil stability was highest under a grass cover, and one randomized replicated study found that cover crops reduced soil loss.

Soil organic matter: Two controlled trials from India and South Africa (one also randomized and replicated) found that soil organic matter increased under cover crops, and one trial from Germany found no effect on soil organic matter levels.

SOIL TYPES COVERED: gravelly-sandy loam, sandy loam, sandy, silty loam.


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 randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1988-1989 in Oklahoma, USA (Roberts & Cartwright 1991) found that cabbage Brassica oleracea plots with rye Secale cereal cover crops retained more soil (25% drop in bed height over nine months) than bare ground controls (35% drop). Beds with hairy vetch Vicia villosa cover crops dropped in height by 29% over nine months but mean bed height was similar to beds in rye cover-cropped plots and bare controls. Above ground, rye produced more dry vegetation (4,754 kg/ha after six months) than hairy vetch (1,213 kg/ha). Raised cabbage beds (90 cm wide, 20 cm tall) were planted with cover crops (rye, hairy vetch or left bare) in mid-October 1988. Plots were sprayed with glyphosate on 5 April 1989 and cabbages were planted into cover crops on 17 April. Cover crop treatments were replicated three times in plots of 1.8 x 6.1 m. Bed height was measured on 3 November 1988, 27 March and 12 July 1989.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A controlled experiment in 1991-2000 on a sandy loam in Champagne, France (Goulet et al. 2004) found that soil particle stability was highest in the topsoil under a grass cover (index rating (K) = 21.7), followed by coniferous bark mulch (rating = 15.2) and poplar bark mulch (rating = 13.6), compared to the control (rating = 10.5). The conifer bark layer also increased stability in soils to 20 cm depth. Three treatments and a control were tested, comprising: a bluegrass Poa pratensis cover between vine rows only; organic mixed mulch of coniferous silver fir Abies alba, Norway spruce Picea excelsa and Scots pine Pinus sylvestri bark between and in vine rows (61 t/ha applied every three years); organic mulch of poplar Populus spp. bark (67 t/ha applied every three years); and bare soil between rows (control). Treatments and controls were tested in 35 x 8 m and 15 x 8 m plots, respectively. Soil under the grass cover was sampled in and between vine rows while the mulch and control treatments were sampled between vine rows only. All soils were sampled to 20 cm depth.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A controlled experiment from 1993 to 2003 on sandy soil in Lutzville, South Africa (Fourie et al. 2007) found that after five years, soil organic matter to 30 cm depth was 60% higher in grazing vetch, pink Seradella Ornithopus sativus and ‘Saia’ oats Avena strigosa cover crops compared to the controls. Soil organic matter to 60 cm depth was higher under grazing vetch Vicia dayscarpa (52% greater) compared to either control treatment. Seven cover crop species were tested in 108 m2 plots of grape Vitis vinifera vine in a vineyard, including: rye Secale cereale, oats A. sativa, ‘Saia’ oats, Parabinga medic Medicago truncatula, pink Seradella and grazing vetch. All cover crops were sown once or twice annually. All treatments received chemical control, applied before buds opened. There were two controls with no cover crop, one mechanically weeded between vines with chemical control within vines, and the other receiving full surface chemical control. Soil samples were taken from rows between vines and measured soil organic matter. This summary reports overall soil organic matter only, but the study also reported on separate components of organic matter.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. An experiment in 2001-2005 on silty loam soil in Villmar-Aumenau, Germany (Möller 2009) found no changes in soil carbon or nitrogen when wheat Triticum aestivum was undersown with clover Trifolium spp. and grass (species not specified). Manuring and cover cropping treatments with various crops also had no effect. Trial 1 had eight treatments: (1-2) clover/grass ley, (3) wheat Triticum aestivum plus cover crops receiving farmyard manure (FYM) as slurry or effluents, (4) potatoes Solanum tuberosum receiving FYM and solid effluents, or silage maize Zea mays receiving FYM, (5) rye Secale cereale plus cover crops plus FYM, (6) peas Pisum sativum plus cover crops, (7) spelt T. aestivum ssp. spelta plus cover crops plus FYM and (8) wheat undersown with clover/grass ley plus FYM and solid effluents (wheat sown in February/March, cover crop sown at same time). Trial 2 included: (1) clover/grass ley, (2) potatoes plus solid effluents, (3) winter wheat plus liquid effluents, (4) peas, (5) winter wheat plus liquid effluents, (6) spring wheat plus solid effluents. All manuring treatments were applied before ploughing. Five soil samples were taken from each plot to 30 cm depth and measured soil nitrogen and carbon.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A randomized, replicated experiment in 2008 on fine sandy loam soil in Spain (Moreno et al. 2009) found that bacteria counts and activity were highest in the mowed cover crop (0.95 billion/g soil and 1,087 μg PNP/g/h) and lowest when herbicides were added (1.37 billion/g soil and 519 μg PNP/g/h). All treatments had a higher microbial diversity and soil organic carbon levels than the treatment with no cover. There were four long-term treatments in an olive Oleo europaea orchard: tillage (3-4 passes with disk harrow to 30 cm depth and tine harrowing (remove small weeds and smooth the soil surface ready for sowing) in summer), no-till, no cover crop (treated with glyphosate herbicide), cover crop (weeds left to grow) treated with herbicides (in March), and mown cover crop (herbicide-free). Each plot was 11 x 11 m and consisted of 16 olive trees. Each treatment was replicated four times. Two soil samples were taken from the centre of each plot. Soil bacterial numbers and community structure were measured. PNP (purine nucleoside phosphorylase) an enzyme which breaks down proteins, was used as an indicator of bacterial numbers.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A controlled, randomized, replicated experiment in 2009 on gravelly-sandy-loams in South Andaman Islands, India (Pandey & Begum 2010) found 41% more soil carbon and 46% more soil nitrogen in coconut palm Cocos nucifera plots with cover crops than in the control. Adding phosphorus to the cover crop increased nitrogen levels by 16%. Nitrogen mineralization (breakdown of organic matter, e.g. leaves, into mineral nitrogen) was 39% and 73% higher in soils with a cover crop, and a cover crop plus phosphorus respectively, compared to the control. There were six replicates of four treatments in a coconut plantation: no cover crop (control), no cover crop plus phosphorus (16% P at 24 kg/ha), cover crop (kudzu Pueraria phaseoloides), and cover crop plus phosphorus. Each plot was 40 x 40 m and contained 28 coconut palms, 7.5 m apart. Ten soil samples were taken monthly to 15 cm depth from each plot. Soil carbon, nitrogen and nitrogen mineralization were measured.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Key, G., Whitfield, M., Dicks, L.V., Sutherland, W.J. & Bardgett, R.D. (2020) Enhancing Soil Fertility. Pages 613-634 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Soil Fertility

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Soil Fertility
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