There is a need to find crops that can withstand a high water table and still have a high yield (Örjan Berglund (Lennart Hjelms väg 9, Uppsala))

Using water tolerant crops on cultivated peat soils, Recare (Sweden)

Grödval på odlade torvjordar

Description

Using water tolerant crops might prolong the use of cultivated peat soils.

Aims / objectives: To find crops that have a high yield even though the ground water level is high.

Methods: Compare Reed canary grass and Tall fescue with Timothy that normally is grown within this area.

Location

Location: uppsala, Uppsala län, Sweden

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 17.42983, 60.0279

Initiation date: 2014

Year of termination: 2019

Type of Approach
There is a need to find crops that can withstand a high water table and still have a high yield. (Örjan Berglund (Lennart Hjelms väg 9, Uppsala))

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused on SLM only

To find crops with high yield that can be grown on peat soils with high ground water table and low bearing capacity.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: To find an alternative use of these lands to postpone abandonment.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: Private farms can themself deside what crops to grow.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: What other crop to choose? Treatment through the SLM Approach: Talking to the farmers to find crops they were interested in testing.
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: What to do with the new crop? Treatment through the SLM Approach: Develop a local system that could use the crop for energy production or biogas production.

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities not implemented, Field trial.
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
national government (planners, decision-makers)
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
planning
x
implementation
x
monitoring/ evaluation
x
Research
x
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • Not relevant, This is a field trial,
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
This is a field trial. We are in the process of evaluating this.
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology
  • Agronomic, Soil Science

Research is ongoing by SLU and not evaluated yet.

Research was carried out on-farm

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (Recare Project): 75.0%; government (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences): 25.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

This is what we are going to evaluate during the project.

x
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • It is easy to implement. The farmer already have all machines and equipments.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • It is easy to implement. The farmer already have all machines and equipments.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Maybe it will be hard to sell the crop with a profit.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • It might not be a crop that has a high demand.

References

Compiler
  • Örjan Berglund
Editors
Reviewer
  • David Streiff
Date of documentation: Okt. 15, 2015
Last update: Julie 9, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International