Detail of straw mulch application on an experimental erosion plot. (Artemio Cerdà (University of Valencia. Dept. of geography.))

Straw mulching to improve soil quality (Spain)

Efecto de la cubierta de paja en la calidad del suelo (spanish)

Description

Straw mulch application on bare soil in order to prevent soil erosion, reduce overland flow, and increase soil organic matter.

In a persimmon crop area near Valencia (South-East Spain), the research team of the University of Valencia has set up an experiment in 2015 to test the effect of the straw mulch technique in order to avoid water erosion and improve soil properties. Straw mulch was applied at a rate of 75 g per m2 and spread over 40 erosion plots (20 treated/20 non-treated). Afterwards, rainfall simulations at 78 mm h-1 of I30 mimic a high-magnitude storm.
The straw provides an initial cover of 60%, and was found to reduce runoff from 60% (in non-treated plots) to 29% (in treated plots), and erosion from 5.1 Mg ha-1 to 0.2 Mg ha-1.

Purpose of the Technology: The increase in ground cover will decrease soil erosion by reducing raindrop impact over the bare soil. Runoff also decreases by increasing water surface storage, decrease of runoff velocity, and increase infiltration.
Its application must to be done before high-storm events in the Mediterranean; namely end of summer to early autumn, in order to protect raindrop impact and avoid detachment of bare soil.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The straw mulch was delivered from a nearby farm in straw bales and was manually applied to the research plots.

Natural / human environment: The wine production in the area was implemented by old civilizations. Nowadays, vineyards production is spread over the entire study area, together with new plantations of persimmon, apricots, olives and oranges. The landscape reflects the long history of management where several constructions related with wine production depicted its importance on this region. Since the late 1960s, conventional agriculture with fertilizers and herbicides has led to a seasonally bare soil surface, triggering huge erosion rates.

Location

Location: Valencia district, Spain, Spain

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • -0.61099, 38.95779

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. < 0.1 km2 (10 ha))

Date of implementation: less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
Persimmon plantations with exposed bare soil (Artemio Cerdà (University of Valencia. Dept. of Geography))

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Forest/ woodlands - Products and services: Fruits and nuts, Other forest products
    other (specify): grapes, persimmon, apricots, olives and oranges
  • Unproductive land - Specify: shrub vegetation: quercus ilex, quercus coccifera, pistacia lentiscus, rosmarinus officinalis; Grass species: brachypodium retusum

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Number of growing seasons per year: 1
Land use before implementation of the Technology: The landscape reflects the long history of management where several constructions related with wine production depicted its importance on this region. Since the late 1960s, conventional agriculture with fertilizers and herbicides has led to a seasonally bare soil surface, triggering huge erosion rates. Change of land use practices / intensity level: yes, change due to diminish herbicides application, and minimize bare soil exposition.
Livestock density: n.a.

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • physical soil deterioration - Pk: slaking and crusting
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • water degradation -
SLM group
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • vegetative measures - V1: Tree and shrub cover
  • management measures - M2: Change of management/ intensity level

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
Author: Artemio Cerdà, University of Valencia. Dept. geography
Straw mulch must be spread homogeneously in bare soil areas between trees lines in order to keep as much as possible the soil covered.

Location: Canals. Valencia, Spain

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low (It is easy to implement)
Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Secondary technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: drain / divert, improvement of ground cover, increase of surface roughness, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil, improvement of water quality, buffering / filtering water, sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting, increase of biomass (quantity), promotion of vegetation species and varieties (quality, eg palatable fodder)

Mulching
Material/ species: SPRING BARLEY
Quantity/ density: 75g/m2

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 2%
Change of land use practices / intensity level: yes, change due to diminish herbicides application, and minimize bare soil exposition.

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology unit (unit: ha)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: US Dollars
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 800.0
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 80
Most important factors affecting the costs
The price of straw varies, depending on the quality. Transport and application will increase the cost.
Establishment activities
  1. Apply straw mulch (75g/m) (Timing/ frequency: summer)
Establishment inputs and costs (per ha)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (US Dollars) Total costs per input (US Dollars) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Straw Kg 1000.0 100.0
Maintenance activities
n.a.

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Dry spells of 3 months (june, august, september)
Other rainfall annual averages are 250-500mm (ranked 2) or >250mm or 750-1000 mm (both ranked 3)
Thermal climate class: temperate
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Is salinity a problem?
  • Ja
  • Nee

Occurrence of flooding
  • Ja
  • Nee
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
good
education

poor
good
technical assistance

poor
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
good
markets

poor
good
energy

poor
good
roads and transport

poor
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
good
financial services

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

fodder production
decreased
increased

fodder quality
decreased
increased

animal production
decreased
increased

wood production
decreased
increased

risk of production failure
increased
decreased

product diversity
decreased
increased

production area (new land under cultivation/ use)
decreased
increased

land management
hindered
simplified

demand for irrigation water
increased
decreased

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
decreased

farm income
decreased
increased

economic disparities
increased
decreased

workload
increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts
Ecological impacts
water quantity
decreased
increased

water quality
decreased
increased

surface runoff
increased
decreased

excess water drainage
reduced
improved

groundwater table/ aquifer
lowered
recharge

evaporation
increased
decreased

soil moisture
decreased
increased

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil crusting/ sealing
increased
reduced

soil compaction
increased
reduced

salinity
increased
decreased

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased

pest/ disease control
decreased
increased

fire risk
increased
decreased

wind velocity
increased
decreased

Off-site impacts
water availability (groundwater, springs)
decreased
increased

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season (incl. low flows)
reduced
increased

downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
reduced

downstream siltation
increased
decreased

groundwater/ river pollution
increased
reduced

buffering/ filtering capacity (by soil, vegetation, wetlands)
reduced
improved

wind transported sediments
increased
reduced

damage on neighbours' fields
increased
reduced

damage on public/ private infrastructure
increased
reduced

impact of greenhouse gases
increased
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Mulch is seen as an expensive treatment without any advantage.

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
very well
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local rainstorm

not well at all
very well
local windstorm

not well at all
very well
drought

not well at all
very well
general (river) flood

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known
Other climate-related consequences
reduced growing period

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 10-50%
  • more than 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 10-50%
  • 50-90%
  • 90-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Ja
  • Nee
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • It will prevent soil losses and promotes soil organic matter incorporation. High levels of soil moisture will prevent for drought periods.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • It is a technology very easy to apply, with low failure possibilities and a strong soil erosion control and local soil properties improvement.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • The costs are not very high, but enough to discourage the landowners to cover the expenses. Look for Government funding.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • When applying high-density mulches the application labours will be higher. High decomposition rate. Distribute the mulch in strips, and try to reduce the application rate.

References

Compiler
  • Artemi Cerda
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Deborah Niggli
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Mei 28, 2015
Last update: Julie 23, 2019
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