Olive groves under no tillage and covering permanently the soil surface by plastic nets for reducing olive collection cost and protecting the land from soil erosion in the area of Chania, Crete (C. Kosmas)

No tillage operations, plastic nets permanently on the soil surface (Greece)

Κάλυψη με πλαστικά (Greek)

Description

A technology which combines no tillage operations and the cover of the ground with plastic nets

This technology has the same main advantages and characteristics as no tillage operation against soil erosion and water lconservation. Soil erosion is drastically reduced since soil surface is protected from raindrop splashing by the existing annual vegetation and the plastic nets. Soil water evaporation is also reduced due to the mulching provided by the plant residues and the nets. Furthermore, higher amount of rain water is infiltrating into the soil compared with other traditional LMPs. The specific technique has emerged as a need to overcome obstacles to the collection of olive fruits and protection of the nets from animals. Nets are spread in the whole field (intensive cultivation) covering completely the soil surface or part of the field (extensive cultivation), so olive fruits falling down can be periodocally collected by the farmer. Furthermore, a problem arises if nets are removed from the ground and stored. Animals, like mice, prefer to go in and make their nets by destroying them. Therefore, by keeping nets in the field during the whole year they are protected from such damages. Nets are installed in the field by stones or using metallic pins of about 15 cm long which are entered into the soil. Nets can remain in the field at least 10 years. Referring to the map showing areas undergoing tillage and non-tillage operations in the study area of Chania, it can be noted that the combined technique using cover nets is applied mainly in areas with high altitude and at a rate of approximately 15% of the no tillage area.

Location

Location: Chania-Crete, Kissamos province, Greece

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 24.1, 35.3333

Spread of the Technology:

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation:

Type of introduction

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

  • Cropland
    • Tree and shrub cropping: olive
Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

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
  • water degradation - Hs: change in quantity of surface water
SLM group
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • minimal soil disturbance
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A3: Soil surface treatment
  • management measures - M2: Change of management/ intensity level

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: Euro
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 1.49 Euro
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 80.00
Most important factors affecting the costs
the purchase of materials
Establishment activities
  1. Buy the nets (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Euro) Total costs per input (Euro) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Installation ha 1.0 320.0 320.0
Equipment
Nets ha 1.0 2700.0 2700.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 3'020.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 2'026.85
Maintenance activities
  1. replacing destroyed nets (Timing/ frequency: 0.2 days/ha/year)
  2. reinstalling nets removed by winds or other reason (Timing/ frequency: 0.5 days/ha/year)

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
With 6 months of dry period
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
Water quality refers to:
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
technical assistance

poor
x
good
markets

poor
x
good
financial services

poor
x
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
land management
hindered
x
simplified


Problem if a minimum tillage LMP is applied since nets must be removed

farm income
decreased
x
increased

Quantity before SLM: 1800 Euro/ha
Quantity after SLM: 3200 Euro/ha

workload
increased
x
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
x
improved

Improved livelihoods and human well-being
decreased
x
increased


Increase in farmers income and reduction the off-site effects

Ecological impacts
water quality
decreased
x
increased

surface runoff
increased
x
decreased

soil moisture
decreased
x
increased

soil loss
increased
x
decreased

soil crusting/ sealing
increased
x
reduced

soil compaction
increased
x
reduced

Off-site impacts
downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
x
reduced

groundwater/ river pollution
increased
x
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

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

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

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

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Reduction of labor and protection of of harvesting materials

Climate change

Climate-related extremes (disasters)
drought

not well at all
x
very well
general (river) flood

not well at all
x
very well

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Number of households and/ or area covered
500
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
  • Reduce cost production but create problems to the cultivation of olive groves. The major cost in olive production is labour for harvesting. By applying this technology harvesting labour is minimized to about one tenth. It can be viable at small to medium scale farms, prone to water erosion, on very steep slopes where harvesting of olive fruits by the traditional methods become very difficult.

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Providing financial support
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Technologies on conserving soil and water resources and combating desertification in Crete are mainly related to land management. Olive groves can survive under adverse climatic and soil conditions supporting a significant farmer’s income under relatively low labour. Land management practices have been adopted in the area based on tradition and transfer knowledge by the local institutes and specialists. The no tillage land management practice combined with plastic nets on the soil surface can be considered as an important technique protecting the land from degradation and desertification and increasing farmer’s income.

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? By explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the technology to the farmers
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Difficulties in removing perrenial natural vegetation and spreading the fertilizers. applying fertilizers by the irrigation system
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Too many plastics spread around in an area. Recycling of plastics is a great problem. no overcome

References

Compiler
  • Costas Kosmas
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Junie 3, 2011
Last update: April 2, 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