Example of grassed natural waterway in the landscape (Anne-Grete B.Blankenberg)

Grassed waterways (Norway)

Grasdekte vannveier

Description

Grassed waterways are shallow channels (natural or constructed) with grass cover, used to drain surface runoff from cropland and prevent erosion.

In this documentation we focus on the grassed waterways as a measure to carry surface water down the slope without causing soil erosion. The overland flow can be concentrated in topographic depressions, "thalwegs" in the field. Concentrated runoff in such watercourses can create small rills or even gullies. Vegetation/grass disrupt the water flow, but more importantly to protect the soil from erosive forces.

Purpose/aim: Grassed waterways are important conservation measures managing concentrated flow, especially in agricultural areas: runoff concentrates over grassed areas rather than on bare erodible soil (after tillage). They are intended to reduce runoff velocity and soil erosion by grass roots binding the soil. They also help to enhance infiltration, filtering runoff and contribute to sediment and nutrient deposition.

Establishment/maintenance: Grassed waterways are commonly used in areas where waterways are especially erosion-prone. They are normally sited downslope along natural depressions leading water away from agricultural fields. To control surface runoff, grassed waterways are often combined with inlets for surface water leading runoff to drainage pipes.

According to Regional Environmental Programme (RMP) in Norway, permanent grass cover in topographical depressions should be at least 6 m wide. Grass should be sown in the spring to ensure that it is well established in autumn. The choice of grass species depend on whether there is intention of (for example) using the grass for fodder. The grass can be fertilized or treated by herbicides, since they are located inside the production area. The grass can be harvested to maintain land area for food production and reduce nutrient leakage to the watercourse. Area can be tilled only when renewing the grass cover.

An alternative to grassed waterways is to leave the natural waterways covered in stubble over winter (i.e. unploughed). This measure reduces erosion but will not be as effective as grass cover and will not have the same effect on uptake of nutrients as grass cover waterways, as stubble is dead material.

Efficiency /Impact: The effect of (any) vegetation zones depend on several factors such as the flow properties and the characteristics of the vegetative surface. Significant flow properties are velocity (and hence the slope gradient) and water volume, the particle size and concentration of the sediment in the runoff, and duration and intensity of precipitation. For Norwegian conditions there is also the effect of frozen or unfrozen soil and intensity of snowmelt influence on runoff (surface runoff and infiltration).

Studies of Norwegian conditions indicate that the most relevant factor for function of the vegetation zone is the character of the vegetation (height, robustness, and density), rather than the type of vegetation (Blankenberg & Hougsrud 2010). As the efficiency of vegetation comprises a variety of factors, the implementation of the measures is to a large degree site-specific (Kværnø & Stolte 2012).

The effect of grassed waterways on soil loss has been documented in only a few studies. In Norway, only one study examined the effect of grassed waterways in a small agricultural catchment (26.8 daa or 2.68 ha) in Romerike (Akershus, Viken) and it showed 55% reduction of soil loss (average from 8 years) after implementation of grassed waterways.

Natural / human environment: The information about the technology is based on investigations and/or reports from different part of Norway.
For the purpose of OPTAIN project (https://www.optain.eu/), the technology is further presented in the natural and human environment context of the Kråkstad River catchment - a Norwegian Case Study catchment within OPTAIN project.

The Kråkstad River is mainly situated in Ski municipality in South-Eastern parts of Norway. The river catchment is a western tributary of the Vansjø-Hobøl watercourse, also known as the Morsa watercourse. The Kråkstad River catchment area is c.a 51 km², 43% of which is agricultural land, where mostly cereals are produced on heavy clays soils. The main environmental challenge in the area is water quality (incl. high phosphorus pollution) and soil erosion (incl. riverbank erosion and quick-clay landslides).The Morsa watercourse is a drinking water resource and there are specific environmental regulations for land management followed by subsidies through the Regional Environmental Programme (RMP).

Location

Location: The Vansjø-Hobøl catchment, Viken county, Norway

No. of Technology sites analysed: 10-100 sites

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 10.88435, 59.68235
  • 10.83177, 59.67674
  • 10.89848, 59.69789

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. 0.1-1 km2)

In a permanently protected area?: Nee

Date of implementation: 10-50 years ago

Type of introduction
Grassed waterway in an agricultural catchment (Anne-Grete Busetch Blankenberg)
Field covered with stubble in topograpic depression (thalweg) (Dominika Krzeminska)

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
Land use mixed within the same land unit: Nee

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: cereals - other, small grains
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
  • Forest/ woodlands
  • Waterways, waterbodies, wetlands - Drainage lines, waterways

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, Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
  • water degradation - Hp: decline of surface water quality
SLM group
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • cross-slope measure
  • water diversion and drainage
SLM measures
  • vegetative measures - V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
Grassed waterways in topographic depressions in the field
Author: Lillian Øygarden

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology unit (unit: length of grassed waterways volume, length: meters)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: NOK
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 8.99 NOK
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: c.a. 3000 NOK (it is only the cost of the time assuming 8h work per day, 320-500 NOK/hour/ person. Machinery, equipment, materials not included)
Most important factors affecting the costs
The costs of establishment and management of grassed waterways are connected to sowing the area and reduced area for cereal production (in case of cereal production farm). There is no general rule for harvesting. However, if farmers harvest the grass they can get the income. If the grass is not harvested then the production area is reduced. The subsidies should be a compensation for such costs. The cost of the area management is dependent on: - Location (priority areas) - Type of grass - Possibility to use the grass as a fodder Grassed waterways are eligible for subsidies in Regional Environmental Programme (RMP). Within RMP for 2019-2022 the subside level for maintaining grassed waterways was at the level of 30 kr/m in Viken region.
Establishment activities
  1. Plowing (Timing/ frequency: before sowing)
  2. Harrowing (Timing/ frequency: before sowing)
  3. Sowing grass (Timing/ frequency: in spring)
Maintenance activities
  1. Harvesting grass (Timing/ frequency: 2-3 times/yr)
  2. Plowing (Timing/ frequency: In case the re-establishment is needed)
  3. Harrowing (Timing/ frequency: In case the re-establishment is needed)
  4. Sowing grass (Timing/ frequency: In case the re-establishment is needed)

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
Thermal climate class: temperate
Thermal climate class: boreal
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: both ground and surface water
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


Land removed from crop production. If harvested as fodder - then contribute positive to income.

farm income
decreased
increased

Socio-cultural impacts
Ecological impacts
water quantity
decreased
increased


Enhanced infiltration

water quality
decreased
increased


Ideally less sediment (and phosphorus) is transported to the surface waters (rivers, lakes), and consequently water quality is increased.

surface runoff
increased
decreased


Due to enhanced infiltration in the grassed areas and reduction of surface runoff velocity

excess water drainage
reduced
improved


When combined with inlet to the drainage system

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

vegetation cover
decreased
increased

landslides/ debris flows
increased
decreased

Off-site impacts
groundwater/ river pollution
increased
reduced

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

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

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
very well
annual rainfall increase

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

not well at all
very well
general (river) flood

not well at all
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%
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
  • Less soil loss
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Reduced erosion
  • Improved water quality
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Land must be removed from crop production.
  • Some maintenance is needed periodically so that erosion does not occur along the edges.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • No enough research about efficiency of Technology More research

References

Compiler
  • Dominika Krzeminska
Editors
  • Lillian Øygarden
Reviewer
  • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
  • William Critchley
  • Tatenda Lemann
Date of documentation: Feb. 7, 2022
Last update: Feb. 3, 2023
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Kværnø S., Øygarden L., Bechmann M., Barneveld R. 2020. Tiltak mot erosjon på jordbruksareal. NIBIO POP 6(38)2020: NIBIO website
  • Blankenberg, A-G.B. and Skarbøvik E. 2019. Vegetasjon som miljøtiltak i jordbruket: Varianter, tilskudd og lovverk.NIBIO POP 5(10) 2019: NIBIO website
  • Øygarden L. 2003. Rill and gully development during an extreme winter runoff event in Norway. CATENA 50: CATENA
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International