Flooded fields along Hobøl River (Dominika Krzeminska)

Grass or stubble in areas prone to flooding and erosion (Norway)

Gras (eller ingen jordarbeiding) på arealer utsatt for flom og erosjon

Description

Establishment of grass - or retaining stubble - on arable land that is prone to erosion and flooding to reduce the risk of soil and nutrient losses.

Flood prone areas are located close to watercourses (up to 22m from the watercourse) and are flooded regularly - at least once every ten years. If the area is considered as “flood prone” area must be assessed locally and approved at municipality or county level. Areas prone to erosion are the areas in the erosion class 2 (if there is a gully erosion), 3 and 4 (based on the erosion risk map; kilden.nibio.no).

Purpose/Aim: The main purpose of establishing grass cover (or at least maintaining stubble over winter) in the areas prone to erosion and flooding is to reduce soil erosion and nutrient losses. Grass cover protects the surface from detachment of particles and erosion processes. Grass covered areas enhance infiltration and provide good conditions for the uptake and storage of water during temporary floods. As such, the measure offers the potential for temporary flood storage, increased water retention in the landscape and runoff attenuation.

Perennial grass cover in the areas prone to flooding also protects water quality by enhanced sedimentation of suspended materials and increased adsorption of material to vegetation and soil surface.

Maintaining grass or stubble in areas prone to flooding and erosion is a subject for subsidies within Regional Environmental Programme RMP. The purpose of subsidies for is to reduced flood erosion. It includes both reducing soil erosion and preventing loss of nutrients.

Establishment/maintenance: vegetated zones or permanent meadows should be established and maintained within agricultural flood prone areas. As a minimum these areas should be left in stubble through the winter. These areas should not be fertilized, and grass should be harvested to reduce nutrient leakage to the watercourse. Where farmers persist in growing cereals in these areas they should at least leave the flood prone areas unploughed and covered in stubble over winter.
Benefit/Impact: The effect of (any) vegetation zones depends on several factors such as the flow properties and the characteristics of the vegetative surface. 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 is composed of a variety of factors, the implementation of the measures is to a large degree site specific (Kværnø & Stolte 2012). There is insufficient documentation on how the level of erosion is affected by floods. In Norway, there are no direct figures for the efficiency of grass cover on the areas prone to flooding.

Recent trends in climatic changes are expected to result in increase in extreme meteorological events and related natural hazards. The area along the streams and rivers are among the landscape elements, which first will notice the impact of climate change in the form of floods and consequent erosion. Therefore, measures dedicated to these areas might become more and more important.

Natural / human environment: The information about Technology is based on the investigations and/or reports from the Vansjø-Hobøl catchment. 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). Management of areas prone to flooding are part of these regulations.

Location

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

No. of Technology sites analysed: 2-10 sites

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 10.90395, 59.59903
  • 10.91243, 59.60032

Spread of the Technology: applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

In a permanently protected area?: Nee

Date of implementation: 10-50 years ago

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
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
  • surface water management (spring, river, lakes, sea)
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • vegetative measures - V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants, V3: Clearing of vegetation

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: daa of flood prone area; conversion factor to one hectare: 1 ha = 1 ha = 10 daa)
  • 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 grass cover on the areas prone to flooding are not deviating for costs connected to regular crop land management. Therefore, implementation of grassed areas does not lead to any additional expenses for the land user. The cost of the area management are depended on: - area (daa) location and accessibility - eligibility for subsidies in Regional Environmental Programme (RMP). For 2019-2022 the subside level for maintaining grass on areas prone of flooding is at the level of 210 kr/daa in Viken region- for areas with special regulations. For leaving such areas in stubble the subsidy level is 110 kr /daa for areas with special regulations (drinking water quality) and 70 kr /daa outside areas with special regulations.
Establishment activities
  1. Plowing (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Harrowing (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. Sowing grass (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. Harvesting grass (Timing/ frequency: None)
Maintenance activities
  1. Plowing (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Harrowing (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. Sowing grass (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. Harvesting grass (Timing/ frequency: None)

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


Crop production will be reduced if there is permanent grass cover. However, with frequent flooding events the area is not 100% productive anyway.

farm income
decreased
increased


depending on subsidies or whether the grass are being harvested or not

workload
increased
decreased


The costs of establishment and management of grass cover on the areas prone to flooding are not deviating for costs connected to regular crop land management

Socio-cultural impacts
Ecological impacts
water quality
decreased
increased

surface runoff
increased
decreased

evaporation
increased
decreased

soil loss
increased
decreased

soil accumulation
decreased
increased

vegetation cover
decreased
increased


In the areas with permanent grass cover

Off-site impacts
groundwater/ river pollution
increased
reduced


Minimum that is expected, not measures/monitored yet.

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


Minimum that is expected, not measures/monitored yet.

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

The cost and income will depend on whether the farmer will harvest the grass covered area or not. If the area is not harvested it will reduce the area for production. The subsidies should partly compensate for costs.

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
Other climate-related consequences
reduced growing period

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 erosion, less loss of nutrients , less work with removing soil erosion pattern
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • reduced soil erosion
  • reduced nutrient losses
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • land removed from crop production
  • maintenance needed
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Not enough field based research about efficiency

References

Compiler
  • Dominika Krzeminska
Editors
  • Lillian Øygarden
Reviewer
  • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
  • William Critchley
Date of documentation: Feb. 11, 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
  • Blankenberg, A-G.B. and Skarbøvik E. 2019. Vegetasjon som miljøtiltak i jordbruket: Varianter, tilskudd og lovverk.NIBIO POP 5(10) 2019: NIBIO website
  • Kværnø S., Øygarden L., Bechmann M., Barneveld R. 2020. Tiltak mot erosjon på jordbruksareal. NIBIO POP 6(38)2020: NIBIO website
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International