This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Continuous soil cover on croplands [Italy]

Copertura continuativa del suolo

technologies_1217 - Italy

Completeness: 78%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Morari Francesco

University of Padova

Via 8 Febbraio 1848, 2, 35122 Padova PD, Italy

Italy

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE )
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
University of Padova (UNIPD) - Italy

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

21/10/2014

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Maintenance of continuous soil cover; alternating crops and cover crops as a practice to improve soil quality and reduce diffuse agricultural water pollution

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Continuous soil cover on croplands in the Veneto region is characterised by growing seasonal cover crops alternated to the main crop. Continuous cover cropping has been promoted as an agri-environmental measure of the Rural Development Programme (RDP) by Veneto region to extend sustainable land management and reduce diffuse water pollution. Indeed cover crops incorporate available inorganic N that remains within the soil after harvest and reduce water erosion. The type of crop species depends on the crop succession.

Purpose of the Technology: Cover crops have been proposed to the farmers with the aim of reducing environmental impacts of traditional agricultural practices. Compared with systems that does not use cover crops, the continuous soil cover provides long-term agronomical and environmental benefits due to a reduction of negative impacts on agro-ecosystems.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The application of cover crops involves the alternation of autumn-winter cereals, rapeseed or other herbaceous crops with maize, soybean, sorghum etc. Cover crops that are sown after the main culture are neither fertilized nor treated with pesticides during growing, while at the end of the crop cycle they are buried as green manure in order to improve soil organic matter content, nutrient cycle and finally soil fertility.

Natural / human environment: Growing seasonal cover crops between annual crops have the potential to provide multiple benefits in a cropping system. Cover crops prevent water erosion and pollution as well as increase soil physical properties. Due to the effect of green manure and root growth, cover crops supply nutrients and increase soil organic matter content. They improve soil biodiversity and break pest cycles.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Italy

Region/ State/ Province:

Italy

Further specification of location:

Low Venetian plain of Veneto region

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through projects/ external interventions

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Soils in the low Venetian plain of the Veneto region generally suffer from a loss of soil organic matter (SOM) that is strongly affected by their natural texture and climatic conditions. Moreover, in the last 50 years intensive tillage practices contributed to a further SOM decrease, estimated at 0.02-0.58 t/ha/y of carbon. Finally, high intensive agriculture practices increased nonpoint source pollution and in turn caused a decline of surface and groundwater quality.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): To date, few farmers have adopted voluntarily the continuous soil cover to reduce a decline of soil fertility and water quality, symptom of poor perception of the problem. Adoption of SLT by farmers was sustained only by means of regional subsidies.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
Comments:

Water supply: Also rainfed, full irrigation

Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 210 Longest growing period from month to month: March to SeptemberSecond longest growing period in days: 180

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:
  • 10-100 km2

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Type of agronomic measures: cover cropping, green manure

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators
water degradation

water degradation

  • Hp: decline of surface water quality
Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Hp: decline of surface water quality

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bp: increase of pests / diseases, loss of predators

Main causes of degradation: soil management (lack of organic input with fertilizations), population pressure (high population density and competition for land)

Secondary causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (crop monoculture instead of crop rotation)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
Comments:

Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Author:

Nicola Dal Ferro

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Continuous soil cover is here carried out with direct sowing of ryegrass on a sorghum field. Sorghum was in turn used as cover crop after harvesting of winter wheat.

Location: Low Venetian plain of Veneto region

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, improvement of ground cover, increase of surface roughness, improvement of water quality, buffering / filtering water

Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting

Cover cropping
Material/ species: e.g. barley and vetch, ryegrass, sorghum
Quantity/ density: 35 kg/ha

Green manure
Material/ species: e.g. sudan grass
Quantity/ density: 1.5-6 t/ha
Remarks: Strongly dependant on: 1) type of cover crop; 2) differentiation between summer and winter c.c.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Euro €

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

0.8

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

21.00

4.4 Establishment activities

Comments:

No initial investment needed

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Type of measure Timing/ frequency
1. Cover crops: chopping Agronomic
2. Main crop: seedbed preparation Agronomic
3. Main crop: harrowing Agronomic
4. Main crop: weed control Agronomic
5. Main crop: fertilisation Agronomic
6. Main crop: harvesting Agronomic
7. Cover crops: sowing Agronomic

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Equipment Cover crop chopping ha 1.0 343.0 343.0
Equipment Main crop: seedbed preparation ha 1.0 191.0 191.0
Equipment Main crop: harrowing ha 1.0 63.0 63.0
Equipment Main crop: weed control ha 1.0 44.5 44.5
Equipment Main crop: harvesting ha 1.0 152.0 152.0
Equipment Cover crops: sowing ha 1.0 121.0 121.0
Plant material Seeds main crop ha 1.0 190.5 190.5
Plant material Seeds cover crop ha 1.0 191.0 191.0
Fertilizers and biocides Main crop: fertilisation (fertilizer) ha 1.0 254.0 254.0
Fertilizers and biocides Main crop: weed control (biocides) ha 1.0 125.0 125.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 1675.0

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Although machinery costs are the largest part of total ones, they are almost completely the same for systems adopting - or non adopting - the technology. As a result, additional seeds as cover crop and field labour for sowing are the main costs for implementation of the technology.

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

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
  • sub-humid

Thermal climate class: temperate

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • 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
Altitudinal zone:
  • 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.

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • 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)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility is low-medium
Soil drainage/infiltration is medium
Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

< 5 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table: <5m (The area surrounding the Venice lagoon (1240 km2) is even below the sea level (down to -2 m) and currently cultivated due to land reclamation. As a result water table is kept artificially low)
Water quality (untreated) is good drinking water (groundwater) or for agricultural use only (surface water)

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

High population density, infrastructures and intensive agriculture practices affect the state of biodiversity.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
  • rich
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Population density: 200-500 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 0.5% - 1%

5% of the land users are rich.
95% of the land users are average wealthy.

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

  • < 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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • medium-scale

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land use rights:
  • leased
  • individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased
Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased

irrigation water availability

decreased
increased

irrigation water quality

decreased
increased
Income and costs

workload

increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts

national institutions

weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

Improved livelihoods and human well-being

decreased
increased

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quality

decreased
increased

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Soil

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

downstream flooding

increased
reduced

groundwater/ river pollution

increased
reduced

buffering/ filtering capacity

reduced
improved

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change
Season Type of climatic change/ extreme How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature increase not known

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

Comments:

Establishment costs N/A

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 0-10%
Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Prevents erosion

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Maintenance of cover crop
Improves soil fertilty, biodiversity, structure, organic matter content

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Usage of organic fertilizations on the main crop
Allows natural control of weeds

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Higher seeding rate
Improves knowledge on soil cover benefits and agroecology

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Improve farmers' education

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Increase costs of input and management Increase awareness on long-term soil benefits and keep subsidies
In summer seasons increases the competition for water resources improve planning and knowledge of suitable species

7. References and links

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Programma di sviluppo rurale per il veneto 2007-2013, Regione Veneto, 2007. Dipartimento Agricoltura e Sviluppo Rurale.

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules