Reduced tillage of almonds and olives [Spain]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Joris De Vente
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Deborah Niggli
Labranza reducida de almendros y olivos
technologies_1711 - Spain
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
EEZA-CSIC (EEZA-CSIC) - Spain1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
19/06/2008
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Ja
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Reduced tillage of almonds and olives to improve physical and chemical soil properties and reduce runoff and soil erosion.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
Reduced tillage of almond and olive orchards is used to decrease fuel use and emission of greenhouse gases and maintain a higher surface cover by weeds during winter time in order to protect the soil from erosion.
Purpose of the Technology: Under reduced tillage, the fields are ploughed twice a year: once in autumn (November) and once in late sping (June), whereas under conventional tillage fields are ploughed 3-5 times per year. The aim of reduced tillage is to maintain better surface cover during winter months to reduce runoff and soil erosion. After several years this will result in a higher soil organic matter content, a better soil structure, and a higher soil water infiltration capacity. The soil cover by weeds reduces the sensitivity of the soil to surface crusting and reduces surface runoff and soil erosion by up to 60%. Workload and energy use with reduced tillage is up to 50% lower than under conventional agriculture. The increased farm income prevents land abandonment of marginal lands with low productivities under conventional farming. Reduced tillage of almonds does not require special establishment activities or investments in specialized equipment.
Natural / human environment: Reduced tillage can easily be combined with green manure and ecological agriculture as is described in QT SPA05: ecological production of almonds and olives using green manure. Soils have mostly a shallow to medium depth (between 20-60 cm), and slopes are gentle to moderate between 5 and 15%. The climate is semi-arid with a mean annual rainfall around 300 mm. Droughts, centred in summer, commonly last for more than 4-5 months. Annual potential evapotranspiration rates greater than 1000 mm are common. The production system is highly mechanized and market oriented but depends strongly on agricultural subsidies. All cropland is privately owned.
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:
Spain
Region/ State/ Province:
Murcia
Further specification of location:
Guadalentín catchment
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
- Tree and shrub cropping
Mixed (crops/ grazing/ trees), incl. agroforestry
- Agroforestry
Comments:
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Lack of water for irrigation of crops limiting the crop types that can be planted as well as the crop yield of dryland farming. A lack of water availability seriously limits the production potential of the soil and results in a low vegetation/crop cover. The relatively high soil erosion rates cause various off-site related problems (i.e. flooding, reservoir siltation) and on-site problems (i.e. gully formation and reduced soil depth).
Livestock is grazing on crop residues
3.3 Further information about land use
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 220Longest growing period from month to month: Nov-Jun
3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- improved ground/ vegetation cover
- minimal soil disturbance
- Reduced tillage
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
- A6: Others
Comments:
Main measures: agronomic measures
Specification of other agronomic measures: reduced tillage
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wo: offsite degradation effects
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
- Cp: soil pollution
biological degradation
- Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators
Comments:
Main type of degradation addressed: Wo: offsite degradation effects, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Cp: soil pollution, Bp: increase of pests / diseases, loss of predators
Main causes of degradation: soil management, education, access to knowledge and support services
Secondary causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub)
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: prevention of land degradation, mitigation / reduction of land degradation
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing
Autumn ploughing of an almond orchard with reduced tillage
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate
Main technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap, improvement of ground cover
Secondary technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil
4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | 1. Ploughing twice a year instead of 3-5 times(resulting in a reduction of the costs compared to the conventional tillage practice) | Agronomic |
4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)
Comments:
Machinery/ tools: Costs were assessed comparing conventional land management with reduced tillage, which needs less inputs thus meaning a saving compared to conventional practice. Fuel price is the most determining factor affecting the costs. The local wage rate is 79 US$/
The local wage rate is 79 US$/day. Prices are for spring 2008.
4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
Costs were assessed comparing conventional land management with reduced tillage, which needs less inputs thus meaning a saving compared to conventional practice (97 USD per hectare per year). Fuel price is the most determining factor affecting the costs.
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
- semi-arid
Thermal climate class: subtropics
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.
Comments and further specifications on topography:
Landforms: plateau / plains, hill slopes, footslopes, valley floors
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):
- medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
- 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
Soil drainage/infiltration is poor
Soil water storage capacity is medium
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
5-50 m
Availability of surface water:
poor/ none
Water quality (untreated):
for agricultural use only (irrigation)
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
- > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- average
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
- mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
- men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:
Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: < 0.5%
80% of the land users are average wealthy and own 75% of the land.
Off-farm income specification: There is no difference in the ones who apply the technology and those who don’t. Most farmers do have an off-farm income for example from hunting, work in a factory, or office.
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)?
- small-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- individual
Water use rights:
- individual
5.9 Access to services and infrastructure
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
Income and costs
farm income
workload
Socio-cultural impacts
recreational opportunities
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Improved livelihoods and human well-being
Comments/ specify:
Farm income of most farmers has increased due to lower production costs
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
surface runoff
Soil
soil moisture
soil cover
soil loss
soil crusting/ sealing
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
plant diversity
Climate and disaster risk reduction
emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
downstream siltation
damage on neighbours' fields
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 | well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
local rainstorm | well |
local windstorm | well |
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
drought | not well |
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
general (river) flood | well |
Other climate-related consequences
Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
reduced growing period | well |
Comments:
The crop type is sensitive to changes in water availability under the semi-arid conditions.
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly positive
Long-term returns:
slightly positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly positive
Long-term returns:
slightly positive
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?
- 90-100%
Comments:
100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Reduced tillage has a very positive effect on the reduction of erosion and runoff, on soil quality and biodiversity How can they be sustained / enhanced? If maintained it will lead potentially to higher yields after several years |
Production costs are reduced How can they be sustained / enhanced? Yield and farm income may be increased by combining this technology with green manure under ecological agriculture (QT SPA05) |
6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
On the short term no increase in yield is obtained | Combine the technique with green manure or ecological agriculture as described in QT SPA05 |
7. References and links
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Holland, J.M., 2004. The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 103(1): 1-25.
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules