Technologies

Water tolerant crops [Sweden]

Grödor som tål hög grundvattenyta

technologies_1286 - Sweden

View sections

Expand all Collapse all
Completeness: 63%

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:

Örjan Berglund

SLM specialist:

Berglund Kerstin

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences-SLU

Sweden

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)
Swedish Univ. of Agr.Sciences (Swedish Univ. of Agr.Sciences) - Sweden

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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:

Using crops that can withstand a high water table level and still have a high yield

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Subsiding peat soils will suffer from rising ground water tables.

Purpose of the Technology: To find crops that can withstand a high groundwater table and still have a high yield.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Fertilisation, harvests.

Natural / human environment: Cultivated field

2.3 Photos of the Technology

Media Gallery

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

Country:

Sweden

Region/ State/ Province:

Uppsala län

Further specification of location:

Uppsala

Comments:

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.002 km2.

This an experimental research trial.

Map preview

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
Comments (type of project, etc.):

The farmers wanted to test grasses that can withstand high water content. This is the first time we test theese methods.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:
  • Ranching
Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
  • Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
Forest/ woodlands

Forest/ woodlands

Products and services:
  • Timber
  • Fuelwood
  • Nature conservation/ protection
Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The subsidence and oxidation of the organic material in the peat soils makes the cultivated fields less drained and eventually it is impossible to grow crops there and the trafficability gets worse. The oxidation of the organic material release CO2 and N2O to the atmosphere.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Decreased yield and trafficability

Ranching: Yes

Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing: Yes

Forest products and services: timber, fuelwood, nature conservation / protection

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Cropland

Cropland

  • Reed canary grass, Tall fescue

3.4 Water supply

Comments:

Water supply: rainfed, rainfed

Water supply: post-flooding

post-flooding

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • improved plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
management measures

management measures

  • M5: Control/ change of species composition
Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures, management measures

Type of agronomic measures: better crop cover

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Ps: subsidence of organic soils, settling of soil
Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Ps: subsidence of organic soils, settling of soil

Main causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (Drainage)

Secondary causes of degradation: population pressure (During 19th century these soils were drained to improve the food production.)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

Also: Mitigation / reduction of land degradation, rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

This is field trial with grasses, no constructions.

Location: 60.02788, 17.42972. Uppsala

Date: 2016-04-07

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: increase of biomass (quantity)

Secondary technical functions: stabilisation of soil (eg by tree roots against land slides)

Better crop cover
Material/ species: Reed canary grass, Tall fescue

Control / change of species composition: Change from timothy to reed canary grass and tall fescue

Author:

Örjan Berlgund

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Swedish Krona (SEK)

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

8.14

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

150.00

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)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • high (>3%)
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 texture: This is a peat soil, so no soil texture.
Topsoil organic matter: It is a peat soil

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

< 5 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Gender:
  • women
  • 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: negative; 2%

5.7 Average area of land used 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
Comments:

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, 5-50 ha, 50-100 ha

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

Land ownership:
  • state
  • individual, not titled
Land use rights:
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • communal (organized)

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

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Other socio-economic impacts

Comments/ specify:

The technology is to be tested in this project

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

health situation

worsened
improved

cultural opportunities

reduced
improved

recreational opportunities

reduced
improved

community institutions

weakened
strengthened

national institutions

weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

conflict mitigation

worsened
improved

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups

worsened
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Soil

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased
Climate and disaster risk reduction

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased

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 increase or decrease How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature increase not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm not known
local windstorm not known
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
drought not known
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood not known

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period not known

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

Comments:

This is a new measure, no economic evaluations can be done before we have tested the measures. This is an experimental trial.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

Comments on acceptance with external material support: This is a new measure, no economic evaluations can be done before we have tested the measures. This is an experimental trial.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
He can get an incom from his fields even though the ground water level is too high for his normal production.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The farmer do not have to abandon the field due to high groundwater table.
These soils will leak GHG until they are completely under water. With the technology we at least get something good from the fields.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules