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)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Crop rotation as an alternative to monoculture practices to improve soil fertility and reduce soilborne diseases

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Crop rotations in Veneto region, particularly in the low Venetian plain where agriculture is mainly concentrated, is diversified and based on the needs of each farmer. However most rotation systems are confined to time limits of six years or less, providing a succession of spring (generally maize, soybean, sorghum) and winter crops (wheat, rapeseed, barley). Legumes play a pivotal role on crop rotation due to their richness in protein for both man and breeding. Using legumes in the crop rotation favour the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen and bind it into the soil with a significant increase of soil fertility.

Purpose of the Technology: Crop rotation has the ability to control weeds and break pest cycles reducing the use of pesticides. Diversification of crop production increases soil and ecosystem biodiversity promoting the stability of agricultural systems. The introduction of legumes in crop rotation enhances nutrient availability and generally soil quality.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Crop rotation can be adjusted to the needs of farmers and can be adopted without significant investments and further costs. A typical crop rotation provides for the succession of deep-rooting crops (e.g. maize), winter wheat and finally soybean, which contribute to the re-establishment of soil fertility. Moreover the system allows a better distribution of labour throughout the year.

Natural / human environment: Crop rotation has many agronomic and environmental benefits compared with monoculture cropping. The increase of soil and agro-ecosystems biodiversity has positive effect on its resilience, promoting its capacity to respond to natural and anthropogenic perturbation. From an environmental point of view, the introduction of legumes favours a reduction of chemical inputs, with significant benefits for surface and groundwater quality.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - maize
• cereals - wheat (winter)
• fodder crops - alfalfa
• legumes and pulses - soya
• root/tuber crops - sugar beet

Specify:

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

Is crop rotation practiced?

Ja

If yes, specify:

Rotations / fallows
Material/ species: Cereals, Legumes, Brassicaceae
A typical crop rotation provides for the succession of deep-rooting crops (e.g. maize), winter wheat and finally soybean, which contribute to the re-establishment of soil fertility

Comments:

Main crops: maize, wheat, soybean, alfalfa, sugar beet.
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 and high intensive monoculture practices implied oversimplification of agro-ecosystems and decline of soil biodiversity.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Decrease of productivity. However to date, few farmers have adopted conservation practices in order to reduce a decline of soil fertility and water quality, symptom of poor perception of the problem.

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

Water supply: Also rainfed, full irrigation

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility

management measures

• M2: Change of management/ intensity level

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Secondary measures: management measures

Type of agronomic measures: rotations / fallows

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

chemical soil deterioration

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

biological degradation

• Bl: loss of soil life
• Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Bl: loss of soil life, Bp: increase of pests / diseases, loss of predators

Main causes of degradation: soil management (lack of organic input with fertilisations), population pressure (High demand for agricultural products and competition for land in densely populated area)

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Crop rotation experiment established at the University of Padova (1962) including a comparison of monocultures and true rotations (two-year, four-year, six-year). Cropping systems include maize, wheat, soybean, alfalfa, sugar beet.

Location: Legnaro. Padova - Italy

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low

Technical knowledge required for land users: high

Main technical functions: increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), spatial arrangement and diversification of land use

Secondary technical functions: increase in organic matter

Rotations / fallows
Material/ species: Cereals, Legumes, Brassicaceae

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Euro €

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

0.8

4.3 Establishment activities

Comments:

No initial investment

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Costs consider a three-year crop rotation with a succession of maize, wheat and soybean. There are not establishment inputs and costs because all the costs are recurrent. Main expenses are for machinery and fertilisations

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zones: 0-100 m a.s.l. (the low Venetian does not exceed 50 m above sea level)

5.3 Soils

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

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) and for agriculutral use only (irrigation with surface water)

5.5 Biodiversity

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

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

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

Difference in the involvement of women and men: Farmers in the Veneto region are traditionally males due to historical and cultural reasons.

Population density: 200-500 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 0.5% - 1%

100% of the land users are average wealthy.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 91-100%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Productivity and Sustainability of Different Cropping Systems. 40 years of Experiments in Veneto region (Italy), Giardini L., 2004