Applying organic residues to denuded areas [Iceland]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Thorunn Petursdottir
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: Jan Reichert, Hanspeter Liniger
Restoration with organic residuals
technologies_1761 - Iceland
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)
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)
Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (Soil Conservation Service of Iceland) - Iceland1.3 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:
Applying organic residues to denuded ares
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
The rangelands in question are severely degraded, and parts of them have lost their topsoil layer entirely. Nevertheless, in many cases some remnant vegetation patches are still in place and can serve as seed banks during the restoration process. In order to stabilize the surface (i.e. to reduce the effects of freeze-thaw processes), to provide nutrients to the system, increase water availability and facilitate the spread of native species within the degraded areas, tractors are used to spread manure or hay over the denuded areas. All implementation is based on the methods and tools used in ecological restoration, aiming at re-activating environmental and ecological processes, and increasing the resilience of the ecosystems undergoing restoration. Denuded patches, preferably close to the remaining vegetation "islands", are covered with organic matter in order to stabilize the surface, facilitate seed production and dispersal and provide safe sites for germination.
Purpose of the Technology: The purpose of the technology is to halt further land degradation and facilitate natural succession within the area undergoing restoration. In the long-term, it should substantially reduce wind and water erosion. It should also lead to increased biodiversity, enhanced water availability and accelerated carbon sequestration (in both soil and vegetation). The overall restoration task is to increase the resilience of the ecosystems to natural hazards, including volcanic activity.
Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: In the year after the areas are addressed, they are commonly treated with a low level of inorganic fertilizer to provide readily available nutrients to the seeds, and seedlings that have already germinated, within the area. The fertilizer treatment is repeated twice a year for 4-8 years on average.
Natural / human environment: In the long-term, the technology is expected to substantially increase biomass production, re-build soil qualities, accelerate carbon sequestration and secure water availability within the rangeland and the adjacent ecosystems. The areas still grazed are assumed to be more suitable for grazing and the protected areas are expected to be of better recreational and aesthetic value. The increased vegetation cover will reduce, and even halt, the sand drift that still creates challenges for inhabitants in adjacent villages, on farmsteads and within the summerhouse clusters scattered around the area. As the degraded rangeland is in the vicinity of an active volcano (Mt Hekla) the technology is also expected to increase ecosystem resilience against natural hazards like ash and pumice drift and reduce potential offsite damage caused by these materials.
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:
Iceland
Region/ State/ Province:
Rangarthig Ytra
Further specification of location:
Rangarvellir
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?
Nee
Comments:
Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 900 km2.
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. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- improve production
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- reduce risk of disasters
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Grazing land
- Extensive grazing
Animal type:
- horses
- sheep
Products and services:
- meat
- whool
Unproductive land
Specify:
Wastelands, deserts, glaciers, swamps, recreation areas, etc
Comments:
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Vast parts of the area are heavily degraded due to unsustainable land use through the centuries in combination to harsh climate and frequent volcanic eruptions. The major land use problem are related to the fact that the concerned ecosystems collapsed long time ago and despite all restoration efforts implemented within the area for over 100 years, the systems are still highly dysfunctional. Their carrying capacity is limited and even light livestock grazing can keep further vegetation succession down. Passive restoration might take place where the livestock grazing has been excluded but in most cases some technologies are needed to "kickstart" the ecosystem and break their negative resilience against changes.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): They are fully aware that the ecosystems are in a poor condition and restoration is needed in order to push improvements forward. They acknowledge that grazing of collapsed ecosystems can maintain the dysfunctional of the systems and hinder ecological improvements. Nevertheless, in many cases they believe the harsh climate and volcanic activities are the main contributors to land degradation - that livestock grazing and the grazing carrying capacity of the rangeland are not fundamental issues in this context.
Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Grazing land: Ge: Extensive grazing land
3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
- Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)
Unproductive land
Specify:
Wastelands, deserts, glaciers, swamps, recreation areas, etc
3.4 Water supply
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- rainfed
3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- improved ground/ vegetation cover
- ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
agronomic measures
- A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
Comments:
Main measures: agronomic measures
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
- Wo: offsite degradation effects
soil erosion by wind
- Et: loss of topsoil
- Eo: offsite degradation effects
biological degradation
- Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
- Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
- Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
water degradation
- Hs: change in quantity of surface water
- Hg: change in groundwater/aquifer level
Comments:
Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Et: loss of topsoil, Eo: offsite degradation effects, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wo: offsite degradation effects, Bq: quantity / biomass decline, Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline, Hs: change in quantity of surface water, Hg: change in groundwater / aquifer level
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- reduce land degradation
- restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
Comments:
Main goals: prevention of land degradation, 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):
An example of how old hay can effectively be distributed on denuded areas with the right equipment
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low
Technical knowledge required for land users: low
no vegetation --> old hay spread over area --> with machinery to spread
Author:
Sveinn Runólfsson
4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
other/ national currency (specify):
ISK
If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:
138.0
4.3 Establishment activities
Activity | Timing (season) | |
---|---|---|
1. | Spreading organic residuals | spring time and summer |
4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment
Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit | Total costs per input | % of costs borne by land users | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | drivers on the tractor | ha | 1.0 | 126400.0 | 126400.0 | |
Equipment | Machine use (2 tractors needed) | ha | 1.0 | 72000.0 | 72000.0 | 100.0 |
Fertilizers and biocides | Compost/manure (hay cost probably higher) | ha | 1.0 | 10000.0 | 10000.0 | |
Other | transport of the hay (depend how far away) | ha | 1.0 | 10000.0 | 10000.0 | |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 218400.0 | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 1582.61 |
Comments:
Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)
Life span of the organic residuals: 1 year
Number of parties sharing: 232
4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
The most determinate factors affecting the cost are: 1) the machinery needed and 2) the distance of the eroded areas from the farmsteads
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
- semi-arid
Thermal climate class: boreal
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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
- not relevant
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)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
- coarse/ light (sandy)
Topsoil organic matter:
- low (<1%)
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
< 5 m
Availability of surface water:
poor/ none
Water quality (untreated):
good drinking water
Water quality refers to:
ground water
Is water salinity a problem?
Nee
Is flooding of the area occurring?
Nee
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
Habitat diversity:
- low
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Sedentary or nomadic:
- Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
- commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
- 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- average
Individuals or groups:
- groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
- mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
- women
- men
Age of land users:
- middle-aged
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
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- state
Land use rights:
- communal (organized)
Water use rights:
- open access (unorganized)
Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?
Ja
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
Water availability and quality
water availability for livestock
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
health situation
Comments/ specify:
reduce dust in the air --> air better for breathing
national institutions
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
water quantity
surface runoff
evaporation
Soil
soil moisture
soil cover
soil loss
nutrient cycling/ recharge
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
Vegetation cover
biomass/ above ground C
Climate and disaster risk reduction
emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
wind velocity
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
wind transported sediments
damage on neighbours' fields
damage on public/ private infrastructure
impact of greenhouse gases
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:
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
- single cases/ experimental
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):
for the hay single cases ; manure more often 11-50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 0-10%
6.6 Adaptation
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
Nee
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
It increases the vegetation cover and stops wind erosion. |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Same view as land user. |
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? |
---|---|
This technology is dependence on surface and accessibility (must be accesable for machinery and not far away from farms). | |
Specialized machinery is needed (only 3 machines in Iceland). | |
Hay is needed to feed the animals and is therefore limited and if available expensive. |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Same view as land user. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
- interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
7.3 Links to relevant online information
Title/ description:
Webpage Soil Conservation Service of Iceland
URL:
https://land.is/english/
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules