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)

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

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A trial crop rotation system of '2+2', where a succession of two spring crops (maize) followed by two winter crops (wheat) aims to diversify cropping through rotation (sequences and intervals) while limiting weed pressure under a no-tillage system.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The region Pays de Loire in Western France has a temperate climate with warm summers and mild winters. The region has many rural areas, dedicated mostly to agriculture with large economic centres and urban conurbations (e.g. the Nantes area). The rotation 2+2 technology is being applied on a dairy farm in Pays de Loire (La Pouëze), implementing Soil Conservation Agriculture. Fields have not been ploughed for 9 years and direct seeding of cover crops (primarily clover that is cut as green mulch, although may be cut for silage) and winter crops has been used for 4 years.

The rotation Maize/Wheat/Maize/Wheat was changed to a Maize/Maize/Wheat/Wheat rotation (2+2). In the traditional rotation Maize/Wheat/Maize/Wheat, there were 2 sequences (wheat followed by maize and maize followed by wheat) and 1 interval cover cropping (every two years). In the new 2+2 rotation Maize/Maize/Wheat/Wheat, the crops in the rotation are not changed but the number of sequences is doubled (4 sequences: wheat/wheat; maize/maize; wheat/maize; maize/wheat) and there are 2 cover cropping intervals (years 0 & 3) instead of one. This 4 year cycle can then be repeated. This modification allows more diversity in the rotation including variation in timing of the cover crops (some long gaps between wheat and maize, some short between wheat and wheat) and, in our no tillage system, helps to limit weed pressure on both crops.

In a no-tillage system, keeping weed seeds on the surface exposes them to climatic hazards and predators. Thus in this new system regime, during the two years of maize, the wheat weed seeds are neither in optimal conditions for dormancy, nor in optimal conditions for germination, which decreases the stock of seeds of wheat weeds. Thus in our no tillage system, the weed pressure (including resistant rye grass) has been significantly reduced.

The 2+2 rotation improved production, reduced/prevented land degradation and reduced weed pressure.

Initial investment costs are limited to purchasing the management equipment.

Benefits of the 2+2 rotation include:
Increased: crop production, farm income, water drainage, nutrient cycling, soil organic matter carbon, vegetation cover, beneficial species, habitat diversity
Reduced: risk of production failure, workload/time, fuel surface water runoff, evaporation, soil crusting, soil compaction, impact on soil life, weed emergence

The compilation of this SLM technology is a part of the European Interreg project FABulous Farmers which aims to reduce the reliance on external inputs by encouraging the use of methods and interventions that increase the farm’s Functional AgroBiodiversity (FAB). Visit www.fabulousfarmers.eu and www.nweurope.eu/Fabulous-Farmers for more information.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

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

Country:

France

Region/ State/ Province:

Pays de la Loire

Further specification of location:

La Pouëze

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• 0.1-1 km2

Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

Nee

Map

×

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 land users' innovation
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Soil training sessions, trade fairs and farmers groups have supported the land user's innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

• reduced weed pressure

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Nee

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - maize
• cereals - wheat (winter)

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Is intercropping practiced?

Nee

Is crop rotation practiced?

Ja

If yes, specify:

Maize/Maize/Wheat/Wheat

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

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

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

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

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
• A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
• A3: Soil surface treatment

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion

chemical soil deterioration

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

physical soil deterioration

• Pc: compaction

biological degradation

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

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

€

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

0.9

4.3 Establishment activities

Comments:

No extra establishment activities or costs as technology relates to the ongoing management and rotational planting of crops.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

No establishment activites or costs as technology relates to the ongoing management and rotational planting of crops.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

Comments:

On a 4 year rotation cycle, costs amount to approx. 2500€ per ha.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

There is no change in cost between the initial rotation (wheat-maize-wheat-maize) and the rotation 2+2.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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.

pH7, loamy clay soil

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

rainfed system only

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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, titled

Land use rights:

• leased

Water use rights:

• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Nee

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

Assessment based on transition of planting regime from WMWM to MMWW.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

No difference in off-site impact

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

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

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

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

• 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Nee

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:

Agroécologie : Guide de la nouvelle agriculture, Year : 2016, author : Dominique SOLTNER ; collection : Sciences et techniques agricoles

Available from where? Costs?

www.soltner.fr

7.4 General comments

The trial of this new crop rotation system has been very successful and will be repeated to assess the longer-term impacts of the system change.