Application of sulphurous amendments for alteration of soil pH near Wareham, Dorset. (Mark Tibbett)

Soil pH management (United Kingdom)

Description

Acidification treatments were applied to improved pastures in an attempt to restore plots to low-intensity grazing land

Aims / objectives: To convert the area from intensive pastureland to a semi-natural state with low intensity grazing through alteration of the soil pH. This change in land-use should have a positive effect on both above- and belowground biodiversity.

Methods: Plots were established on two adjacent farms owned by National Trust near Wareham, Dorset (Newlines Farm and Hartland Farm). A control and two sulphur amendments were compared on plots on ten fields (five from each farm) on 50 m x 50 m plots. Elemental sulphur (Brimestone 90TM) or ferrous sulphate (Mistrale “Wet Copperas” 50TM) were applied at equal rates of 2000 kg ha-1 in May 2000 and a second application of 1600 kg ha-1 in March 2001.

Stages of implementation: Treatments were applied in 2000 and 2001. Periodic monitoring has been conducted to monitor changes in plant diversity and soil chemical and biological properties.

Role of stakeholders: Stakesholders played an active role in identifying management options and implementing the technology. When the original plots were established, a charitable organisation was the primary stakeholder. For the intent of the current project, other stakeholders became involved, including parish council, landowners, and conservation organisations.

Other important information: Acidification treatments were applied to plots on the Isle of Purbeck that had previously been used for arable production and then high intensity grazing. The site is located on acidic fluvially-deposited soil and was in lowland heath until the middle of the 20th century at which time the land was tilled and treatments of rock phosphate, marl and chalk were added to increase soil pH and nutrient availability and improve the potential of the land for agricultural production.

Location

Location: Wareham, Dorset, United Kingdom

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • -2.06655, 50.65774

Initiation date: 1999

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach
Application of sulphurous amendments for alteration of soil pH near Wareham, Dorset. (Mark Tibbett (University of Reading, PO Box 237, Reading, UK))
Control plot on Newline Farm (Marta Gil-Martinez (Instituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiología, CSIC, Seville, Spain))

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (soil, pH, below-ground biodiversity, low-intensity grazing)

To manage soil pH change and associated effects on above and below-ground diversity and function

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Management of soil pH and land use change to less intensive system
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: The land where the approach was implement was managed by National Trust UK who had a special interest in reclamation and conservation.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Local confusion about land use change Treatment through the SLM Approach: Public workshop explained reasons to stakeholders
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Loss of earning as less intensive system is less productive Treatment through the SLM Approach: Ecological benefits balance against economic losses

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
NGO
international organization
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Land owners who acquired national support
planning
By specialist
implementation
By land owner and specialist
monitoring/ evaluation
By Specialist
Research
By specialist
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
  • Public meetings
Advisory service was not foreseen for this approach

Advisory service is totally inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; No additional government funding has been acquired.
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Research on the approach has been carried out by specialists at Bournemouth University and the University of Reading, UK.

Research was carried out on-farm

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs): 50.0%; national non-government (National Trust): 30.0%; other (University): 20.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
partly financed
fully financed
Elemental S, Ferrous Sulphate

Labour by land users was

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

Conversion to low input system

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Other farms

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced land degradation
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • reduced workload
  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness
  • customs and beliefs, morals
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
  • aesthetic improvement
  • conflict mitigation
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Decreased spending on inputs where the only input in the system in dung from cattle grazing (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue grazing at a low enough density to allow adequate plant regrow)
  • Decreased labour required for management
  • Decreased compaction since regular use of tractors on site is no longer required (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Attempt to minimizing compaction by grazing livestock)
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • The conversion in land use from a improved agriculture to a semi- natural low input grazing system should have a positive effect on above- and belowground biodiversity.
  • Considering that the Isle of Purbeck was historically a region of cultural importance, returning the system to a more natural state has important implications for the cultural and recreational value of the land.
  • Low input systems can increase resilience of the system to global change
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Fertilizer application rate too high for one application Smaller, regular additions over several years
  • Decrease in economic returns
  • Shrub encroachment (i.e. gorse; Alex europaeus) can be a problem when converting to low input pasture land in this region. Grazing, mowing, and chemical herbicides are some options for slowing invasions.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Over time nutrients are being drawn down but exporting meat off the land with no inputs Periodic applications of nutrients may be required to ensure long-term fertility of the system
  • Land use change and restoration are slow process and may result in economic losses on managed lands

References

Compiler
  • Tandra Fraser
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: June 3, 2016
Last update: June 25, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Re-creation of heathland on improved pasture using top soil removal and sulphur amendments: Edaphic drivers and impacts of ericoid mycorrhizas, Diaz, A., Green, I., Tibbett, M., 2008Heathland restoration on former agricultural land: Effects of artificial acidification on the availability and uptake of toxic metal cation, Green, I., Stockdale, J., Tibbett, M., Diaz, I., 2007Are sulphurous amendments an effective tool in the restoration of heathland and acidic grassland after four decades of rock phosphate fertlization, Tibbett, M., Diaz, A., 2005The restoration of heathland and acid grassland at Hartland and Newline Farms, Tibbett, M., Diaz, A., 2001: Biological Conservation, 141:1628-1635, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320708001353Water Air Soil Pollution, 178:287-295, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-006-9197-8Restoration Ecology, 13:83-91, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00010.x/epdfFirst Year Report to National Trust, Purbeck
  • Heathland restoration on former agricultural land: Effects of artificial acidification on the availability and uptake of toxic metal cation, Green, I., Stockdale, J., Tibbett, M., Diaz, I., 2007: Water Air Soil Pollution, 178:287-295, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-006-9197-8
  • Are sulphurous amendments an effective tool in the restoration of heathland and acidic grassland after four decades of rock phosphate fertlization, Tibbett, M., Diaz, A., 2005: Restoration Ecology, 13:83-91, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00010.x/epdf
  • The restoration of heathland and acid grassland at Hartland and Newline Farms, Tibbett, M., Diaz, A., 2001: First Year Report to National Trust, Purbeck
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International