Revegetation and re-seeding
(South Africa)
Rehabilitation/Restoration of old and degraded land
Description
Revegetation of old, degraded land. Restoring area to increase grazing capacity and production.
Vegetative (revegetation/re-seeding) improvement for an increase in grass production and to increase the grazing capacity of the area.
The rural community identified an old degraded land - the area was fenced to exclude grazing by large herbivores. The woody species that encroached the area were debushed. Area was ploughed and re-seeded with palatable, climax, big tufted, perennial grass species. Some plots were covered with twigs (bush packing). The area was protected from grazing. Monitoring of vegetation was done at the end of the growing season.
Location
Location: Pietersburg, Limpopo, South Africa
No. of Technology sites analysed:
Geo-reference of selected sites
Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (1.0 km²)
In a permanently protected area?:
Date of implementation: less than 10 years ago (recently)
Type of introduction
-
through land users' innovation
-
as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
-
during experiments/ research
-
through projects/ external interventions
Classification of the Technology
Main purpose
-
improve production
-
reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
-
conserve ecosystem
-
protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
-
preserve/ improve biodiversity
-
reduce risk of disasters
-
adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
-
mitigate climate change and its impacts
-
create beneficial economic impact
-
create beneficial social impact
Land use
Water supply
-
rainfed
-
mixed rainfed-irrigated
-
full irrigation
Purpose related to land degradation
-
prevent land degradation
-
reduce land degradation
-
restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
-
adapt to land degradation
-
not applicable
Degradation addressed
-
soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion, Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
-
chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
-
water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
-
area closure (stop use, support restoration)
SLM measures
-
vegetative measures - V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
Technical drawing
Technical specifications
Experimental plot
Location: Sekgopo. Northern Province
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate
Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, increase in organic matter, increase in soil fertility, improvement of ground cover
Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, reduction of slope angle, increase of surface roughness, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil, water harvesting / increase water supply, water spreading, sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting, reduction in wind speed, improvement of soil structure
Aligned: -graded strips
Vegetative material: G : grass
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.00
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 1.00
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 1.00
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.30
Grass species: 5 Perennial, climax grass types
Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 4.00%
Author: Klaus Kellner
Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs
Calculation of inputs and costs
- Costs are calculated:
- Currency used for cost calculation: USD
- Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
- Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 3.60
Most important factors affecting the costs
Labour, fencing and maintenance. Maintenance costs include man days and travelling for vegetation monitoring and sampling.
Establishment activities
-
Ripping (Timing/ frequency: At start of technology and beginning of rainy season)
-
Oversowing (Timing/ frequency: At start of technology and beginning of rainy season)
-
Bush packing (Timing/ frequency: At start of technology and beginning of rainy season)
Establishment inputs and costs
| Specify input |
Unit |
Quantity |
Costs per Unit (USD) |
Total costs per input (USD) |
% of costs borne by land users |
|
Labour
|
| Bush packing, sowing and ripping |
persons/day/ha |
172.0 |
3.2 |
550.4 |
10.0 |
|
Equipment
|
| Machine use |
ha |
1.0 |
30.0 |
30.0 |
|
| Tools |
ha |
1.0 |
20.0 |
20.0 |
|
|
Plant material
|
| Seeds |
ha |
1.0 |
150.0 |
150.0 |
|
|
Construction material
|
| Fencing |
ha |
1.0 |
1100.0 |
1100.0 |
|
| Total costs for establishment of the Technology |
1'850.4 |
|
| Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD |
1'850.4 |
|
Maintenance activities
-
No maintenance (Timing/ frequency: None)
-
Fencing in tact (Timing/ frequency: /Once a year)
Maintenance inputs and costs
| Specify input |
Unit |
Quantity |
Costs per Unit (USD) |
Total costs per input (USD) |
% of costs borne by land users |
|
Labour
|
| Maintain fence |
persons/day/ha |
62.5 |
3.2 |
200.0 |
10.0 |
|
Construction material
|
| Fence |
ha |
1.0 |
50.0 |
50.0 |
|
| Total costs for maintenance of the Technology |
250.0 |
|
| Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD |
250.0 |
|
Natural environment
Average 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
-
humid
-
sub-humid
-
semi-arid
-
arid
Specifications on climate
Average annual rainfall in mm: 450.0
Slope
-
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
Altitude
-
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.
Technology is applied in
-
convex situations
-
concave situations
-
not relevant
Soil depth
-
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)
-
medium (loamy, silty)
-
fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
-
coarse/ light (sandy)
-
medium (loamy, silty)
-
fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
-
high (>3%)
-
medium (1-3%)
-
low (<1%)
Groundwater table
-
on surface
-
< 5 m
-
5-50 m
-
> 50 m
Availability of surface water
-
excess
-
good
-
medium
-
poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
-
good drinking water
-
poor drinking water (treatment required)
-
for agricultural use only (irrigation)
-
unusable
Is salinity a problem?
Occurrence of flooding
Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation
-
subsistence (self-supply)
-
mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
-
commercial/ market
Off-farm income
-
less than 10% of all income
-
10-50% of all income
-
> 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
-
very poor
-
poor
-
average
-
rich
-
very rich
Level of mechanization
-
manual work
-
animal traction
-
mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
-
Sedentary
-
Semi-nomadic
-
Nomadic
Individuals or groups
-
individual/ household
-
groups/ community
-
cooperative
-
employee (company, government)
Age
-
children
-
youth
-
middle-aged
-
elderly
Area used per household
-
< 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
Scale
-
small-scale
-
medium-scale
-
large-scale
Land ownership
-
state
-
company
-
communal/ village
-
group
-
individual, not titled
-
individual, titled
Land use rights
-
open access (unorganized)
-
communal (organized)
-
leased
-
individual
Water use rights
-
open access (unorganized)
-
communal (organized)
-
leased
-
individual
Access to services and infrastructure
Impacts
Socio-economic impacts
workload
Only few people could be employed - more would have liked to earn money
Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Capacity building awareness
conflict mitigation
Farmers and land users did not all agree to the SWC technology
Ecological impacts
soil loss
Quantity before SLM: 2
Quantity after SLM: 0
Off-site impacts
reliable and stable stream flows in dry season (incl. low flows)
downstream flooding (undesired)
groundwater/ river pollution
wind transported sediments
Cost-benefit analysis
Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive
Long-term returns
very negative
very positive
Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive
Long-term returns
very negative
very positive
Adoption and adaptation
Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
-
single cases/ experimental
-
1-10%
-
11-50%
-
> 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
-
0-10%
-
11-50%
-
51-90%
-
91-100%
Number of households and/ or area covered
11 households, covering 100 percent of the stated area
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
To which changing conditions?
-
climatic change/ extremes
-
changing markets
-
labour availability (e.g. due to migration)
Conclusions and lessons learnt
Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
References
Reviewer
-
David Streiff
-
Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Jan. 26, 2011
Last update: June 21, 2019
Resource persons
-
Klaus Kellner - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO (Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO) - South Africa
Project
