Example of organic mulching for limestone quarry restoration. The photo shows the surface layer of chopped wood from pruning forest species (pines). Drip irrigation was installed to supply water during the 1st year establishment of vegetation. (Albert Solé Benet (Almeria, Spain))

Organic mulch under almond trees (Spain)

Acolchados orgánicos en campos de almendro (ES)

Description

Organic mulching to protect against rain-splash, sheet wash and rill formation, reduce evaporation losses and weed growth.

Organic mulch is applied in Almond fields to provide a permanent surface cover that protects the soil against soil erosion, reduces evaporation and limits the growth of weeds. This makes that less ploughing is needed under Almond trees that are normally ploughed 3-5 times per year if no mulch cover is present. The material used for mulching can be diverse. Most feasible are straw or bark and wood chips from pruning residues from almonds and forest species (mostly pines). Alternatively, alpha-grass can be used as mulch. Mulch can best be applied late spring or early summer in order to maintain soil humidity of spring rainfall. Mulch should come mixed and homogenised. It is spread around trees by a mechanical spade or by the arm of a caterpillar. A layer of maximum 3-5 cm of mulch should be applied for economical reasons.

Purpose of the Technology: The ultimate goal of organic mulching under almond trees is to maintain soil water through a reduced evaporation and reduce soil loss by erosion. A mulch covers reduces soil erosion by 1) reducing raindrop impact, 2) increasing water infiltration, 3) increasing surface storage, 4) decreasing runoff velocity, 5) improving soil structure and porosity, and 6) improving the biological activity in the soil. Mulching prevents off-site effects of erosion like flooding, damage to infrastructure and siltation of water reservoirs, while maintaining or slightly increasing crop productivity. The mulch results in a higher soil roughness, a better infiltration of water into the soil, and so also in a reduced runoff. The mulch also has a favorable effect on soil quality since the organic material of the mulch will slowly decompose and provide nutrients to the soil. The decomposing part of the organic mulch will increase aggregation and soil structure through the production of organic compounds (e.g. humic acids). The reduced necessity for ploughing of the Almond fields will result in less fuel use and labour as well as reduced emission of CO2. In addition, the mulch cover prevents weeds to grow and so less competition from weeds will occur and less herbicides are needed.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment of mulching depends on the material used for mulching. Given its availability, the easiest is the use of pruning residue from Almond trees. Almonds are pruned in autumn, and residue can be chopped and applied directly or stored in the field until early spring. Residues are chopped and spread around the tree stem and if enough material is available between tree stems. Alternatively, and depending on availability, pruning residue of pine trees or alpha-grass can be used. Pine tree residue should come from nearby forest stands and need to be chopped just like the almond pruning residue in spring. Litter from the forest floor should not be used as this will cause damage to the forest. Alpha-grass is very common in the region and should be harvested in winter in the fields surrounding the cultivated area without destroying the plant allowing it to regenerate. The alpha-grass does not need to be chopped and can be put around the tree stem of the almond trees.

Natural / human environment: The technology is feasible for soils of shallow to medium depth (between 20-60 cm), and with gentle to moderate slope gradients (2 - 8%). The climate is semi-arid with a mean annual rainfall around 300 mm. Droughts, centred in summer commonly last for more than 4-5 months. Annual potential evapotranspiration rates larger than 1000 mm are common. The production system is highly mechanised and market oriented but depends strongly on agricultural subsidies. All cropland is privately owned.

Location

Location: Guadalentin catchment, Murcia, Spain

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • -1.7076, 37.7931

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. < 0.1 km2 (10 ha))

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: 10-50 years ago

Type of introduction

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
Land use mixed within the same land unit: Yes - Agroforestry

  • Cropland
    • Tree and shrub cropping: tree nuts (brazil nuts, pistachio, walnuts, almonds, etc.)
  • Grazing land
  • Forest/ woodlandsTree types: Pinus species (pine)

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation
  • all three

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, Wo: offsite degradation effects
  • physical soil deterioration - Pk: slaking and crusting
  • water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
  • n.a.
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
Photo of how the mulch should be divided under the tree stems. If enough material is available, a continuous cover without bare surfaces between trees is recommended.

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate (Knowledge on the type of material used for mulch is essential)

Technical knowledge required for land users: low (The application in the field is simple)

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, increase / maintain water stored in soil

Secondary technical functions: increase of surface roughness, improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), increase in organic matter

Mulching
Material/ species: organic material (almond pruning, pine chips, alpha-grass)
Quantity/ density: max 3-5 cm
Author: Joris de Vente

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: n.a.
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
Labour for cutting alpha grass, and the price of the mulch are most determining factors of the costs. Almond prunings are free of charge (except for costs to chop them), but will not provide enough mulch. Chopped Pine pruning or straw mulch are relatively expensive.
Establishment activities
  1. Purchase of per (to cut pruning residue) (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (n.a.) Total costs per input (n.a.) % of costs borne by land users
Equipment
Per (to cut pruning residue) piece 1.0 4761.0 4761.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 4'761.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 4'761.0
Maintenance activities
  1. Cut alpha-grass (optional) (Timing/ frequency: winter)
  2. apply mulch of alpha-grass, almond and pine tree pruning residue (Timing/ frequency: early spring or autumn after almond pruning)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (n.a.) Total costs per input (n.a.) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Cut alpha-grass (optional) person/days 4.0 95.25 381.0 100.0
apply mulch of alpha-grass, almond and pine tree pruning residue person/days 4.0 10.0 40.0 100.0
Equipment
Machine use person/days 0.5 88.0 44.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Mulch tons/ha 15.0 55.53333 833.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 1'298.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 1'298.0

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
Thermal climate class: subtropics

Thermal climate class: temperate. The higher parts are generally somewhat colder
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
Water quality refers to:
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

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)
Gender
  • women
  • men
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
health

poor
good
education

poor
good
technical assistance

poor
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
good
markets

poor
good
energy

poor
good
roads and transport

poor
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
good
financial services

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

demand for irrigation water
increased
decreased

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
decreased

farm income
decreased
increased

Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

conflict mitigation
worsened
improved

Ecological impacts
water quality
decreased
increased

surface runoff
increased
decreased

excess water drainage
reduced
improved

evaporation
increased
decreased

soil moisture
decreased
increased

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

soil crusting/ sealing
increased
reduced

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased

animal diversity
decreased
increased

beneficial species (predators, earthworms, pollinators)
decreased
increased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
increased
decreased

Off-site impacts
downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
reduced

downstream siltation
increased
decreased

groundwater/ river pollution
increased
reduced

buffering/ filtering capacity (by soil, vegetation, wetlands)
reduced
improved

wind transported sediments
increased
reduced

damage on neighbours' fields
increased
reduced

damage on public/ private infrastructure
increased
reduced

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

Mulch is relatively expensive and so implies an additional cost.

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
very well
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local rainstorm

not well at all
very well
local windstorm

not well at all
very well
drought

not well at all
very well
general (river) flood

not well at all
very well
Other climate-related consequences
reduced growing period

not well at all
very well

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%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
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
  • A good surface cover throughout the year provides good protection against erosion and helps reducing number of tillage operations and expenses

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? no suggestions
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • The main advantage is that a good surface cover is obtained below almonds that traditionally are characterised by a very poor surface cover during the whole year. The mulch will reduce evaporation and prevent erosion to take place.

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Cheapest type of mulch should be identified (alpha grass, chopped pruning residues, …).
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • The price of the mulch Look for alternative low cost materials
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • The price of the mulch and/or the price of carrying it to the field Look for alternative low cost materials, the nearest to the plots as possible.
  • Once the mulch in situ, any tillage operation would incorporate it to the soil, reducing part of its initial benefit; if the mulch is green (alpha grass) it would depress soil N levels upon decomposition, though it would increase SOM in the medium-long term Avoid tillage in mulched areas

References

Compiler
  • Joris De Vente
Editors
Reviewer
  • Alexandra Gavilano
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: July 1, 2011
Last update: July 31, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Smets, T., Poesen, J. and Knapen, A., 2008. Spatial scale effects on the effectiveness of organic mulches in reducing soil erosion by water. Earth-Science Reviews, 89(1-2): 1-12.: Internet
  • Verdu and Mas 2007. Mulching as an alternative technique for weed management in mandarin orchard tree rows. AGRONOMY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. 27(4): 367-375: Internet
  • http://www.isahispana.com/: Internet
  • Mellouli, H.J., van Wesemael, B., Poesen, J. and Hartmann, R., 2000. Evaporation losses from bare soils as influenced by cultivation techniques in semi-arid regions. Agricultural Water Management, 42(3): 355-369.: Internet
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International