Field trial with different grasses (Thimoty, Reed canary grass, Tall fescue) (Örjan Berglund (SLU, dep. of soil and environment. Box 7014, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden))

Water tolerant crops (Sweden)

Grödor som tål hög grundvattenyta

Description

Using crops that can withstand a high water table level and still have a high yield

Subsiding peat soils will suffer from rising ground water tables.

Purpose of the Technology: To find crops that can withstand a high groundwater table and still have a high yield.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Fertilisation, harvests.

Natural / human environment: Cultivated field

Location

Location: Uppsala, Uppsala län, Sweden

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 17.42939, 60.0248

Spread of the Technology:

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
CO2 measurements at the field trial (Örjan Berglund (SLU, dep. of soil and environment. Box 7014, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden))

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

  • Grazing land
    • Ranching
    • Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
  • Forest/ woodlandsProducts and services: Timber, Fuelwood, Nature conservation/ protection
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
  • physical soil deterioration - Ps: subsidence of organic soils, settling of soil
SLM group
  • improved plant varieties/ animal breeds
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • vegetative measures - V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
  • management measures - M5: Control/ change of species composition

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: Swedish Krona (SEK)
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 8.14 Swedish Krona (SEK)
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 150.00
Most important factors affecting the costs
n.a.
Establishment activities
n.a.
Maintenance activities
n.a.

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: temperate
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
x
good
education

poor
x
good
technical assistance

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

poor
x
good
markets

poor
x
good
energy

poor
x
good
roads and transport

poor
x
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
x
good
financial services

poor
x
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
fodder quality
decreased
x
increased

Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
reduced
x
improved

health situation
worsened
x
improved

cultural opportunities (eg spiritual, aesthetic, others)
reduced
x
improved

recreational opportunities
reduced
x
improved

community institutions
weakened
x
strengthened

national institutions
weakened
x
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
x
improved

conflict mitigation
worsened
x
improved

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups (gender, age, status, ehtnicity etc.)
worsened
x
improved

Ecological impacts
surface runoff
increased
x
decreased

soil cover
reduced
x
improved

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
x
increased

biomass/ above ground C
decreased
x
increased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
increased
x
decreased

Off-site impacts

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Benefits compared with maintenance costs
This is a new measure, no economic evaluations can be done before we have tested the measures. This is an experimental trial.

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

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

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known
local windstorm

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known
drought

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known
general (river) flood

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

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known

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
  • He can get an incom from his fields even though the ground water level is too high for his normal production.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • The farmer do not have to abandon the field due to high groundwater table.
  • These soils will leak GHG until they are completely under water. With the technology we at least get something good from the fields.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome

References

Compiler
  • Örjan Berglund
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Oct. 13, 2015
Last update: Aug. 1, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International