Runoff harvesting for olive trees by up-and-down tillage (by tractor) and V-shaped microcatchments (dug by hoe) in a semi-arid area, Khanasser Valley, Aleppo, Syria. (Francis Turkelboom)

Furrow-enhanced runoff harvesting for olives (Syrian Arab Republic)

Description

Runoff harvesting through annually constructed V-shaped microcatchments, enhanced by downslope ploughing.

The Khanasser Valley in north-west Syria is a marginal agricultural area, with annual rainfall of about 220 mm/year. Soils are shallow and poor in productivity. The footslopes of degraded hills are traditionally used for extensive grazing or barley cultivation. However to achieve self-sufficiency in olive oil production, several farmers have developed orchards in this area - which is generally considered too dry for olives.
Trees are spaced at 8 m apart, within and between rows. Traditionally, farmers prefer to till their orchards by tractor in order to keep them weed-free (weeds may attract sheep, lead to fires and compete for water with the olive trees). As this tillage operation is usually practised up and down the slope, the resulting furrows stimulate runoff and erosion. However, when this is combined with Vshaped and/or fish-bone shaped microcatchments around individual trees, the furrows created can be used to harvest runoff water for improved production.
The V-shape earthen bunds (reinforced with some stones) are constructed manually, by hoe, around each tree. The furrows then divert runoff systematically to the microcatchments where it concentrates in basins around the trees. Each tree is effectively served by a catchment area of 60 m2. The catchment: cultivated area ratio is thus approximately 60:1 (assuming the area exploited by the tree.
This technology saves irrigation water during the dry season, enhances soil moisture storage, and stimulates olive tree growth. Furthermore, fine particles of eroded soil are captured in the microcatchments. While these may be nutrientrich, they also tend to seal the surface. The bunds need to be rebuilt every year. If the structures are damaged after a heavy storm, they need to be repaired. Labour input for establishment and maintenance is low, the technology is easy and cheap to maintain, and there is enough local skill to sustain and expand the system. A supporting technology is to mulch the area around each tree with locally available stones (limestone and/or basalt) to reduce soil temperature during the summer, decrease surface evaporation and improve infiltration. The catchment areas between the trees are sometimes planted with low water-demanding winter annuals (lentils, vetch, barley, etc) especially when the trees are young. This helps to reduce surface erosion. Implementation of furrow-enhanced runoff water harvesting in olive orchards started in 2002, and adoption by farmers is growing gradually.

Location

Location: Khanasser Valley, Aleppo, NW Syria, Syrian Arab Republic

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 37.43, 35.73

Spread of the Technology:

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation:

Type of introduction
Runoff is collected in micro-basins around each tree. The V-shaped bunds extend to the left. Stone mulching - as a supportive measure - further enhances moisture conservation by reducing evaporation (see picture in related approach). (Francis Turkelboom)

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 - Silvo-pastoralism

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: cereals - barley, lentils, vetch
    • Tree and shrub cropping: olive
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
  • Grazing land
  • Forest/ woodlands

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
  • soil erosion by wind - Et: loss of topsoil
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
  • water harvesting
  • irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)
  • water diversion and drainage
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures
  • structural measures -

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
V-shaped micro-catchments which harvest water for the olive trees: the furrows up-and-down slope help channel the runoff to the olives.

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low
Technical knowledge required for land users: low
Main technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, increase / maintain water stored in soil, water harvesting / increase water supply
Secondary technical functions: reduction of slope length, sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting, reduction in wind speed

Agronomic measure: up and down tillage
Remarks: (for runoff collection)
Structural measure: V-shaped bunds
Structural measure: mulching with stones (supportive, see also 2.8)
Construction material (stone): limestone, basalt (locally available)
Author: Mats Gurtner

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
n.a.
Establishment activities
  1. Up-and-down tillage by tractor driven plough (Timing/ frequency: in winter)
  2. Construction of runoff harvesting bunds and micro-basins, manually by hoe (Timing/ frequency: November/December; beginning of rainy season)
  3. V-shaped bunds are seasonal structures and thus established every year. Construction of runoff harvesting bunds and micro-basins (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
Labour
Construction (10 person days) ha 1.0 50.0 50.0 100.0
Equipment
Machine use ha 1.0 10.0 10.0 100.0
Tools ha 1.0 3.0 3.0 100.0
Construction material
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 63.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 63.0
Maintenance activities
  1. Maintenance of bunds in winter/rainy season (Timing/ frequency: after heavy rainfall 1-3 times a year)
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
Repair (5 person days) ha 1.0 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 25.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 25.0

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
n.a.
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?
  • 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
  • individual
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
Crop production
decreased
increased

land management
hindered
simplified

irrigation water availability
decreased
increased


Through water saving

workload
increased
decreased

Tree growth
decreased
increased

Dependency on tractor
increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

Landscape and environmental quality
decreased
improved

Ecological impacts
surface runoff
increased
decreased

soil moisture
decreased
increased

soil loss
increased
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
increased


Increase in soil fertility

plant diversity
decreased
increased

animal diversity
decreased
increased

habitat diversity
decreased
increased

pest/ disease control
decreased
increased


Increased weed growth around trees

wind velocity
increased
decreased

Off-site impacts
downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
reduced

downstream siltation
increased
decreased

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Climate change

-

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
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Increases soil moisture storage in low rainfall areas and allows expansion of olive plantation into drier areas
  • Easy, low-cost and requires no extra external inputs.
  • Reduces soil erosion.
  • Reduces summer irrigation needs
  • Improves olive productivity
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Extra labour needed Construct during off-season.
  • Increases weed growth in the tree basin More stone mulching.
  • Trees will still need some irrigation in summer Make irrigation practices more efficient.

References

Compiler
  • Francis Turkelboom
Editors
Reviewer
  • Deborah Niggli
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: March 10, 2011
Last update: Aug. 14, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Tubeileh A and Turkelboom F, Participatory research on water and soil management with olive growers in the KhanasserValley. KVIRS project, ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria. 2004.:
  • Tubeileh A, Bruggeman A and Turkelboom F, Growing olive and other tree species in marginaldry environments. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria. 2004.:
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International