Sheep manure used to stabilize the surface and bring in nutrients (Thorunn Petursdottir)

Applying organic residues to denuded areas (Iceland)

Restoration with organic residuals

Description

Applying organic residues to denuded ares

The rangelands in question are severely degraded, and parts of them have lost their topsoil layer entirely. Nevertheless, in many cases some remnant vegetation patches are still in place and can serve as seed banks during the restoration process. In order to stabilize the surface (i.e. to reduce the effects of freeze-thaw processes), to provide nutrients to the system, increase water availability and facilitate the spread of native species within the degraded areas, tractors are used to spread manure or hay over the denuded areas. All implementation is based on the methods and tools used in ecological restoration, aiming at re-activating environmental and ecological processes, and increasing the resilience of the ecosystems undergoing restoration. Denuded patches, preferably close to the remaining vegetation "islands", are covered with organic matter in order to stabilize the surface, facilitate seed production and dispersal and provide safe sites for germination.

Purpose of the Technology: The purpose of the technology is to halt further land degradation and facilitate natural succession within the area undergoing restoration. In the long-term, it should substantially reduce wind and water erosion. It should also lead to increased biodiversity, enhanced water availability and accelerated carbon sequestration (in both soil and vegetation). The overall restoration task is to increase the resilience of the ecosystems to natural hazards, including volcanic activity.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: In the year after the areas are addressed, they are commonly treated with a low level of inorganic fertilizer to provide readily available nutrients to the seeds, and seedlings that have already germinated, within the area. The fertilizer treatment is repeated twice a year for 4-8 years on average.

Natural / human environment: In the long-term, the technology is expected to substantially increase biomass production, re-build soil qualities, accelerate carbon sequestration and secure water availability within the rangeland and the adjacent ecosystems. The areas still grazed are assumed to be more suitable for grazing and the protected areas are expected to be of better recreational and aesthetic value. The increased vegetation cover will reduce, and even halt, the sand drift that still creates challenges for inhabitants in adjacent villages, on farmsteads and within the summerhouse clusters scattered around the area. As the degraded rangeland is in the vicinity of an active volcano (Mt Hekla) the technology is also expected to increase ecosystem resilience against natural hazards like ash and pumice drift and reduce potential offsite damage caused by these materials.

Location

Location: Rangarvellir, Rangarthig Ytra, Iceland

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • n.a.

Spread of the Technology:

In a permanently protected area?: No

Date of implementation: more than 50 years ago (traditional)

Type of introduction
Old hay used to stabilize the surface, bring in nutrients and make safe microsites for seed germination (Thorunn Petursdottir)

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
    • Extensive grazing
    Animal type: horses, sheep
    Products and services: meat, whool
  • Unproductive land - Specify: Wastelands, deserts, glaciers, swamps, recreation areas, etc

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, Wo: offsite degradation effects
  • soil erosion by wind - Et: loss of topsoil, Eo: offsite degradation effects
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bq: quantity/ biomass decline, Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
  • water degradation - Hs: change in quantity of surface water, Hg: change in groundwater/aquifer level
SLM group
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover, A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
An example of how old hay can effectively be distributed on denuded areas with the right equipment

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

no vegetation --> old hay spread over area --> with machinery to spread
Author: Sveinn Runólfsson

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: ISK
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 138.0 ISK
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
The most determinate factors affecting the cost are: 1) the machinery needed and 2) the distance of the eroded areas from the farmsteads
Establishment activities
  1. Spreading organic residuals (Timing/ frequency: spring time and summer)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (ISK) Total costs per input (ISK) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
drivers on the tractor ha 1.0 126400.0 126400.0
Equipment
Machine use (2 tractors needed) ha 1.0 72000.0 72000.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Compost/manure (hay cost probably higher) ha 1.0 10000.0 10000.0
Other
transport of the hay (depend how far away) ha 1.0 10000.0 10000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 218'400.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 1'582.61
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: boreal
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: ground water
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
water availability for livestock
decreased
increased

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
decreased

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

health situation
worsened
improved


reduce dust in the air --> air better for breathing

national institutions
weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

Ecological impacts
water quantity
decreased
increased

surface runoff
increased
decreased

evaporation
increased
decreased

soil moisture
decreased
increased

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased

vegetation cover
decreased
increased

biomass/ above ground C
decreased
increased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
increased
decreased

wind velocity
increased
decreased

Off-site impacts
wind transported sediments
increased
reduced

damage on neighbours' fields
increased
reduced

damage on public/ private infrastructure
increased
reduced

impact of greenhouse gases
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

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%
Number of households and/ or area covered
for the hay single cases ; manure more often 11-50%
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
  • It increases the vegetation cover and stops wind erosion.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Same view as land user.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • This technology is dependence on surface and accessibility (must be accesable for machinery and not far away from farms).
  • Specialized machinery is needed (only 3 machines in Iceland).
  • Hay is needed to feed the animals and is therefore limited and if available expensive.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Same view as land user.

References

Compiler
  • Thorunn Petursdottir
Editors
Reviewer
  • Jan Reichert
  • Hanspeter Liniger
Date of documentation: June 2, 2015
Last update: July 5, 2020
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International