This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Planted Vegetative Strips (PVS) [Philippines]

technologies_1105 - Philippines

Completeness: 78%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

Crisologo Victor

Cagayan Valley Integrated Agricultural Resources Research Center (CVIARRC)

Ilagan, Isabela, Philippines

Philippines

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

24/08/2001

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Planting of economic crops/forages in strips along the contour to control soil loss through erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology was introduced in the upland corn growing areas in Isabela province. The province is one of the main corn growing areas in the Philippines. As a means of minimizing/controlling soil erosion, economic crops like cassava and pineapple and forage grasses are planted in strips along the contour. Cassava and pineapple strips are established together with forage grass. When the cassava and pineapple is harvested, the forage will continue to provide protection against soil erosion. Planting of cassava is done yearly, while the replanting cycle for pineapple is 2 to 3 years. In some cases, forage grass is grown alone. It is more or less permanent and it is trimmed regularly. Overtime, natural terraces are formed and soil erosion is minimized. The system is advatageous in the economic benefit can be gained from both the alley crops is there on the contour strips.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Philippines

Region/ State/ Province:

Isabela

Further specification of location:

Isabela

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):

Introduced by extension staff

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Severe soil erosion and fertility decline caused by intensive cropping (soil mining)
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Productivity decline - increased application of fertilizers to obtain the same yield level.

3.3 Further information about land use

Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 2
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 240, Longest growing period from month to month: May - Dec; Second longest growing period in days: 180,Second longest growing period from month to month: Jun - Nov

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • cross-slope measure

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:
  • 1-10 km2
Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 2.5 m2.
The technology was introduced in the upland corn growing area of Isabela. It was project-initiated

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • A3: Soil surface treatment
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: contour planting / strip cropping, contour tillage

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • prevent land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Author:

Boyet Yambot-BSWM

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Artist impression about planted vegetative strips (PVS) technology
Location: Isabela

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate
Main technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard
Secondary technical functions: reduction of slope angle, reduction of slope length

Contour planting / strip cropping
Material/ species: seeds/seedlings
Quantity/ density: 4000
Remarks: in strips along the contour

Contour tillage
Remarks: strip cropping

Vegetative measure: contour
Vegetative material: G : grass
Number of plants per (ha): 4000
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 1
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 4
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.5
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 1.2

Vegetative measure: in rows
Vegetative material: G : grass
Number of plants per (ha): 4000
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 1
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 4
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.5
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 1.2

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: G : grass
Perennial crops species: pineapple
Grass species: napier
Other species: cassava

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 8.00%
If the original slope has changed as a result of the Technology, the slope today is (see figure below): 3.00%

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Philippine Peso

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

50.0

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

2.00

4.4 Establishment activities

Activity Type of measure Timing
1. contouring Vegetative dry season
2. planting of vegetative strips (PVS) Vegetative onset of wet season
3. planting of alley crops Vegetative June/October

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour labour ha 1.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
Equipment animal traction ha 1.0 12.0 12.0 100.0
Plant material seeds ha 1.0 80.0 80.0 100.0
Plant material seedlings ha 1.0 32.0 32.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 144.0

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Type of measure Timing/ frequency
1. Planting of vegetative strips (PVS) Agronomic onset of rainy season / once
2. Planting of alley crops Agronomic June/October / twice a year
3. Contouring Agronomic dry season / once
4. pruning/trimming (grass) Vegetative regular /every 2 weeks
5. fertilization (pineapple) Vegetative onset of rainy season /once a year

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour labour ha 1.0 40.0 40.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 40.0
Comments:

The total area to be used for PVS which is approximately 2000 square meters.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labor and inputs costs are the main factors involved.

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

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

Thermal climate class: tropics

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • 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
Altitudinal zone:
  • 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.

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • 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):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
  • rich
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 50-100 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 2% - 3%
60% of the land users are very rich and own 60% of the land.
4% of the land users are rich and own 15% of the land.
1% of the land users are average wealthy and own 10% of the land.
20% of the land users are poor and own 10% of the land.
Off-farm income specification: Trading, working in other farms, carpentry or a family member working abroad

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

  • < 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
Comments:

Land subdivision due to inheritance

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • individual

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased

fodder production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Napier grass for work animals

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Napier grass for work animals

wood production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

from the PVS

Income and costs

economic disparities

increased
decreased

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

PVS serves as barrier for field operation

Socio-cultural impacts

national institutions

weakened
strengthened
Comments/ specify:

created awareness

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

70

Quantity after SLM:

40

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

50

Quantity after SLM:

10

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

PVS can harbor pests

Other ecological impacts

Soil fertility

decreased
increased

Production of extra food crops

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

from the PVS

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 90-100%
Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
20 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology. They can clearly see the benefit of adapting SWC practices in terms of added benefits (additional products, ecological)

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Training and provision of planting materials/inputs
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Easy to establish and not capital intensive

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
PVS can harbor pests (e.g. rats) Proper maintenance/cleanliness
Interfere with cultivation Align PVS in a straight manner if the contour allows
Need additional capital Provisions of incentives (e.g. subsidized inputs)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Low effectivity of some PVS species/materials Supplementary control measures (mulching, temporary barriers)
Yearly establishment (e.g. cassava) Consider perennial species as PVS (e.g. forage grass)
Competition for nutrient and water Application of fertilizer and use of water harvesting techniques.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules