This is an outdated, inactive version of this case.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

Reduced tillage [Norway]

Redusert jordarbeiding

technologies_1245 - Norway

Completeness: 71%

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:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE )
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme (Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme) - Norway

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

14/08/2014

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

Yes

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Reduced tillage of cropland areas to decrease erosion by water and soil loss.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Cropland areas with high erosion risk are left as stubble fields after the harvesting is carried out and throughout the winter. Special regulations in the Morsa catchment (cf. morsa.org) suggest that tillage and fertilizer additions are postponed to the 1st of March at the earliest.

Purpose of the Technology: Reduced tillage is an efficient measure to prevent soil erosion and particle and nutrient
loss from cropland to watercourses. In addition to the protection of soil from water erosion, stubble fields contribute to heighten the organic matter content, which may also increase the
aggregate stability of the soil. it is also possible that higher biological activity may improve the soil structure.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: It is of importance to keep in mind a potential increased amount of weeds and diseases (incl. fungi) when practicing this measure. The soil may also develop a rather dense structure over time if the climate is humid. On areas of low erosion risk, cultivation by autumn harrowing to a depth of 80 to 120 mm, followed by repetitive spring harrowing to a depth of 60 to 100
mm, may be beneficial. The methods are likely to contribute to faster decomposition of
plant material, and to reduce the occurrence of weeds. Direct seeding to stubble fields of young meadow is another method, but requires special equipment and is not very common in this catchment.

Natural / human environment: The Kråkstad River is mainly situated in Ski commune in Akershus County in South-Eastern parts of Norway. The river catchment is a tributary of the Vansjø-Hobøl watercourse, also known as the Morsa watercourse. The Kråkstad River catchment constitutes a total area of about 22 km², consisting mainly of cropland and forest/woodland. The recipient Vansjø is a eutrophic lake with a former history of algal blooms of toxic cyanobacterias. The lake is both used as a drinking water source and for recreational purposes.

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:

Norway

Region/ State/ Province:

Akershus

Further specification of location:

Ski

Comments:

Boundary points of the Technology area: (59.595, 10.896), (59.611, 10.866), (59.670, 10.869), (59.676, 10.849), (59.717, 10.844), (59.723, 10.893), (59.694, 10.969), (59.655, 10.952), (59.668, 10.904), (59.629, 10.915)

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • during experiments/ research

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Main crops (cash and food crops):

Major cash crop: Small grains

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Erosion, flooding and landslides, eutrophication of rivers and lakes

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Increased usage of pesticides and reduced production

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Cropland: Ca: Annual cropping

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Cropland: Ca: Annual cropping

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 135Longest growing period from month to month: May 1 to mid-September

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • minimal soil disturbance

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 4.3 m2.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Type of agronomic measures: minimum 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
  • Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
water degradation

water degradation

  • Hp: decline of surface water quality
Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Hp: decline of surface water quality

Main causes of degradation: soil management, Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts), governance / institutional

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff), change of seasonal rainfall, floods, land tenure

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

Main goals: prevention of land degradation

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Author:

Kamilla Skaalsveen

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

A technical drawing of how a field may be divided into sections of reduced tilling (harrowed and stubble field) on high and moderate erosion risk areas, while it may be plowed on lower risk areas.

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting

Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, increase of surface roughness, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, improvement of water quality, buffering / filtering water, increase of biomass (quantity)

Minimum tillage
Material/ species: Stubble field, harrowing etc.
Remarks: Dependent on erosion risk classes

4.4 Establishment activities

Comments:

No initial investement

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Comments:

The measure does not lead to any additional expenses for the land user

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The measure does not lead to any additional costs for the land user

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
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid

Thermal climate class: temperate

Thermal climate class: boreal

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):
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility is medium-high
Soil drainage/infiltration is poor
Soil water storage capacity is very low-low

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

< 5 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

for agricultural use only (irrigation)

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • low

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
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Population density: < 10 persons/km2
Annual population growth: < 0.5%
10% of the land users are rich and own 10% of the land.
90% of the land users are average wealthy and own 90% of the land.

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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • medium-scale

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

Land ownership:
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • open access (unorganized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased

risk of production failure

increased
decreased

land management

hindered
simplified
Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased

workload

increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

Improved livelihoods and human well-being

decreased
increased

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quality

decreased
increased

surface runoff

increased
decreased

evaporation

increased
decreased
Soil

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil compaction

increased
reduced
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

beneficial species

decreased
increased

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

downstream flooding

increased
reduced

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

damage on public/ private infrastructure

increased
reduced

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change
Season Type of climatic change/ extreme How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature increase well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm well
local windstorm well
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
drought well
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

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

negative

Long-term returns:

slightly negative

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

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

slightly negative

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

Comments on acceptance with external material support: Local regulations determine that farmers only receive subsidies per production area along with financial grants if they implement the technology.

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduced soil loss and erosion

How can they be sustained / enhanced? maintain the regulation that land in high erosion classes should not be plowed in autumn

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Higher demand for pesticides Autumn and spring harrowing

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules