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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 5, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE )', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 867, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme (Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme) - Norway', 'template': 'raw'}

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

2.1 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

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

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

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

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Type of agronomic measures: minimum tillage

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

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

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

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

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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

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

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

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