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': 1072, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra) - Netherlands', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1072, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra) - Netherlands', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1072, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra) - Netherlands', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1072, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra) - Netherlands', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1072, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra) - Netherlands', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

20/03/2015

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:

Grass intercropping on corn fields

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Italian rye grass is sown when the corn has grown to knee height, and has not yet developed a closed cover. The grass is plowed into the soil several months after the harvest of the corn crop.

Purpose of the Technology: The purpose of the technology is to enable a good growth of the catch crop (the grass) and to increase root biomass production after the corn is harvested. This will contribute to the organic mater content of the soil, and reduce the leaching of nitrogen and potassium. After underplowing of the grass, the nitrogen and potassium will be released to the soil and become available for the next crop.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: When corn is well established (between 30-60 cm height), grass is seeded between rows. A special seeder is required. Tractor must have tires that fit between corn rows. Grass germinates, but growth is reduced as corn matures and creates shade. When corn is harvested, grass continues to grow as a winter catch-crop. Some years, grass is sprayed with fertiliser to increase mineralisation. Grass is cultivated into the soil in early spring.

Natural / human environment: Multi-functional rural area with land use for agriculture, recreation, residence and nature. Dairy agriculture in small farms for Dutch standards combined with arable cropping. High livestock density.
Undulating landscape with cover sands and clayey and loamy sediments. Podzols and cambisols developed in sandy substrate. The area also has patches of anthroposols, soils enriched in Medieval times with manure and organic residues. Phosphate and nitrogen levels in these soils are in general high.
Mean monthly temperature varies between 2 and 17°C. The long-term mean annual precipitation is between 800 and 825 mm, with the lowest amounts in spring, and the highest in autumn. The long-term average annual precipitation deficit is between 200 and 240 mm.

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:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The land users's initiative was through the application for the project Healthy Sand by a group of farmers. During the Gezond Zand Project the group organised themselves in the Foundation HOEDuurzaam. The project ran from 2012-2014 and is followed by the new project BodemRijk.
The external initiative was from the drinking water company Vitens and the Province of Gelderland in the same period.

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The main soil threat in the Olden-Eibergen Case Study area is the gradual decline of soil organic matter stocks. On average, agricultural fields have lost up till 5.4% of organic matter in the last 10 years according to farmers. This threatens the agricultural potential of the soil as well as its water holding capacity, and its potential to buffer leaching of nutrients and pesticides. In the long term, agricultural productivity will fall, costs of agricultural inputs such as manure, fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation will increase and the additional costs for cleaning drinking water withdrawn from ground water will rise.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The group of farmers in the area experience declining crop production, problems with too dry and too wet soils, and decreasing organic matter content in soil due to long-term monocultures of maize, the use of pig manure and legislation forcing farmers to process or export manure from their farms.

Grazingland comments: Nothing filled in in this section, since the technology applies specifically to maize cropping.

Type of grazing system comments: Nothing filled in in this section, since the technology applies specifically to maize cropping.

3.3 Further information about land use

Comments:

Water supply: rainfed, mixed rainfed - irrigated

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 250Longest growing period from month to month: March - November

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• Intercropping

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.94 m2.

94 ha over 32 fields. 20 farmers applied this technology.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Type of agronomic measures: cover cropping, green manure, rotations / fallows

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -linear

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Pc: compaction, Hq: decline of groundwater quality

Main causes of degradation: soil management (ploughing for renewal of grassland or rotation to arable cropping), governance / institutional (Stricter manure legislation since January 2014 deriving from the EU Nitrates Directive has forced farmers to process part of the manure from their farms on-farm, or to export it from their farms.)

Secondary causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (long-term monoculture of maize and intensive cropping of seed potatoes)

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: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

After the corn crop is growing, a tractor with a seeder sows Italian Rye-grass seeds between the rows of corn. The grass seeds are sown in strips parallel to the corn rows. The corn rows are 0.75 metres apart. The grass strips are usually between 0.50 and 0.60 metres wide, but this is according to the farmer's preference. this means that a spacing of between 0.075 and 0.125 metres remains bare on each side of the grass strip, between the grass and the corn.

Location: Haarlo - Oude Eibergen. Gelderland

Date: April 8 2015

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Technical knowledge required for agricultural contractor: high (technical skills are required from an agricultural contractor with a special machine to sow the grass in the already standing maize crop.)

Main technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase of biomass (quantity)

Secondary technical functions: improvement of ground cover, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase / maintain water stored in soil, improvement of water quality, buffering / filtering water

Cover cropping
Material/ species: Italian rye-grass
Quantity/ density: 25 kg/ha
Remarks: Between corn rows width 0.075-0.125 m bare space.

Green manure
Material/ species: Italian rye-grass
Quantity/ density: 25 kg/ha
Remarks: Between corn rows width 0.075-0.125 m bare space.

Rotations / fallows
Remarks: The Italian rye grass is worked into the soil ca 5 months after the harvest of the maize.

Aligned: -linear
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): not applicable
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.75-1.25

Grass species: Italian rye grass

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): not applic%

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Euro

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

0.94

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Buy a seeder	Agronomic

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
Equipment	Seeder	Machine	1.0	5327.05	5327.05
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					5327.05

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 0 month(s)
Life span of the seeder: 6 years

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Seeding	Agronomic	After corn is established
2.	Fertilizer	Agronomic	Every other 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
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	117.2	117.2	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	42.62	42.62	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer Hired(machine+fert)	ha	1.0	9.06	9.06	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					168.88

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Specific tractor to perform grass undersowing (seeder), tractor, sprayer/applicator

To seed the Rye-grass strips between the corn rows. Done a few months after the corn is seeded.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

New equipment (Seeder) - The seeding and fertilizer applications are hired from a company. The company purchases the new equipment to seed between the corn rows.
The greatest determinate factor to the land users are then the cost of hired machine hours.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: 0-100 m a.s.l. (up to 45 metres a.s.l.)
Slopes on average: Flat and gentle (Only incidental)

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 depth on average: Deep (A and B horizons up till 40 cm in Gleyic Podzols and Umbric Gleysols (ca 75% of the area) Hardly any soil organic matter below 15 cm. Rooting depth is up to 80 cm) and very deep (Deep topsoils rich in organic matter in the Fimic Anthrosols (12% of the area))
Soil texture is coarse/light (Most soils have a sandy texture due to the substrate consisting of cover sands) and medium (Soils in former creek valleys contain loam (Umbric Gleysols))
Soil fertility is low (most soils have a low fertility due to the sandy substrate (specifically the Gleyic Podzols, ca 40% of the area)) or very high (in Fimic Anthrosols originated due to application of farmyard manure since medieval times (12% of the area))
Topsoil organic matter is medium-high (The purpose of the pilot project is to increase soil organic matter)
Soil drainage/infiltration is good (deep ground water table (H > 40-80 cm; L>120 cm) in the sandy soils on thick substrate of cover sands (in 65% of the area)) and medium (shallow groundwater tables in the Umbric Gleysols (35% of the area))
Soil water storage capacity is very high (in the Fimic Anthrosols with high SOM in the topsoil) and medium (in the other soils, varying with the soil organic matter content)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table is <5m (in all soil types the highest level of the groundwater table during the year is <140 cm below the soil surface. The lowest level can be lower than 120 cm)
Availability of surface water is medium (from small rivers (De Berkel) and creeks)
Water quality (untreated) is poor drinking water (treatement required - levels of the pesticides Bentazon, and MCPP in the groundwater have incidentally exceeded the norms for drinking water production between 1985 and 2009.)

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Soil biodiversity is high in the Fimic Anthrosols.

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
Difference in the involvement of women and men: Most outdoor farm operations are completed by men.
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: negative
100% of the land users are average wealthy and own 100% of the land.
Off-farm income specification: Some farmers are contractual workers. Wives of farmers often have a job, e.g. at the municipality, craft work. No B&B activities or educational services.
Market orientation: Mixed (Maize is completely used to feed cows (max 20% of the area is allowed under maize); other arable crops are sold to the market. Dairy production is commercial.)

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:

• leased
• individual

Comments:

All agriculture land is owned or rented by individual farmers. Some farmers lease their land to other farmers. Leased land is less well managed, resulting in lower organic matter contents. Investments in SLM would lead to a higher renting fee, or the land owner taking the land back in exploitation.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	well

Comments:

No modifications to the technology in response to climate change.

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)?

Comments:

Farmers are subsidized for seeding rye-grass between corn rows. If not subsidized, they are unlikely to invest. Few farmers have seen short-term benefits. Their willingness to invest is based on their understanding of the long-term benefits, brought about by the Approach developed in the Project Gezond Zand (and in RECARE).

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

20

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

20 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
increases soil organic matter How can they be sustained / enhanced? annual application of the measure; subsidy to execute the measure
increases maize crop yield in the long term How can they be sustained / enhanced? annual application of the measure
reduces leaching of nitrogen, potassium and pesticides to the groundwater

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
increases soil organic matter How can they be sustained / enhanced? annual application of the measure; subsidy to execute the measure
increases available soil moisture
reduces leaching of nitrogen, potassium and pesticides to the groundwater

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?
Uncertainty of the success or positive effect of the measure.
Uncertainty of negative effects to the crop.
Uncertainty of competition between grass and crop for nutrients and moisture.
Concerns about cost and labour
Uncertainty of hindrance from legislation.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
technology requires hiring of skilled labour and machinery, which is not viable without subsidy in the short term	provide subsidy in the first 3-5 years of implementation

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

RECARE_WP3 Report: CS_11_Ouden-Eibergen_v2Annemieke Smit and Simone Verzandvoort2014

Available from where? Costs?

Freeannemieke.smit@wur.nl

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Gezond Zand: Met een verbeterde bodemkwaliteit naar een betere waterkwaliteit Haarloseveld en Olden EibergenBy Willem Rienks and Henk Leever2014

URL:

Freehttp://www.hoeduurzaam.nl/images/gallery/nieuws/Brochure/BrochureHoeduurzaam%20Definitief.pdf

Title/ description:

Unravelling changes in soil fertility of agricultural land in The NetherlandsArjan Reijneveld2013

URL:

Wageningen University Library http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wda/2044057