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

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)

University of Padova (UNIPD) - Italy

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

23/04/2015

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:

Cover crops with high root root growth capacity as a practice to improve soil quality

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Cover crops will be selected by their capacity to address biomass production towards below-ground tissues. Growing alternative seasonal cover crops between annual crops have the potential to provide multiple benefits in a cropping system.

Purpose of the Technology: Highly developed rooting system will favour the soil quality: from an agronomic point of view, the soil will benefit from natural decompaction and structuring (especially if associated with no-till techniques) due to roots effect. Moreover, root-derived carbon is retained in the soils much more efficiently than are above-ground inputs (e.g. straw, crop residues). As a result, high and deep root productions will increase the more recalcitrant soil organic carbon (SOC) content as well as improve the nutrient cycle. From an environmental point of view, the increase of SOC content due to high root production will favour carbon sequestration within the soil profile and in turn mitigate GHG emisisons.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Following the critera that has already been adopted in the Veneto region for the continuos soil cover on croplands, the application of root-oriented cover crops will involve the alternation of autumn-winter cereals,
rapeseed or other herbaceous crops with maize, soybean, sorghum etc. Cover crops that will be sown after the main culture will not be neither fertilized nor treated with pesticides during growing, while at the end of the crop cycle they will be buried as green manure in order to improve SOC, nutrient cycle and finally soil fertility.

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:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Innovation in cover crop has been recently carried out through field experiments.

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Soils in the low Venetian plain of the Veneto region generally suffer from a loss of soil organic matter (SOM) that is strongly affected by their natural texture and climatic conditions. Moreover, in the last 50 years intensive tillage practices contributed to a further SOM decrease, estimated at 0.02-0.58 t/ha/y of carbon. Finally, high intensive agriculture practices increased nonpoint source pollution and in turn caused a decline of surface and groundwater quality.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): To date, few farmers have adopted voluntarily the continuous soil cover to reduce a decline of soil fertility and water quality, symptom of poor perception of the problem. Adoption of SLT by farmers was sustained only by means of regional subsidies.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 210 Longest growing period from month to month: March to SeptemberSecond longest growing period in days: 180

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Comments:

The technology is not implemented yet in the field and will be proposed as a new technology to be tested.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Type of agronomic measures: better crop cover, green manure

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, Pc: compaction, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Main causes of degradation: soil management, crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub), population pressure

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

Comparison between a traditional cover crop and a selected root-oriented cover crop

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate (in proposing cover crops that are adapted to agro-ckimatic conditions)

Technical knowledge required for land users: low (no further expertise is needed for implementation)

Main technical functions: improvement of ground cover, improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), improvement of subsoil structure (hardpan), increase in organic matter

Better crop cover
Material/ species: rafanus, sudangrass, cowpea, sunn hemp

Green manure
Material/ species: rafanus, sudangrass, cowpea, sunn hemp

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

€

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

0.9

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Cover crops: chopping	Agronomic
2.	Main crop: seedbed preparation	Agronomic
3.	Main crop: harrowing	Agronomic
4.	Main crop: weed control	Agronomic
5.	Main crop: fertilisation	Agronomic
6.	Main crop: harvesting	Agronomic
7.	Main crop: sowing	Agronomic

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	Chopping cover crop	ha	1.0	343.0	343.0	75.0
Equipment	Seedbed preparation main crop	ha	1.0	191.0	191.0	75.0
Equipment	Harrowing main crop	ha	1.0	63.0	63.0	75.0
Equipment	Weed control main crop	ha	1.0	44.5	44.5	75.0
Equipment	Harvesting main crop	ha	1.0	152.0	152.0	75.0
Equipment	Sowing main crop:	ha	1.0	121.0	121.0	75.0
Plant material	Seeds main crop	ha	1.0	191.0	191.0	75.0
Plant material	Seeds cover crop	ha	1.0	191.0	191.0	75.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Biocides	ha	1.0	125.0	125.0	75.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	ha	1.0	254.0	254.0	81.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					1675.5

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Although machinery costs are the largest part of total ones, they are almost completely the same for systems adopting - or non adopting - the technology. As a result, additional seeds as cover crop and field labour for sowing are the main costs for implementation of the technology.

This technoilogy is hypothesized as an innovative application to improve the soil strructure, reduce its compaction as well as increase the SOC content. As a result, costs for maintenance and subsides were estimated on the basis of previous experiences in cover crop management. Therefore they are only hypothetical and do not correspond to a real situation.

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 low
Soil drainage/infiltration is medium
Soil water storage capacity is medium

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:

Population density: 200-500 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 0.5% - 1%

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:

• state
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

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

6.3 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	not known

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

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

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: The technology is not yet applied, but only proposed. However stakeholders showed interest in the technology for a future adoption of the technology.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Allows natural control of weeds How can they be sustained / enhanced? Higher seeding rate
Naturally prevent compaction

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improves soil structure How can they be sustained / enhanced? Selection of root-oriented species
Improves soil fertilty, biodiversity and organic matter content How can they be sustained / enhanced? Selection of species with low root decomposition rate
Improves knowledge on soil cover benefits and agroecology How can they be sustained / enhanced? Improve farmers' education
Prevents erosion How can they be sustained / enhanced? Maintenance of cover crop

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?
High costs of field management (sowing, purchase of seeds)	Subsidies

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Increases the competition for water resources during dry seasons

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

USDA, Plant guide - SUNN HEMP
USDA, Plant guide - SORGHUM
USDA, Plant guide - OILSEED RADISH

Available from where? Costs?

http://plants.usda.gov/java/