Adapted management of organic soils [Germany]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Johanna Fick
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Fabian Ottiger
technologies_1697 - Germany
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
SLM specialist:
Baum Sarah
+49 531 596 5237
sarah.baum@thuenen.de
Thünen Institute of Rural Studies
Bundesallee 50, D-38116 Braunschweig, Lower Saxony, Germany
Germany
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Thünen Institute (Thünen Institute) - GermanyName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
CC-LandStraD - Germany1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
29/07/2015
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Yes
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Re-wetting of organic soils and following adapted management suitable for wet conditions like extensive grazing land or paludiculture.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
In peat lands, formed over centuries, reducing the ground water level leads to min-eralization: this results in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and leaching of dis-solved organic nutrients into adjacent water bodies. Furthermore, drainage leads to the destruction of highly specialized ecosystems. Re-wetting, by removing of drain-age systems (etc.), means the restoration of a higher ground water level which can reduce GHG emissions in the long term. Re-wetting to a water-level of 10 cm below the soil surface is ideal for reducing GHG emissions and preventing peat mineraliza-tion. One prerequisite for re-wetting is that soil degradation and peat mineralization are not too advanced. An adequate water supply must be available. Re-wetting also affects adjacent areas so possible impacts such as flooding of settlements and in-frastructure must be considered.
Purpose of the Technology: Land uses suitable for the soil conditions after re-wetting are extensive grazing, or paludiculture. Paludiculture is the cultivation of wet organic soils by preserving or renewing peat by planting and harvesting specific trees (e.g. alder), reeds and sedges. On fens, alder trees (for wood /biomass production) or plant species grown for their products (e.g. for thatch) or bioenergy, including the common reed, reed canary grass or cat’s-tail, can be cultivated. On peat bogs sphagnum farming as a peat substitute in horticulture, or as a medicinal plant, is possible. The first harvest of the common reed can take place four years post-establishment; thereafter annually. Alternatively, extensive livestock grazing with water buffalo or suitable breeds of cattle like Galloway or Heck has potential for re-wetted land. Year-round grazing is possible with a carrying capacity of up to 0.7 livestock units/ha.
Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Apart from avoiding huge amounts of GHG emissions and bringing land into alter-native production, further aims of re-wetting and adapting land use are:
- soil protection (soil structure, water content, peat protection);
- water protection (water quality, buffering / filtering water);
- protection of the landscape’s water regime and material balance (solute transport);
- biodiversity protection (retaining a sensitive ecosystem with specialized/ threatened species); and
- flood protection (organic soils can quickly absorb large amount of water).
There are many advantages for the environment while still creating a (modest) in-come for land users. Unlike most other bioenergy production chains (e.g. maize, rapeseed) which do not have these environmental co-benefits, paludiculture with the common reed can become a sustainable production system.
Natural / human environment: The Altmark region is located on the North German Plain. The region is predomi-nantly characterized by agriculture but has many forests too. Because of the high proportion of grassland, cattle are important. The use of biomass for bioenergy was increasing and many biogas plants were established in the last few years. Fens are mostly located in Altmark-County Salzwedel. Here, the average population density (42.7 inhabitants km2) is relatively low in the German context and the annual precipi-tation of 466mm is also below the overall German average.
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:
Germany
Region/ State/ Province:
Germany, Saxony-Anhalt
Further specification of location:
Altmarkkreis Salzwedel and district Stendal (total area of region: 4744 km²)
Comments:
Potential area: 288 km2 (~ 6% of the region). The area stated is the area that is potentially usable for the technology due to available geographical data; requirements: fen (Nieder- und Anmoor), area under agricultural land use, outside of nature protection areas (national parc, nature reserve, FFH area, SPA area, Ramsar). Due to re-wetting restrictions by factors like nowadays water level in the area, settlements etc., the effective area suitable will be lower.
Boundary points of the Technology area: 52.842906; 10.760956
52.351751; 11.858462
52.541514; 12.187856
52.870405; 12.231025
53.050502; 11.633261
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.):
answer refers to re-wetting
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Cropland
- Annual cropping
Grazing land
Extensive grazing land:
- Ranching
Main animal species and products:
Main species: Water buffalo, adapted cattles (e.g. Heck cattle, Galloway)
Comments:
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Drainage causes mineralization, sagging and reduction of organic matter of organic soils as well as high GHG emissions, disturbed water regimes, destruction of valuable ecosystems and loss of ecosystem services.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Long term use of drained organic soils leads to soil degradation and lower productivity. Thus, more fertilizer is needed. Due to sagging of organic soils, ditches and drainages need to be renewed every 10-15 years.
Ranching: Water buffalo, adapted cattles (e.g. Heck cattle, Galloway)
Grazingland comments: extensive grassland use with mowing and/or grazing; or paludiculture (e.g. Common Reed)
Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Grazing land: Ge: Extensive grazing land
Type of grazing system comments: extensive grassland use with mowing and/or grazing; or paludiculture (e.g. Common Reed)
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
Comments:
Water supply: rainfed, rainfed
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 234Longest growing period from month to month: Spring-autumn
Livestock density (if relevant):
50-100 LU /km2
3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- wetland protection/ management
- Re-wetting of organic soils
3.5 Spread of the Technology
Comments:
Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 288 m2.
Potential area: 288 km2 (~ 6% of the region). The area stated is the area that is potentially usable for the technology due to available geographical data; requirements: fen (Nieder- und Anmoor), area under agricultural land use, outside of nature protection areas (national parc, nature reserve, FFH area, SPA area, Ramsar). Due to re-wetting restrictions by factors like nowadays water level in the area, settlements etc., the effective area suitable will be lower.
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
vegetative measures
- V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
- V5: Others
structural measures
- S11: Others
management measures
- M1: Change of land use type
- M2: Change of management/ intensity level
- M3: Layout according to natural and human environment
Comments:
Main measures: vegetative measures, structural measures, management measures
Specification of other vegetative measures: paludiculture
Specification of other structural measures: removal of drainage system, dykes, etc. allowing rise in groundwater level
Type of vegetative measures: in blocks
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
physical soil deterioration
- Pc: compaction
- Ps: subsidence of organic soils, settling of soil
- Pu: loss of bio-productive function due to other activities
biological degradation
- Bh: loss of habitats
- Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
water degradation
- Ha: aridification
- Hg: change in groundwater/aquifer level
- Hq: decline of groundwater quality
- Hw: reduction of the buffering capacity of wetland areas
Comments:
Main type of degradation addressed: Pc: compaction, Ps: subsidence of organic soils, settling of soil, Pu: loss of bio-productive function due to other activities
Secondary types of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Bh: loss of habitats, Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline, Ha: aridification, Hg: change in groundwater / aquifer level, Hq: decline of groundwater quality, Hw: reduction of the buffering capacity of wetland areas
Main causes of degradation: soil management (drainage), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff) (drainage)
Secondary causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (ploughing, fertilization)
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- reduce land degradation
Comments:
Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Author:
Sarah Baum, Thünen Institute of Rural Studies, Bundesallee 50, D-38116, Braunschweig, Germany
4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing
Re-wetting of a fen with adapted agricultural land use afterwards: extensive grazing with cattle and paludiculture in Common Reed production.
Date: 07/2015
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high
Technical knowledge required for land users: high
Technical knowledge required for planners: high (Re-wetting concerns large areas)
Main technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase / maintain water stored in soil, increase of groundwater level / recharge of groundwater, improvement of water quality, buffering / filtering water
In blocks
Vegetative material: G : grass, O : other
Number of plants per (ha): G: full coverage, O: 5000
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): O: 2m
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): O: 1m
Grass species: Grasses for extensive grassland use
Other species: Paludicultures like Common reed, Reed Canary grass
Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): ~0%
Gradient along the rows / strips: ~0%
Structural measure: close/chamber ditches for groundwater level rise
Change of land use type: Crop land or intensive grassland to extensive grassland or paludiculture: see 2.5.2.2
Change of land use practices / intensity level: extensification
Layout change according to natural and human environment: Closed and chambered ditches/removed drainage systems: see 2.5.3.2
4.4 Establishment activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | For fen re-wetting, removal or blocking of drainage systems like ditches, pumping stations, dykes or drainages is necessary. Extent depends strongly on local site conditions! (examples chosen from Landesumweltamt Brandenburg (2004)). | Structural | |
2. | Extensive grassland or paludiculture | Management | |
3. | Extensive grassland: if field is not already used as grassland but as cropland: grassland sowing | Vegetative | July/August |
4. | Extensive grassland: natural spread: no input | Vegetative | |
5. | Paludiculture: planting Common Reed | Vegetative | Spring |
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 | 300.0 | 300.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Machine use | ha | 1.0 | 400.0 | 400.0 | 100.0 |
Plant material | Seedling | ha | 1.0 | 2500.0 | 2500.0 | 100.0 |
Other | Removal of drainage | ha | 1.0 | 200.0 | 200.0 | 100.0 |
Other | Ditch filling | ha | 1.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Other | Make-ready and set-up cost | ha | 1.0 | 2500.0 | 2500.0 | 100.0 |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 6000.0 |
4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | water level management: weir control ~once a week: efforts depends strongly on local conditions. Control is also necessary when weirs are used to ensure controlled water level. | Structural | |
2. | extensive grassland: mowing | Vegetative | 2 times per year |
3. | extensive grassland: grazing with water buffalo, adapted cattles (e.g. Heck cattle, Galloway) | Vegetative | year round |
4. | paludiculture (Common Reed): harvesting | Vegetative | Winter (ideally: frozen ground)/first harvest 4 years after establishment, thereafter annually |
5. | management | Agronomic | yearly |
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 | 250.0 | 250.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Machine use | ha | 1.0 | 600.0 | 600.0 | 100.0 |
Other | Management | ha | 1.0 | 150.0 | 150.0 | 100.0 |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 1000.0 |
Comments:
Machinery/ tools: paludiculture: harvest in winter (frozen soil): normal machinery. If soil is not frozen: special machinery: snow groomer (crawler chain) modified as harvester
4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
Only rough estimates on costs and income can be given due to the very new and innovative technology. The technology is still in the introductory phase at present
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
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:
Annual rainfall: 500-750 mm, 750-1000 mm, 1000-1500 mm, 1500-2000 mm
250-500mm: This only characterises the Altmark region (average 460mm); more rainfall is possible!
Agro-climatic zone
- humid
- sub-humid
Thermal climate class: temperate. Altmark region
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.
Comments and further specifications on topography:
Altitudinal zone: 0-100 m a.s.l. (this only characterises the Altmark region), 500-1000 m a.s.l., 1000-1500 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)
Topsoil organic matter:
- high (>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 depth on average: shallow (21-50 cm) (refers to histic layer), moderately deep (51-80 cm), deep (81-120 cm), very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil fertility is very low-low
Soil drainage/infiltration is good
Soil water storage capacity is very high
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
on surface
Availability of surface water:
excess
Water quality (untreated):
for agricultural use only (irrigation)
Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:
Seasonal fluctuations (surface water): Wet conditions throughout the year.
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- high
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:
Not high in number but in quality! Highly specified species. Depends on definition of Biodiversity
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- commercial/ market
Individuals or groups:
- groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
- mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
- women
- men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: negative
Market orientation of production system: nature conservation
Market orientation of cropland production system: Comercial/market (cows for dairy farming and reed sold for bioenergy and thatching)
Market orientation of grazing land production system: Comercial/market (Grazing, mowing; paludiculture )
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
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- state
- communal/ village
- NGO
Land use rights:
- individual
Water use rights:
- individual
Comments:
Land owners can re-wet their land and manage it suitable for wet conditions afterwards. The state or NGO, for example, can buy land and re-wet it; normally followed by nature protection. This technology can not be done by one land user. It has major impacts off-sites and reflects normally more then one farmer.
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
crop production
fodder production
fodder quality
animal production
risk of production failure
production area
land management
Water availability and quality
demand for irrigation water
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
Comments/ specify:
Thorugh extensification
farm income
diversity of income sources
Comments/ specify:
possibly
economic disparities
workload
Comments/ specify:
Thorugh extensification
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
water quantity
water quality
surface runoff
groundwater table/ aquifer
Soil
soil moisture
soil cover
Comments/ specify:
In terms of former cropland
soil loss
soil compaction
nutrient cycling/ recharge
Comments/ specify:
Extensive usage
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
plant diversity
animal diversity
habitat diversity
Climate and disaster risk reduction
emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
Quantity before SLM:
15-30
Quantity after SLM:
0.8
Comments/ specify:
Before conserv.: Ca. 15-30 tCO2eq/ha*a quantify (indicate unit) after conserv.: 0-8 tCO2equ/ha*a specify: mean reduction potential peat bogs: 15tCO2equ/ha*a; fens: 30tCO2equ/ha*a
Other ecological impacts
Value for nature conservation/relevant species
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
reliable and stable stream flows in dry season
Comments/ specify:
Perhaps
downstream flooding
groundwater/ river pollution
buffering/ filtering capacity
damage on neighbours' fields
Comments/ specify:
Re-wetting is only possible on larger scales
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 well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
local rainstorm | well |
local windstorm | not known |
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
drought | not 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:
very negative
Long-term returns:
negative
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
very negative
Long-term returns:
negative
Comments:
Depends strongly on subsidies and other incentive mechanisms as well as opportunity costs (regionally different). Further, if re-wetting is not financed by the land user the economic benefit is greater but even less as before re-wetting.
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?
- 0-10%
Comments:
100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: There is no increasing trend to adopt the technology as it is not economically attractive for farmer. But for environment groups (NGOs), without an economical interest, this measure can be interesting.
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
By re-wetting organic soil huge amounts of GHG emissions can be avoided on a relatively small area How can they be sustained / enhanced? Financial incentives for farmers are needed e.g. based on GHG-mitigation potential. Alternatively, areas can be bought by e.g. NGOs or government for re-wetting/ nature protection |
Paludiculture on re-wetted soils allows an adapted agricultural land use How can they be sustained / enhanced? Financial incentives (e.g. subside payments) for farmers are needed |
Extensive grassland cultivation on re-wetted soils allows an adapted agricultural land use (grazing/mowing) How can they be sustained / enhanced? Financial incentives (e.g. subside payments) for farmers are needed |
The use of fertilizer and manure inputs leads to pollution of water bodies. The water quality will be enhanced by less fertilizer/manure input through this technology compared to intensive agriculture. |
Due to the technology, higher water retention, flood prevention and biodiversity can increase compared to use of drained organic soils. |
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? |
---|---|
On re-wetted soil land use options are very restricted due to wet soil conditions. | Financial incentives for farmers are needed. |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
High opportunity cost for land users: income from intensive cropland on drained soils is higher than income from re-wetted soils with extensive land use. | The technology could be economically attractive if farmers get financial incentives for applying it (re-wetting and adapted extensive usage). It would become even more attractive if no incentives were paid for e.g. maize production on drained organic soils (those incentives are actually paid if the maize is used for bioenergy production). |
7. References and links
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Bonn A, et al. (2014) Klimaschutz durch Wiedervernässung von kohlenstoffreichen Böden. In: Naturkapital und Klimapolitik-Synergien und Konflikte.
Available from where? Costs?
Naturkapital Deutschland TEEB DE Report. Technische Universität Berlin Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung-UFZ, Berlin, Leipzig
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Wichtmann W, Wichmann S (2011) Environmental, Social and Economic Aspects of a Sustainable Biomass Production.
Available from where? Costs?
Journal of Sustainable Energy & Environment, Special Issue (2011):77-81
7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online
URL:
http://www.duene-greifswald.de/de/projekte.php_enim.php
URL:
http://www.naturkapital-teeb.de/publikationen/projekteigene-publikationen.html
URL:
http://daten.ktbl.de/feldarbeit/home.html
URL:
https://www.stmelf.bayern.de/idb/default.html
URL:
ttps://www.google.de/search?q=Leitfaden+zur+Renaturierung+von+Feuchtgebieten+in+Brandenburg.+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=btyoVebdJcGYsAH4tpWoCA
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules