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)

Interactive Soil Quality assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural productivity and Environmental Resilience (EU-iSQAPER)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Agrochesmistry and Environment Department, University Miguel Hernandez (UMH) - Spain

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

17/10/2017

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

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Application of annual green manure with Phacelia Tanacetifolia sp. to improve soil quality and productivity on agricultural land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

1. This sustainable land management technology was established on agricultural land in Mutxamel (region of Alicante) in the municipality of Valencia (Comunidad Valenciana), Spain. Agricultural production in this region is of a very high quality and is intensely competitive. Despite this, the region’s traditional agriculture industry is nonetheless being overtaken by other sectors, with the scarcity of water emerging as a key factor in this shift. The main orchards in this region are: citrus, lemon, almonds and olives trees, other common crops are vegetables, such as tomatoes, lettuce, etc.
2. The SLM technology focuses on annual cultivation of green manure in the form of the plant of Phacelia tanacetifolia. Phacelia tanacetifolia (Hydrophyllaceae) is commonly known as Lacy or Tancy Phacelia (syn. Purple Tancy, Fiddleneck and Valley Velvenia). Native to Californian drylands, chaparral and Central oak woodland, P. tanacetifolia has been naturalised throughout the western United States and frequently in Europe, whereas it has been extensively used as a nectar crop up and as annual green manure worldwide. Phacelia is listed as one of the top 20 honey-producing flowers for honeybees and is very rich in both nectar and pollen the lavender-coloured flowers attract bees, butterflies and other pollinating insects.
3. Initially, the main objective of the land user applying the technology was to improve the soil quality and the crop production in the vegetable fields (cabbages, tomatoes, lettuce, chards, spinach) by cultivating the Phacelia plant as an annual green manure. In other words, the maintenance of a specific cover crop such as Phacelia tanacetifolia grown in the orchard is intended to add organic matter, nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous and other nutrients coming from the decomposed manuring plant after it is worked into the soil.
4. The land user prepares the soil during September or October by ploughing the surface of soil and then sowing the Phacelia tanacetifolia seed thinly at a rate of 1 gram per square meter and within 25 cm per plant. In the examined case, the land user installed a drip irrigation system to irrigate every two to three days in autumn or every three to four days in winter. During winter time it is recommended to remove manually spontaneous plants. Before seed formation (February or March) the land user cuts the plant and then he is tilling and digging the cover crop gently into the soil, in order to incorporate all the nutrients of this green manure into the soil. It is crucial to cut the plant before seed formation; otherwise the nutrient capacity to the soil is reduced.
5. The major benefit of the intercrop of Phacelia tanacetifolia is the short term enhancement of the soil organic content. It keeps the soil more fertile during one year and therefore it has to be cultivated every year. In consequence also an improvement of the orchard productivity has been determined. Other substantial benefits are the stronger N fixation, the decrease in weeds, and the improved water-holding capacity; further to be mentioned, the better soil aggregation, as green manure crops help to improve the soil structure over time, and by this the aeration increases, and water infiltration and root growth are enhanced. Finally, the improved soil cover helps to control the risk of soil erosion.
6. One major disadvantage is the fact that Phacelia is not polyvalent. It is only an annual green manure plant, but unfortunately not also a marketable crop that could create monetary benefits in addition. Other disadvantages mentioned by the land user are the relative high establishment expenses, as for example for the irrigation equipment and as well the maintenance costs.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2014

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The land user consulted several online sites about different green manure types.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

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

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

Grapevine orchard for wine production

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• full irrigation

Comments:

1 hour of irrigation during the week in summer period, 2-3 days per week in autumn and spring season and 1 day per week during winter.

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

March

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• integrated soil fertility management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Species used: Phacelia tanacetifolia
Family: Hydrophyllaceae
Common name: Lacy Phacelia, Wildlife, Set-aside, Cover Crop or Green Manure
Origin: North America
Height of plant: 60-90cm
Spacing between plants: 25cm
Sowing period: September-October
Growing period: Winter
Flowering period: February-March
Flower: Lavender-Mauve-Blue
Other specifications: Perfect honey-producing flowers

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

euro

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

0.85

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	tractor	piece	1.0	3300.0	3300.0	100.0
Equipment	manual sowing machine	piece	1.0	200.0	200.0	100.0
Equipment	drop irrigation pipe	piece	4.0	18.0	72.0	100.0
Equipment	weed whacker	piece	1.0	14.0	14.0	100.0
Equipment	draw hoe	piece	1.0	30.0	30.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					3616.0

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Tillage	Agronomic	before plant green manure
2.	Planting	Agronomic	September - October
3.	Irrigation	Agronomic	after planting the green manure
4.	remove weeds	Agronomic	during the whole process
5.	cut the Phacelia	Agronomic	before seed formation (march)
6.	mix the green manure with soil	Agronomic	march

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	planting	person-hour	6.0	10.0	60.0	100.0
Labour	remove weeds	person-hour	24.0	10.0	240.0	100.0
Labour	cutting plants	person-hour	8.0	10.0	80.0	100.0
Labour	tillage and mix the plants into soil	person-hour	8.0	10.0	80.0	100.0
Plant material	seed of Phacelia tanacetifolia	bag	20.0	13.0	260.0	100.0
Other	Drop irrigation installation	person-hour	6.0	10.0	60.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					780.0

Comments:

The cost for the equipment to execute the recurent activities are listed under the establishment costs.
All the work is carried out by the land user and her family.
Each bag of Phacelia contains 100 gr approximately.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The cost to establish and maintain this technology is relatively high but it is compensated with the monetary gains of her other productive orchard land.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

the orchard is flat and 77 m.a.l.s.

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.

pH 8.1; N: 2.7 g/kg, electrical conductivity 2630 µS/cm, available P 7.3%

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Yes

Specify:

high salt content

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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, not titled

Land use rights:

• leased

Water use rights:

• leased

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

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?
seasonal rainfall	autumn	increase	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	moderately

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
flash flood	moderately

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	very 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)?

Comments:

The land user had problems to cope with the money input to establish the SLM technology at the beginning of the process, but in long-term it will be better.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

• 90-100%

Comments:

The land user did not receive any funding to establish the technology.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Enhacement of soil organic matter
Increase in honey bees colony during the flowering time, before plant cutting in seed formation period.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduction of soil degradation
Imporve the soil structure

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?
The high dependency on climatological conditions	Pay special attention on soil structure
The lack of funding to establish the technology	The land user must to pay all the material with the income of other crop production

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The big amount money for this technology during a year without any crop production to sale.	The land user needs another productivity orchard during this period to cope with the green manure expenses.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

no

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Web page of the organic farm

URL:

https://verduresecologiques.com/

Title/ description:

Biodynamic farming information

URL:

https://warmonderhof.nl/