1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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 (documented using WOCAT)

Planting Horsetail Beefwood (Casuarina) As Windbreak Along Seaside [China]

Planting Horsetail Beefwood along seaside to protect cropland from sea wind erosion and typhoon destroy.

• Compiler: Unknown User
• 12/31/2008 midnight

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Planting Horsetail Beefwood as a shelter belt along seaside to prevent serious wind and water erosion/destroy of the cropland.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Horsetail Beefwood windbreak along seaside is applied to prevent serious wind and water erosion/destroy of the cropland. It is planted as a shelter belt in the cropland. Horsetail Beefwood is a perennial tree growing in sub-tropic and tropic climate. Its timber can be used in industry and fuel timber. It is easy to maintain.

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:

China

Region/ State/ Province:

Ningde Prefecture

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, specify area covered (in km2):

2.0

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• 1-10 km2

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 2 km2.

It is a vegetative measure applied in the cropland along seaside and has marked effect on prevent wind erosion and destroy in the cropland.

Map

×

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 projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Tai Wan

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agroforestry

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• fibre crops - cotton

• rice

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 365Longest growing period from month to month: Jan - Dec

Forest/ woodlands

Products and services:

• Timber
• Fruits and nuts
• Other forest products
• Nature conservation/ protection

Mines, extractive industries

Specify:

causing damage of vegetation

Comments:

Grazingland comments: Household grazing tends to standardize and stall feeding.

Problems / comments regarding forest use: The forest cover percent increase little, strenghtening the tree planting.

Forest products and services: timber, fruits and nuts, other forest products / uses (honey, medical, etc.), nature conservation / protection

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: Rice, cotton

Type of grazing system comments: Household grazing tends to standardize and stall feeding.

Constraints of recreation

Constraints of Urban: Urban construction does not coordinate with environmental protection

Constraints of Industrial/mining: causing damage of vegetation

Constraints of Wilderness

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• windbreak/ shelterbelt

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

• V1: Tree and shrub cover

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion

soil erosion by wind

• Et: loss of topsoil

chemical soil deterioration

• Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Et: loss of topsoil

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify, lack of knowledge

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 36 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms plateau/plains: plain of seaside

Slopes on average flat: 1.0 - 1.5%

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: low

Soil drainage / infiltration: good

Soil water storage capacity: low

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%

2% of the land users are very rich and own 10% of the land.
10% of the land users are rich and own 8% of the land.
85% of the land users are average wealthy and own 80% of the land.
3% of the land users are poor and own 2% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: The land users who adopt the SWC can get much more subsidies from government or projects and less loss caused by damage of the sea wind or typhoon than those who take no SWC technology.

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• state
• group

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

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

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

175 (around 50 percent of the area

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

80% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

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

Comments on acceptance with external material support: survey results

85% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

85 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: survey results

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Low input but marked output.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information