Reduced contour tillage of cereals in semi-arid environments [Spain]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Joris De Vente
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: Deborah Niggli, Alexandra Gavilano
Labranza reducida de cereal en contra de la pendiente en ambientes semi-áridos (ES)
technologies_939 - Spain
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
Ibáñez Torres Ascensión
Rural development service (CARM) - Consejería de Agricultura y Agua Murcia
Spain
land user:
Escamez Antonio
Spain
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
EEZA-CSIC (EEZA-CSIC) - Spain1.3 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
1.4 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
1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)
Regional rural development programme [Spain]
Regional development programme to protect natural resources and stimulate rural economies.
- Compiler: Joris De Vente
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Reduced contour tillage in a rotational system of winter cereals and fallow land.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
This technology is a type of conservation tillage with minimal economic effort and is adapted to semi-arid conditions. Tillage is reduced to a maximum of three times surface tillage (20-30cm) in two years with a disc- or a chisel-plough. The disc-plough is only used where there is a dense weed or crop residue cover. The disc-plough breaks-up the soil top layer better than the chisel-plough, while the chisel tends to plough slightly deeper (~30cm) than the disc-plough (~20cm). The advantage of the chisel-plough is that it leaves a higher surface roughness and is less destructive to soil aggregates. Under conventional tillage, fields are ploughed up to five times every two years, once with a mouldboard plough. In both systems, cereals are cropped in a rotational system with fallow land. Cereals are sown in autumn (October) and harvested in June followed by a fallow year. Under reduced tillage the crop residues are left on the field throughout the autumn and winter periods. This provides increased protection against soil erosion. Tillage is performed on fallow land in early spring (March-April) to prepare the land for sowing in October. With conventional tillage, fields are ploughed with a mouldboard plough in autumn. Traditional sowing machinery can be used so no investments are needed in specialised equipment. Tillage is performed parallel to the contour lines to prevent rill and gully formation. No herbicides are required since annual weeds are mixed with the upper soil layer during ploughing. Owing to increased organic matter content and a better infiltration capacity, soil water retention capacity, soil humidity and crop yields will increase within 3-5 years after implementation.
The aim of this technology is to increase the soil organic matter content by retaining it in soil aggregates and to reduce soil erosion by water and tillage. The higher infiltration capacity and better surface cover with crop residues in autumn and winter protects the soil against water erosion, reducing soil erosion by over 50% and runoff by 30%. In addition, the better organic matter content increases overall soil quality in terms of soil structure and water holding capacity. Compared to traditional multiple tillage operations with a mouldboard plough, under reduced tillage, tillage erosion is reduced by having fewer tillage operations, but also through tillage of fallow land resulting in lower tillage erosion rates than secondary tillage operations of already loosened soil. Fuel use by tractors is decreased, leading to a reduction of 40% in production costs and reduced CO2 emissions. Some studies showed that in first 2-3 years after implementation, the soil can be denser and have a lower infiltration capacity than under traditional tillage regimes. Yet, when the organic matter content and soil structure have increased, infiltration rates are higher than under traditional ploughing and result in increased soil water content and crop yields.
The technology is applied on loamy soils with a calcareous substrate, of shallow to medium depth, and slopes are gentle to moderate (5-15%). The climate is semi-arid with a mean annual rainfall of around 300 mm. Droughts, centred in summer commonly last for more than 4-5 months. Annual potential evapotranspiration rates greater than 1000 mm are common. The production system is highly mechanised and market oriented but depends strongly on agricultural subsidies.
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:
Spain
Region/ State/ Province:
Murcia
Further specification of location:
Guadalentin catchment
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
- 10-100 km2
Comments:
The exact area is not known, but the technology is widely applied throughout the province of Murcia and the district of the upper Guadalentin.
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 land users' innovation
- during experiments/ research
Comments (type of project, etc.):
Conservation tillage is well-known from other areas around the world. Here, it was adapted to the semi-arid and low productivity conditions of this area.
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
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
Cropland
- Annual cropping
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 220 (Nov - Jun)
Comments:
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): There is a lack of water for irrigation of crops limiting the crop types that can be planted as well as the crop yield of dryland farming. A lack of water availability seriously limits the production potential of the soil and results in a low vegetation/crop cover. The relatively high soil erosion rates cause various off-site related problems (i.e. flooding, reservoir siltation) and on-site problems (i.e. gully formation and reduced soil depth).
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Lack of water for irrigation of crops limiting the crop types that can be planted as well as the crop yield of dryland farming.
Livestock is grazing on crop residues.
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
- minimal soil disturbance
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
agronomic measures
- A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
- A3: Soil surface treatment
- A4: Subsurface treatment
Comments:
Type of agronomic measures: rotations / fallows, breaking crust / sealed surface, breaking compacted topsoil, minimum tillage, non-inversion tillage, contour tillage
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
- Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
physical soil deterioration
- Pk: slaking and crusting
water degradation
- Ha: aridification
Comments:
Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Pk: sealing and crusting, Ha: aridification. Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying.
Main causes of degradation: soil management (Crust formation, loss of soil organic matter, loss of soil structure, loss of available soil water and finally soil loss .), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff) (Reduced infiltration capacity causing runoff and soil erosion), inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (Low market price of cereals)
Secondary causes of degradation: Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (High intensity erosive rainfall is common), droughts (Dry periods and dry years require higher water availability), governance / institutional (Spatial planning of land use and control of soil management)
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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):
Photo of the disc-plough used for superficial ploughing (~20cm depth) where there is a large amount of crop residue and/or perennial vegetation. Bottom: Chisel-plough
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate. Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate.
Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), improvement of subsoil structure (hardpan), increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil. Secondary technical functions: increase of surface roughness, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…)
Rotations / fallows: cereals are followed by 1-2 years of fallow
Breaking crust / sealed surface / compacted topsoi: Disc-plough or chisel-plough
Minimum tillage: Disc-plough or chisel-plough
Non-inversion tillage: Disc-plough or chisel-plough
Contour tillage: Disc-plough or chisel-plough
Author:
Joris de Vente
4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
other/ national currency (specify):
Euro
If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:
0.63
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
79.00
4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment
Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit | Total costs per input | % of costs borne by land users | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | Disc plough | piece | 1.0 | 397.0 | 397.0 | 100.0 |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 397.0 | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 630.16 |
Comments:
The disc plough costs USD 7937, but assuming an average farm size of 10 ha, this means a per ha cost of $794 (Prices are for spring 2008). Two parties are sharing the costs. Initial investment per party = USD 397
4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|
1. | Tillage with disc-plough | Before seeding once every 2 years in a rotational fallow system |
4.6 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 | 1.0 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 100.0 | |
Equipment | Machine hours | 1.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 99.0 | |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 62.0 | |||||
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 98.41 |
Comments:
Machinery/ tools: Disc-plough and/or chisel-plough and tractor
The costs are indicated per ha of land where the technology is implemented.
4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
Fuel price is the most determinate factor affecting the costs.
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:
Dry period in summer during 3-4 months (June – August/September)
Agro-climatic zone
- semi-arid
Thermal climate class: subtropics. The higher parts are generally somewhat colder
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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
- not relevant
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)
Soil texture (topsoil):
- medium (loamy, silty)
- fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
- medium (1-3%)
- low (<1%)
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
5-50 m
Availability of surface water:
poor/ none
Water quality (untreated):
for agricultural use only (irrigation)
Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:
There is a lowering of groundwater table due to overexploitation for irrigation purposes.
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
- commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
- > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- average
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
- mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
- men
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: Traditionally most agriculture is done by men in this region.
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: < 0.5%
15% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land. 80% of the land users are average wealthy and own 75% of the land. 5% of the land users are poor and own 5% of the land.
Off-farm income specification: There is no difference in the ones who apply the technology and those who do not. Most farmers do have an off-farm income for example from hunting, work in a factory or office.
5.7 Average area of land used 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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
- small-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- individual
Water use rights:
- individual
Comments:
All cropland is privately owned. Water use is organised by permits to water extraction from aquifers on individual basis. Water rights are provided and controlled by the Water authority of the Segura river basin (CHS).
5.9 Access to services and infrastructure
education:
- poor
- moderate
- good
technical assistance:
- poor
- moderate
- good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
- poor
- moderate
- good
markets:
- poor
- moderate
- good
energy:
- poor
- moderate
- good
roads and transport:
- poor
- moderate
- good
drinking water and sanitation:
- poor
- moderate
- good
financial services:
- poor
- moderate
- good
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
crop production
Comments/ specify:
Depending on local conditions yield may be the same or increase slightly. Sometimes in first year of implementation crop production is slightly reduced.
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
Comments/ specify:
Possible investment in a Disc-plough during first years
farm income
Comments/ specify:
Depends on crop yield. Gasoline use is decreasing.
workload
Comments/ specify:
Reduced labour: Less ploughing required.
Socio-cultural impacts
conflict mitigation
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
harvesting/ collection of water
Comments/ specify:
On the long term higher infiltration capacity of the soil
surface runoff
Comments/ specify:
about 10% reduction
Soil
soil moisture
soil cover
soil loss
Comments/ specify:
reduction by about 45%
soil crusting/ sealing
nutrient cycling/ recharge
Climate and disaster risk reduction
emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
Comments/ specify:
Less tractor use
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
downstream flooding
downstream siltation
wind transported sediments
damage on neighbours' fields
damage on public/ private infrastructure
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 | increase or decrease | 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 | well |
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 |
Comments:
The crop type is sensitive to changes in water availability under the semi arid conditions.
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly negative
Long-term returns:
slightly positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly positive
Long-term returns:
slightly positive
Comments:
When a disc-plough was not already used in normal farming operations, this implies a slightly negative influence on farm income during establishment.
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 0-10%
Comments:
Reduced tillage is not subsidised and so is implemented 100% voluntary. However, there are subsidies for parts of the technology such as contour ploughing and rotational farming allowing a fallow period (1-2 years) after cereals. Practically 100 % of farmers use these subsidies.
There seems to be a growing public awareness of the fact that frequent deep rotational ploughing is not always necessary.
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
The technology is low cost and even generates more farm income due to lower fuel use. The increased soil cover through winter and the contour ploughing have a notable positive effect on rill and gully formation in the fields. (How to sustain: The tillage between two fallow periods might be avoided to further reduce fuel use and maintain surface cover intact. However, in order to apply for subsidies for agricultural extensification, farmers are obliged to plough fallow land once a year in order to eliminate weeds.) |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
This is a low-cost technology that requires limited initial investments in equipment and potentially results in a slightly increased farm income, as well as a decrease in land degradation and an increase in soil quality and water-holding capacity. (How to sustain: In some higher areas with sufficient rainfall, the technology might be adapted to conservation tillage with direct sowing, reducing the tillage operations even more. However, this implies an important investment in machinery and a high level of organisation at the agricultural cooperation level.) |
An increased soil surface cover throughout autumn and winter provides a good protection against soil erosion reducing rill and gully formation. (How to sustain: Sometimes a field is left fallow for two consecutive years, but it is still ploughed between them. This ploughing might be avoided as well.) |
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? |
---|---|
In order to apply for subsidies for cereal cultivation in a rotation system with fallow, farmers are obliged to plough after each fallow period to control weeds, even when two consecutive years of fallow are applied. This is considered unnecessary | It might be worthwhile to test the need for this and look for alternatives without ploughing. |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
The most important weakness of this technology is that it does not significantly improve farm income and so may not be stimulating enough for farmers to apply | Provide information on all the advantages of good soil management that include many costs for society (including floods, reservoir siltation, etc.) and stress the fact that reduced tillage will lead to less work for the same or slightly higher profit. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
- interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
12/06/2008
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Angás, P., Lampurlanés, J. and Cantero-Martínez, C., 2006. Tillage and N fertilization: Effects on N dynamics and Barley yield under semiarid Mediterranean conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 87(1): 59-71.
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Holland, J.M., 2004. The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 103(1): 1-25.
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Hoogmoed, W.B. and Derpsch, R., 1985. Chisel ploughing as an alternative tillage system in Parana, Brazil. Soil and Tillage Research, 6(1): 53-67.
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Josa, R. and Hereter, A., 2005. Effects of tillage systems in dryland farming on near-surface water content during the late winter period. Soil and Tillage Research, 82(2): 173-183.
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Lampurlanés, J. and Cantero-Martínez, C., 2006. Hydraulic conductivity, residue cover and soil surface roughness under different tillage systems in semiarid conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 85(1-2): 13-26.
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Lampurlanés, J., Angás, P. and Cantero-Martínez, C. 2002. Tillage effects on water storage during fallow, and on barley root growth and yield in two contrasting soils of the semi-arid Segarra region in Spain. Soil and Tillage Research, 65(2): 207-220
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
López-Fando, C., Dorado, J. and Pardo, M.T., 2007. Effects of zone-tillage in rotation with no-tillage on soil properties and crop yields in a semi-arid soil from central Spain. Soil and Tillage Research, 95(1-2): 266-276.
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Martin-Rueda, I., Muñoz-Guerra, L.M., Yunta, F., Esteban, E., Tenorio, J.L. and Lucena, J.J., 2007. Tillage and crop rotation effects on barley yield and soil nutrients on a Calciortidic Haploxeralf. Soil and Tillage Research, 92(1-2): 1-9
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Ozpinar, S., 2006. Effects of tillage systems on weed population and economics for winter wheat production under the Mediterranean dryland conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 87(1): 1-8.
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Van Muysen, W., Govers, G., Van Oost, K. and Van Rompaey, A., 2000. The effect of tillage depth, tillage speed and soil condition on chisel tillage erosivity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation(355-364).
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Van Muysen, W., Govers, G., Bergkamp, G., Roxo, M. and Poesen, J., 1999. Measurement and modelling of the effects of initial soil conditions and slope gradient on soil translocation by tillage1. Soil and Tillage Research, 51(3-4): 303-316
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Van Oost, K., Govers, G., De Alba, S. and Quine, T.A., 2006. Tillage erosion: a review of controlling factors and implications for soil quality. Progress in Physical Geography, 30(4): 443-466.
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Title, author, year, ISBN:
CARM 2008. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de la Región de Murcia 2007-2013 Tomo I. 508pp
Available from where? Costs?
http://www.carm.es/neweb2/servlet/integra.servlets.ControlPublico?IDCONTENIDO=4689&IDTIPO=100&RASTRO=c431$m1219
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Poesen, J., van Wesemael, B., Govers, G., Martinez-Fernandez, J., Desmet, P., Vandaele, K., Quine, T. and Degraer, G., 1997. Patterns of rock fragment cover generated by tillage erosion. Geomorphology, 18(3-4): 183-197.
Available from where? Costs?
Internet
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
Regional rural development programme [Spain]
Regional development programme to protect natural resources and stimulate rural economies.
- Compiler: Joris De Vente
Modules
No modules