Рассоление сильнозасоленных земель и солончаков в вегетационный период - культурой освоителем рисом [Таджикистан] [Tajikistan]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Gulniso Nekushoeva
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: Farrukh Nazarmavloev, Alexandra Gavilano
technologies_3334 - Tajikistan
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
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Environmental Land Management and Rural Livelihoods (ELMAR)Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Tajik Soil Insitute (Tajik Soil Institute) - Tajikistan1.3 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
2. Description of the SLM Technology
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:
Tajikistan
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Map
×2.6 Date of implementation
Indicate year of implementation:
2007
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
- through projects/ external interventions
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- improve production
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- conserve ecosystem
- create beneficial economic impact
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Cropland
- Annual cropping
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
3.4 Water supply
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- full irrigation
3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- improved ground/ vegetation cover
- integrated soil fertility management
- irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
agronomic measures
- A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
- A3: Soil surface treatment
structural measures
- S2: Bunds, banks
- S4: Level ditches, pits
- S6: Walls, barriers, palisades, fences
management measures
- M2: Change of management/ intensity level
- M5: Control/ change of species composition
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
- Cs: salinization/ alkalinization
physical soil deterioration
- Pc: compaction
- Pu: loss of bio-productive function due to other activities
biological degradation
- Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
- Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
- Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
water degradation
- Hg: change in groundwater/aquifer level
- Hq: decline of groundwater quality
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- reduce land degradation
- restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
- per Technology area
If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:
3.0
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 | None | None | 15.0 | 20.0 | 300.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | None | None | 4.0 | 100.0 | 400.0 | 10.0 |
Equipment | None | None | 1.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 10.0 |
Equipment | None | None | 100.0 | 3.0 | 300.0 | |
Plant material | None | None | 200.0 | 3.5 | 700.0 | 10.0 |
Fertilizers and biocides | None | None | 150.0 | 1.5 | 225.0 | |
Fertilizers and biocides | None | None | 200.0 | 1.0 | 200.0 | |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 2175.0 | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 725.0 |
If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:
3000.0
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 | None | None | 15.0 | 20.0 | 300.0 | 100.0 |
Labour | None | None | 2.0 | 100.0 | 200.0 | |
Equipment | None | None | 2.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | None | None | 2.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 |
Other | None | None | 50.0 | 3.0 | 150.0 | |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 750.0 | |||||
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 250.0 |
If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:
1000.0
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
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:
227.00
Agro-climatic zone
- arid
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:
- concave situations
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)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
- medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
- low (<1%)
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
< 5 m
Availability of surface water:
medium
Water quality (untreated):
poor drinking water (treatment required)
Is water salinity a problem?
Yes
Is flooding of the area occurring?
No
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
Habitat diversity:
- medium
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Sedentary or nomadic:
- Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
- subsistence (self-supply)
Off-farm income:
- 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- poor
- average
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
- manual work
- mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
- men
Age of land users:
- middle-aged
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)?
- medium-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- state
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- leased
Water use rights:
- communal (organized)
5.9 Access to services and infrastructure
health:
- poor
- moderate
- good
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
risk of production failure
product diversity
production area
Water availability and quality
demand for irrigation water
Income and costs
farm income
diversity of income sources
workload
Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
health situation
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
water quantity
groundwater table/ aquifer
evaporation
Soil
soil moisture
soil cover
salinity
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
Vegetation cover
biomass/ above ground C
animal diversity
Climate and disaster risk reduction
drought impacts
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
water availability
groundwater/ river pollution
damage on neighbours' fields
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 | very well | |
seasonal temperature | summer | increase | very well |
seasonal rainfall | winter | decrease | very well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
local rainstorm | very well |
local hailstorm | moderately |
local sandstorm/ duststorm | well |
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
heatwave | well |
drought | moderately |
Other climate-related consequences
Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
extended growing period | well |
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
positive
Long-term returns:
very positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
positive
Long-term returns:
very positive
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- 11-50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 11-50%
6.6 Adaptation
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
No
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
2007
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules