This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Seeding lupine for land reclamation and to protect the soil against wind erosion [Iceland]

Nootka lupine or Alaska lupine

technologies_5750 - Iceland

Completeness: 78%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

Runólfsson Sveinn

Soil Conservation Service of Iceland

Iceland

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

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The nootka lupine is sown in sandy and gravelly areas to increase the vegetation cover and fertilize the soil.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The nootka lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis) is a legume that can survive in the harsh climate of Iceland. It was introduced from Alaska to increase the soil cover and fertilise the sandy and gravelly soil. For that purpose, it has been widely used after 1990 all over Iceland. Because of the large amount of seed production, the plant is able to reproduce itself quickly and independently. An increased vegetation cover causes that the vulnerability to wind erosion is minimized. The ground is protected and sandstorms can be reduced. The ability of the lupine to store nitrogen through its root system reduces the use of fertilizer. Especially when planting trees, fertilizer can be saved. The lupine is mostly sown with seed drills and tractors. Planting of lupine is an extremely cost-efficient and effective way of increasing soil cover and soil fertility. It is a unique application. No further operations need to be carried out after that.

However, the nootka lupin is very controversial in Iceland despite its advantages. The use of lupines should be carefully considered, especially in sensitive and protected areas. The non-native plant is very invasive and leads to the displacement of the native vegetation. Grazing does not stop lupines to spread, only young plants are eaten by sheep, but once mature, its bitterness renders it unpalatable. On a small scale, it is possible with great effort to slow down the spread by cutting the flowers. On a large scale, the spread can only be stopped with herbicides which is highly controversial. Due to its invasiveness, the Soil Conservation Service stopped using the lupine in 2018.

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:

Iceland

Region/ State/ Province:

South of Iceland

Further specification of location:

Thorlákshöfn, Hekla area

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • 10-100 km2

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • 10-50 years ago

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

  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • reduce risk of disasters

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No


Unproductive land

Unproductive land

Specify:

eroded land, degraded land

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
  • No (Continue with question 3.4)
Unproductive land

Unproductive land

Specify:

Lupine is to bitter for sheep. That's why the land can't be grazed.

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
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
Comments:

Can be combined with birch tree planing

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
  • Ed: deflation and deposition
  • Eo: offsite degradation effects

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

Project costs in Thorlákshöfn

Specify currency used for cost calculations:
  • USD

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
Other Seeding lupine ha 1.0 204.0 204.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 204.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 204.0

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

workers, seeds, machinery

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
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid

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):
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • coarse/ light (sandy)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

< 5 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Water quality refers to:

ground water

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Relative level of wealth:
  • rich
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
  • employee (company, government)
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • women
  • men

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
  • communal/ village
Land use rights:
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • individual

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

Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased

drinking water quality

decreased
increased

Socio-cultural impacts

health situation

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

Less sediment in the air during windstorms due to increased ground cover and therefore fewer health consequences.

cultural opportunities

reduced
improved

recreational opportunities

reduced
improved

community institutions

weakened
strengthened

national institutions

weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased

water quality

decreased
increased

harvesting/ collection of water

reduced
improved

surface runoff

increased
decreased

groundwater table/ aquifer

lowered
recharge

evaporation

increased
decreased
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

plant diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to its invasiveness and its enormously dense growth, other native plants are displaced by the lupine.

habitat diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to its invasiveness and its enormously dense growth, other native plants are displaced by the lupine.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased

wind velocity

increased
decreased

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased

downstream flooding

increased
reduced

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

groundwater/ river pollution

increased
reduced

buffering/ filtering capacity

reduced
improved

wind transported sediments

increased
reduced

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced

damage on public/ private infrastructure

increased
reduced

impact of greenhouse gases

increased
reduced

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Biological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation moderately
Comments:

The lupine has been infested by a larvae in recent years. However, its population has collapsed and thus shrunk considerably.

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:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

positive

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • 11-50%

6.6 Adaptation

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

Yes

other (specify):

stopp further seeding

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

Due to its invasiveness in Iceland, the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland stopped using the lupine in 2018.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The use of lupines is a very cost-effective application, which protects the soil well against wind erosion.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The use of lupines is a very cost-effective application, which protects the soil well against wind erosion.
Less artificial fertiliser has to be used because the lupine fertilizes the soil.
Sowing the lupine is a unique application. No further operations need to be carried out after that.

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?
Lupine is very invasive and displaces native plants. The use of lupines should be carefully considered. On a small scale, it is possible with great effort to slow down the spread by cutting the flowers. On a large scale, the only possibility to stop the spreading would be the use of herbicides.
The aesthetic value of the landscape is reduced by the monoculture of lupines. By planting trees in the lupines the aesthetic value can be increased.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
The non-native plant is very invasive and produces large quantities of seeds why it is spreading rapidly. This leads to the displacement of the native vegetation. This can become a significant problem in protected areas (national parks). The use of lupines should be carefully considered, especially in sensitive and protected areas. On a small scale, it is possible with great effort to slow down the spread by cutting the flowers. On a large scale, the only possibility to stop the spreading would be the use of herbicides.

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)?

01/08/2019

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Webpage Soil Conservation Service of Iceland

URL:

https://land.is/english/

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules