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)

OPtimal strategies to retAIN and re-use water and nutrients in small agricultural catchments across different soil-climatic regions in Europe (OPTAIN) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1021, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': ' Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) - Germany', 'template': 'raw'}

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

1.4 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:

Freezing winter cover crops are planted to cover the soil rather than for the purpose of being harvested. They improve soil structure, diversify cropping systems, suppress weeds and pests, and prevent nutrient loss.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In general, cover crops are divided into summer and winter cover crops. They can be used as fodder or as a biogas substrate. However, when left in the field, cover crops support the formation of humus and serve as a source of nutrients for the following crop. Winter cover crops can be divided into winter-hardy and freeze-killed (freezing) cover crops. Choosing the appropriate cover crop depends on its purpose and its position in the crop rotation. Cover crops from the brassica/cruciferous family should be avoided in rotations with oilseed rape (because of increased risk of pests such as clubroot, Sclerotinia or Verticillium), while buckwheat and phacelia are difficult to control in crop rotations with sugar beet. Crops that are used as main crops in a given crop rotation should not be used as cover crops.
Compared to pure stands, mixed stands have the advantage of higher biomass production, rooting density, biodiversity, weed suppression and nutrient availability for the following main crop. Mixed seeds should include at least five types of plant species, including shallow- and deep-rooted species, varieties of freezing and hardy crops that will last over the winter, mycorrhizal species (e.g. phacelia, sunflower) and ruderal species (e.g. legumes, brassica), as well as high growing and soil shading species. Alternatively, monocrops of yellow mustard or oil radish can be grown. However, in this case, ecological benefits are not as high as with mixed stands (LfULG, 2010).
Where appropriate, winter cover crops should be established through direct sowing or mulch sowing. They should be sown immediately after the main crop is harvested (to make maximum use of the remaining growing season and soil moisture). However, delayed sowing (10-14 days) after harvest and stubble cultivation can be beneficial to permit the suppression of weeds and volunteer grain seedlings. Seeding density should be high enough to ensure weed suppression and sufficient biomass development, but not too high, as seed is the main cost of this technology.
To maximize benefits of cover crops, seedbed preparation for the following main crop should be done as late as possible, to avoid mineralization and leaching of nutrients - ideally in combination with the first tillage, for example with the application and incorporation of farm manure at the end of February.
In this documentation we focus on freezing winter cover crops (a mixture of phacelia, buckwheat and sunflower) sown in August/September before the following spring crop (maize). The cover crop is left in the field as ground cover for the winter. It freezes during this period. In spring, the remaining crop residues are worked into the soil by deep tillage. The farmer in our example doesn’t apply this management practice for short-term economic reasons or to fulfill cross-compliance requirements - but rather for the beneficial impact on soil structure, such as reduced bulk density.

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:

2017

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

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The farmer decided to apply cover crops to improve soil structure (e.g. reduced bulk density) and diverse its crop rotation.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Comments:

Freezing cover crops are planted in autumn and before the main crop silage maize (spring).

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)

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

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

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 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

€

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

0.91

4.3 Establishment activities

Comments:

there are no establishment activities needed

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	tillage	autumn, after harvest of preceding crop
2.	sowing	autumn, right after/ a few days after tillage
3.	mulching/seedbed preparation for the main crop	spring, before main crop of the year is planted

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
Plant material	seeds	ha	1.0	65.4	65.4
Other	sowing costs (incl. labour, machinery, diesel)	ha	1.0	68.4	68.4
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					133.8
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					147.03

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

78€/ha were covered by the state of Saxony as a subsidy, AL_4 planting of cover crops (SMUL Sachsen, 2015)

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Seeds are the most relevant cost of this technology.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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.

cambisol (Braunerde)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

GWS: -2m

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used 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
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

The assessment of on-site impacts is based on the response of the interviewed farmer and not based on on-site measurements.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

There are no off-site impacts reported by the farmer as they are difficult to assess for him. However, based on expert knowledge of the compiling team, the most relevant off-site impacts that can be expected have been given.

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?
other gradual climate change	changing weather conditions	increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
drought	well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

No implementation costs, only maintenance costs.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

72.7 ha

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

In the past, there have been several subsidy programmes for cover crops. However, these programmes were not continuous and the farmer did thus not adopt the technology because of the payments, but because of the expected benefits of the cover crops.
https://www.landwirtschaft.sachsen.de/anbau-von-zwischenfruechten-und-untersaaten-37212.html

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
Improvement of the soil structure.
Diversification of the cropping system.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduction of wind and water erosion.
Mitigate the loss of soluble nutrients.
Suppress weeds and pests.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Potential lack of soil moisture in spring because of water use of the cover crops in autumn/winter.
Lack of nutrients because of nutrient uptake by plants in winter.	This weakness only applies to cover crops that are harvested and not to those that are left on the field and incorporated into soil.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Verband der Landwirtschaftskammern 2012: Zwischenfrüchte für Futternutzung und Gründüngung

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.landwirtschaftskammer.de/riswick/pdf/fb-zwischenfruechte-2012.pdf

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

LfULG 2010: Zwischenfrüchte

URL:

https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/11856/documents/12569

Title/ description:

Gläser (2021): Boden und Gewässerschutz durch Zwischenfruchtanbau

URL:

https://www.landwirtschaft.sachsen.de/download/Merkblatt_Zwischenfruchtanbau.pdf

Title/ description:

Romdhane S, Spor A, Busset H, Falchetto L, Martin J, Bizouard F, Bru D, Breuil M-C, Philippot L and Cordeau S (2019) Cover Crop Management Practices Rather Than Composition of Cover Crop Mixtures Affect Bacterial Communities in No-Till Agroecosystems. Front. Microbiol. 10:1618.

URL:

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01618

Title/ description:

Messerschmidt (2022): Die Zwischenfrucht muss weg.

URL:

https://www.digitalmagazin.de/marken/agrarheute/magazin/agrarheute-magazin-2022-2/pflanze-technik/118_die-zwischenfrucht-muss-weg

Title/ description:

SMUL Sachsen (2015): Förderperiode 2014-2020-Art. 28 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1305/2013 - Richtlinie Agrarumwelt- und Klimamaßnahmen (RL AUK/2015)- Sächsisches Agrarumwelt- und Naturschutzprogramm (AUNaP)

URL:

https://www.smul.sachsen.de/lfulg/download/AUK-Massnahmen-Ueberblick.pdf