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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1017, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Interactive Soil Quality assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural productivity and Environmental Resilience (EU-iSQAPER)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1052, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Centro de Estudos de Rescursos Naturais, Ambiente e Sociedade (CERNAS) - Portugal', '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:

Minimum tillage in vineyards is performed in alternated inter-row zone, to promote soil decompation and maintain partial vegetation cover.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Portugal is one of the larger wine producers in Europe, with vineyard area covering 27% of permanent crops. Vineyards play an important role in the Portuguese economy, not only due to the impact of wine industry but also the important cultural heritage and great influence on tourism sector. There are thirteen specialized wine regions in the country, from which we highlight Bairrada region, located in central mainland, where minimum tillage is becoming popular. Bairrada has a Mediterranean climate, characterized by a long dry summer, although the strong influence of the Atlantic Ocean. Vineyard is the most relevant crop in Bairrada. In this region, farmland is mostly cultivated by landowners, comprising small winegrowers (5-10ha), most of them members of local farmers associations, as well as large producers (100-500ha) with a relevant position in the world wine market.
In vineyards, tillage is performed to promote de-compaction of the typical medium/fine soils and weeds control. In Bairrada wine region, soil tillage is usually performed twice per year – in autumn and spring, depending on weather conditions. Tillage is performed with a ripper and disc arrow (10-15cm), since mechanized vineyards require vines arranged according to horizontal wire bundles. However, tillage activities favour soil degradation, namely due to soil erosion and increasing mineralization of organic matter. In order to mitigate land degradation, minimum tillage of inter-row zone was adopted. No tillage is not applied by the farmers due to the need to de-compact the soil, favoured by the relatively high clay content. The minimum tillage is performed in alternated inter-rows, to keep vegetation cover in part of the vineyard. Tillage inter-row switch every time, so that each inter-row is not tilled more than once per year. Weeds control in the non-tilled inter-rows is performed using a rotary brush mower. In the plant zone, weeds are controlled with herbicides, applied twice per year: autumn-winter (before vine plant winding) and spring-summer (during vegetative growth). During the hot dry summer, weeds are naturally controlled due to water-stress. Mechanical intervention is also performed for pest and disease control, generally applied as preventive measures. Phytosanitary treatments are performed upon receipt of notices from Regional Directorate of Agriculture or technicians from local farmers association. These notices also include recommendations about the type of products and the application rate. In the majority of the Region, pruning and harvesting is performed manually. Pruning residues are typically mowed and left at the soil surface.
The adoption of minimum tillage was triggered by governmental subsidies. Farmers recognize the impact of this technology on the environment, namely on preventing soil degradation and enhancing biodiversity. However, soil compaction and water competition between vegetation cover and vines (over the summer) are major concerns.

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

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

• motivated by financial support from the government

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Technical recommendations provided by technicians of farmers associations.

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

Comments:

Main crops (cash and food crops): Vineyard

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

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance

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:

• 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):

euro

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

0.86615

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Chiselling of alternated inter-row zone	Autumn/Spring
2.	Mechanical weeds control in alternated inter-row	Autumn/Spring
3.	Chemical control of weeds in plant zone	Autumn-Winter and Spring-Summer

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
Equipment	Chisel	Equipment	1.0	1000.0	1000.0	100.0
Equipment	Rotary brush mower	Equipment	1.0	1600.0	1600.0	100.0
Equipment	Sprayer	Equipment	1.0	2500.0	2500.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					5100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					5888.13

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

Young farmers (<40 years old) may submit agricultural projects for partial government funding.

Comments:

The costs provided do not include the tractor aquisition costs.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Weeds control with herbicides (in vine rows)	Autumn-Winter and Spring-Summer
2.	Mechanical weeds control (inter-row)	Autumn/Spring
3.	Chiselling (inter-row)	Autumn/Spring

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	For chiselling activities	Person-days	1.0	30.0	30.0	100.0
Labour	For mechanical weed control	Person-days	1.0	30.0	30.0	100.0
Labour	For spraying of herbicides	Person-days	1.0	30.0	30.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor with chisel		2.0	100.0	200.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor with rotary brush mower		2.0	145.0	290.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor with spraying system		1.0	150.0	150.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbicides	Litres	6.0	12.0	72.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					802.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					925.94

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Machinery and labor

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Óis do Bairro: 5%; São Lourenço: 10%; Estação Vitivinícola: 9%; Quinta do Valdoeiro: 10%; Pocariça: 14%. Altitude ranges from 25m to 55 m a.s.l.

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

There is a lack of studies regarding biodiversity.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Some of the farmers belong to large wine companies, which export the wine to several countries

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:

• company
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Comments:

The state also own some vineyards devoted to research.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

The impacts have not been measured. The response is based on literature review and field observations.

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

Comments:

The technology does not have an impact on climate related issues.

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

• 11-50%

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

• 0-10%

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
Less herbicides and ploughing decreases maintenance costs.
It allows to reduce herbicide application to control weeds, thus favouring biodiversity.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Minimum tillage is best suited for heavy, compacted and/or poorly drained soils, typical of vineyards.
It reduces land degradation, by improving soil structure and vegetation cover, important to reduce soil erosion.
Improving soil cover will improve soil moisture and aeration conditions, relevant for crop development and soil biodiversity.

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?
Soil compaction due to lower ploughing	Improve soil structure

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Difficulty to maintain inter-row vegetation cover during the dry season	Replace vegetation cover by other materials (e.g. mulching)

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Biddoccu, M., Ferraris, S., Pitacco, A., Cavallo, E. (2017). Temporal variability of soil management effects on soil hydrological properties, runoff and erosion at the field scale in a hillslope vineyard, North-West Italy. Soil & Tillage Research 165, 46–58.

URL:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0167198716301386/1-s2.0-S0167198716301386-main.pdf?_tid=22418bb0-5b58-11e7-980c-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1498582154_0fb04affbfbcf3f6e729ccdd354527ee

Title/ description:

Byrne, S., Guire, L.M. (2005) Vineyard Floor Management. Final report to Grape and Wine Research & Development Corporation (RT 04/03-1)

URL:

http://www.mvwi.com.au/items/526/Vineyard%20Floor%20Management%20RT%2004%2003%201.pdf

Title/ description:

Cruz, A., Botelho, M., Silvestre, J., Castro R. (2012) Soil management: Introduction of tillage in a vineyard with a long-term natural cover. Journal of Viticulture and Enology 27(1), 27-38.

URL:

http://www.scielo.mec.pt/pdf/ctv/v27n1/v27n1a03.pdf

Title/ description:

Napoli, M., Marta, A.D., Zanchi, C.A., Orlandini, S. (2017). Assessment of soil and nutrient losses by runoff under different soil management practices in an Italian hilly vineyard. Soil & Tillage Research 168, 71–80.

URL:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0167198716302604/1-s2.0-S0167198716302604-main.pdf?_tid=34c1a784-5b58-11e7-8e6a-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1498582186_a97504bbec990b26b9de92901fae9b9b

Title/ description:

Puig-Montserrat, X., Stefanescu, C., Torre, I., Palet, J., Fàbregas, E., Dantart, J., Arrizabalaga, A., Flaquer, C. (2017). Effects of organic and conventional crop management on vineyard biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 243, 19–26.

URL:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0167880917301603/1-s2.0-S0167880917301603-main.pdf?_tid=1428ce58-5b58-11e7-a61a-00000aacb361&acdnat=1498582131_0ca1f7a72aa834a0345b38122a2f7a05

Title/ description:

Raclot, D., Bissonnais, Y.L., Louchart, X., Andrieux, P., Moussa, R., Volts, M. (2009). Soil tillage and scale effects on erosion from fields to catchment in a Mediterranean vineyard area. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 134, 201–210.

URL:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0167880909002023/1-s2.0-S0167880909002023-main.pdf?_tid=3a75799e-5b58-11e7-8adf-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1498582195_b808271c0c5bcddc3fa189cccc11fea3