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)

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

New approaches to the revitalization of main drainage facilities in relation to drainage systems in terms of water retention in the landscape (TH02030397)

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Approaches for design and realization of complex effective measures for tile drained agricultural catchments by land consolidations (QK21010341)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation (VUMOP) - Czech Republic

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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Grassing recharge zones of agricultural drainage systems significantly improves the quality of drainage water. It can be a useful, effective and relatively cheap measure for improvement of shallow groundwater quality.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Grassing of recharge zones of agricultural drainage systems significantly improves the quality of drainage water: it can be a useful, effective and relatively cheap measure. Grassing is an effective preventative strategy to prevent nitrogen pollution. Reduction of nitrate pollution by grassland occurs mainly through grassland’s ability to absorb and use large amounts of nitrogen compared with field crops, and this capacity remains effective for a longer period of the year. Permanent grasslands cover the soil year-round and have a large stock of active subsurface biomass in the root system, which can immobilize a significant amount of soil nitrogen. Moreover, grassland has a greater amount of active soil microbes than under field crops (Griffiths et al. 2008). Besides nitrogen remedial ability, grasslands offer other regulation and supporting ecosystem service (ES) benefits (Hönigová et al., 2012) – for example carbon sequestration, erosion prevention and water flow regulation. On the other hand, used too widely, grassland can be seen as a negative ES provider, in the sense that it reduces the area of crop production (Hauck et al., 2014). That is why it is recommended to limit the use of grassing so that it acts within relatively small areas focused on the catchment area. The effectiveness of grassing has been evaluated statistically, when Fučík et al. (2008) reported that an increase in grassed area of 10% can decrease the C90 (90% probability of non-exceedance) nitrate value in the waters of streams (small water courses) by 6.4 mg/l.

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:

2006

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Linking of the land use in the source areas to drainage water quality has been tested in several research projects since the first decade of the 21st Century. The methodology for defining source areas has been developed by the Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation for a long time. Nowadays this measure has become part of the Czech Ministry of Agriculture subsidy and farmers can use it themselves.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• 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

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

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

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

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

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):

EUR

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

0.92

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Vulnerable area delimitation	one year before establishment
2.	Obtaining the consent of the owners and users of the affected land	one year before establishment
3.	Grass sowing	after harvest of previous crops

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	Work for delimitation	person - days	3.0	130.0	390.0
Labour	Project and administration	person - days	4.0	150.0	600.0	90.0
Labour	Manual work on the field	ha	5.0	30.0	150.0	90.0
Equipment	Machinery - sowing machine, chopper	ha	5.0	200.0	1000.0	89.0
Equipment	Fuel	ha	5.0	60.0	300.0	90.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	5.0	40.0	200.0	90.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Feritilizers (mostly urea and pig slurry digestate)	ha	5.0	30.0	150.0	90.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Biocides (only the year of establishment)	ha	5.0	60.0	300.0	90.0
Other	Fixed costs	ha	5.0	180.0	900.0	90.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					3990.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					4336.96

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

Czech Ministry of Agriculture

Comments:

The amount of agricultural subsidies in the Czech Republic is currently (2024) variable depending on the size of the farm. For a farm with an average size of 1500 ha, the subsidy is approximately EUR 160. For the conversion of arable land to permanent grassland in vulnerable areas, an additional subsidy of approximately EUR 310 per hectare is available from the Ministry of Agriculture.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	re-sowing	before vegetation season if needed
2.	harrowing	if needed once per season after re-sowing
3.	fertilising	once or twice per season
4.	harvesting	twice or three times per season

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	Manual work on the field	ha	5.0	25.0	125.0	85.0
Equipment	Machinery - sowing machine, chopper, tractor	ha	5.0	200.0	1000.0	85.0
Equipment	Fuel	ha	5.0	60.0	300.0	85.0
Plant material	seeds	ha	5.0	20.0	100.0	85.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Feritilizers (mostly urea and pig slurry digestate)	ha	5.0	25.0	125.0	85.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Biocides (when needed)	ha	5.0	30.0	150.0	85.0
Other	Fixed costs	ha	5.0	150.0	750.0	85.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					2550.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					2771.74

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

Czech Ministry of Agriculture

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Fuel prices, level of subsidies

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.

The substrate is formed by partially migmatized paragneiss in various degrees of degradation.
Quaternary sediments are represented by slope sands and loams reaching 1–2 m thickness. The representation of soils (according to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources
2006) is variable, with Gleyed Cambisols, Gleysols, and sporadically Histosols. In the recharge area, the soil cover is more homogenous, with prevailing Modal, Ranker and Arenic Cambisols.

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:

Water quality from agricultural drainage systems
(both tiles and ditches) has been discussed by the studies which draw attention to the reduced
quality of drainage waters caused by elevated concentrations of nutrients (N, P, C) and/or
pesticides.

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:

• company
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

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

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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?
seasonal rainfall	summer	increase	well

Comments:

Gradual climatic has been causing changes in precipitation distribution in course of year. In winter, the period with snow cover shortens and in summer, precipitation often takes the form of rapid and intense episodes. Permanent grassland will mitigate these rainfall extremes by its ability to slow down both surface and subsurface runoff and to increase water retention in agricultural catchments.

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)?

Comments:

From an economic point of view, the increase in the area of grasslands will clearly reduce the turnover of the agricultural entity. The fall in costs and income will also lead to a reduction in profits, which is partly offset by higher subsidies for permanent grasslands. However, the increase in dependence on subsidies is dangerous in terms of the long-term stability of the farming entity, as the amount and focus of subsidies can change from year to year. It is also important to note that the production of grass biomass only make sense if the farmer also runs livestock production or a biogas plant, taking into account the amount of grass that the farmer is able to process.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

• 91-100%

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
A relatively low-cost measure in terms of finance and agricultural management

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
grassing focused to the proper catchment area (recharge zone) can be a useful, effective and relatively cheap measure for improvement of shallow groundwater quality, or optionally the quality of local drinking water sources
stabilise of catchment area with shallow soils - can lead to decrease in soil erosion.

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?
Increasing areas of grasslands would lead to decrease of landscape productive service, farm turnover and profit and the bigger dependence on subsidies.	The grassing should be applied in small, precisely defined parts of the catchment, which are real recharge (infiltration) areas.
Possible sudden change in the subsidy system	It is necessary to consider the non-productive functions of grasslands also as public service, taking into account the saves in water cleaning costs and the price of increased water retention
Excess amout of grass or hay, especially for farms without livestock production	Balanced share of grasslands and arablale lands in cultivated field blocks, support for livestock production

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
An incorrectly defined source area will lead to ineffective measures	Careful preparation
Unwillingness of conservative companies and farmers to adopt this measure	Properly set up subsidy policy

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kvítek, T.; Zajíček, A.; Dostál, T.; Fučík, P.; Krása, J.; Bauer, M.; Jáchymová, B.; Kulhavý, Z.; Pavel, M. Slowing Down Quick Runoff—A New Approach for the Delineation and Assessment of Critical Points, Contributing Areas, and Proposals of Measures to Reduce Non-Point Water Pollution from Agricultural Land. Water 2023, 15, 1247.

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.3390/w15061247

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zajíček, A., Hejduk, T., Sychra, L., Vybíral, T., Fučík, P. (2022): How to Select a Location and a Design of Measures on Land Drainage – A Case Study from the Czech Republic. Journal of Ecological Engineering 2022, 23(4), 43–57. ISSN 2299–8993.

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/146270

Title, author, year, ISBN:

ZAJÍČEK, A., FUČÍK, P., DUFFKOVÁ, R., MAXOVÁ, J. 2018. How does targeted grassing of arable land influence drainage water quality and farm economic indicators? Int. J. Environ. Impacts, 1(3): 344–352.

Available from where? Costs?

DOI 10.2495/EI-V1-N3-344-352

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Fučík P., Zajíček A., Kaplická M., Duffková R., Peterková J., Maxová J., Takáčová Š. 2017. Incorporating rainfall-runoff events into nitrate-nitrogen and phosphorus load assessments for small tile-drained catchments. Water, 9, 712; (ISSN Print:2575-1867 ISSN Online: 2575-1875)

Available from where? Costs?

doi:10.3390/w9090712

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Janglová R., Kvítek T., Novák P. 2003. Soil infiltration capacity categorization based on geoinformatic processing of soil survey data. Soil and Water Scientific Studies, 2, 61–81.

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

ZAJÍČEK, A., SYCHRA, L., VYBÍRAL, T., HEJDUK, T., ČMELÍK, M., FUČÍK, P., KAPLICKÁ, M. 2021: Design of the Revitalization measures on the Main drainage facilities and hydrologically related Detailed drainage facilities (In Czech)

URL:

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34421.50403

7.4 General comments

Grassing focused on the catchment area (recharge zone) can be a useful, effective and relatively cheap measure for improvement of shallow groundwater quality, or optionally the quality of local drinking water sources.