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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 10, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 433, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'EEZA-CSIC (EEZA-CSIC) - Spain', '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

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Reduced contour tillage in a rotational system of winter cereals and fallow land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This technology is a type of conservation tillage with minimal economic effort and is adapted to semi-arid conditions. Tillage is reduced to a maximum of three times surface tillage (20-30cm) in two years with a disc- or a chisel-plough. The disc-plough is only used where there is a dense weed or crop residue cover. The disc-plough breaks-up the soil top layer better than the chisel-plough, while the chisel tends to plough slightly deeper (~30cm) than the disc-plough (~20cm). The advantage of the chisel-plough is that it leaves a higher surface roughness and is less destructive to soil aggregates. Under conventional tillage, fields are ploughed up to five times every two years, once with a mouldboard plough. In both systems, cereals are cropped in a rotational system with fallow land. Cereals are sown in autumn (October) and harvested in June followed by a fallow year. Under reduced tillage the crop residues are left on the field throughout the autumn and winter periods. This provides increased protection against soil erosion. Tillage is performed on fallow land in early spring (March-April) to prepare the land for sowing in October. With conventional tillage, fields are ploughed with a mouldboard plough in autumn. Traditional sowing machinery can be used so no investments are needed in specialised equipment. Tillage is performed parallel to the contour lines to prevent rill and gully formation. No herbicides are required since annual weeds are mixed with the upper soil layer during ploughing. Owing to increased organic matter content and a better infiltration capacity, soil water retention capacity, soil humidity and crop yields will increase within 3-5 years after implementation.
The aim of this technology is to increase the soil organic matter content by retaining it in soil aggregates and to reduce soil erosion by water and tillage. The higher infiltration capacity and better surface cover with crop residues in autumn and winter protects the soil against water erosion, reducing soil erosion by over 50% and runoff by 30%. In addition, the better organic matter content increases overall soil quality in terms of soil structure and water holding capacity. Compared to traditional multiple tillage operations with a mouldboard plough, under reduced tillage, tillage erosion is reduced by having fewer tillage operations, but also through tillage of fallow land resulting in lower tillage erosion rates than secondary tillage operations of already loosened soil. Fuel use by tractors is decreased, leading to a reduction of 40% in production costs and reduced CO2 emissions. Some studies showed that in first 2-3 years after implementation, the soil can be denser and have a lower infiltration capacity than under traditional tillage regimes. Yet, when the organic matter content and soil structure have increased, infiltration rates are higher than under traditional ploughing and result in increased soil water content and crop yields.
The technology is applied on loamy soils with a calcareous substrate, of shallow to medium depth, and slopes are gentle to moderate (5-15%). The climate is semi-arid with a mean annual rainfall of around 300 mm. Droughts, centred in summer commonly last for more than 4-5 months. Annual potential evapotranspiration rates greater than 1000 mm are common. The production system is highly mechanised and market oriented but depends strongly on agricultural subsidies.

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

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation
• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Conservation tillage is well-known from other areas around the world. Here, it was adapted to the semi-arid and low productivity conditions of this area.

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:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): There is a lack of water for irrigation of crops limiting the crop types that can be planted as well as the crop yield of dryland farming. A lack of water availability seriously limits the production potential of the soil and results in a low vegetation/crop cover. The relatively high soil erosion rates cause various off-site related problems (i.e. flooding, reservoir siltation) and on-site problems (i.e. gully formation and reduced soil depth).
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Lack of water for irrigation of crops limiting the crop types that can be planted as well as the crop yield of dryland farming.

Livestock is grazing on crop residues.

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

• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: rotations / fallows, breaking crust / sealed surface, breaking compacted topsoil, minimum tillage, non-inversion tillage, contour tillage

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Pk: sealing and crusting, Ha: aridification. Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying.

Main causes of degradation: soil management (Crust formation, loss of soil organic matter, loss of soil structure, loss of available soil water and finally soil loss .), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff) (Reduced infiltration capacity causing runoff and soil erosion), inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (Low market price of cereals)
Secondary causes of degradation: Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (High intensity erosive rainfall is common), droughts (Dry periods and dry years require higher water availability), governance / institutional (Spatial planning of land use and control of soil management)

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

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 =:

0.63

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	Disc plough	piece	1.0	397.0	397.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					397.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					630.16

Comments:

The disc plough costs USD 7937, but assuming an average farm size of 10 ha, this means a per ha cost of $794 (Prices are for spring 2008). Two parties are sharing the costs. Initial investment per party = USD 397

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Tillage with disc-plough	Before seeding once every 2 years in a rotational fallow system

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	Labour		1.0	12.0	12.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine hours		1.0	50.0	50.0	99.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					62.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					98.41

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Disc-plough and/or chisel-plough and tractor

The costs are indicated per ha of land where the technology is implemented.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Fuel price is the most determinate factor affecting the costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

There is a lowering of groundwater table due to overexploitation for irrigation purposes.

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users.
Difference in the involvement of women and men: Traditionally most agriculture is done by men in this region.

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: < 0.5%

15% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land. 80% of the land users are average wealthy and own 75% of the land. 5% of the land users are poor and own 5% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: There is no difference in the ones who apply the technology and those who do not. Most farmers do have an off-farm income for example from hunting, work in a factory or office.

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, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

Comments:

All cropland is privately owned. Water use is organised by permits to water extraction from aquifers on individual basis. Water rights are provided and controlled by the Water authority of the Segura river basin (CHS).

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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?
annual temperature		increase	not well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	well

Comments:

The crop type is sensitive to changes in water availability under the semi arid conditions.

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:

When a disc-plough was not already used in normal farming operations, this implies a slightly negative influence on farm income during establishment.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

Reduced tillage is not subsidised and so is implemented 100% voluntary. However, there are subsidies for parts of the technology such as contour ploughing and rotational farming allowing a fallow period (1-2 years) after cereals. Practically 100 % of farmers use these subsidies.

There seems to be a growing public awareness of the fact that frequent deep rotational ploughing is not always necessary.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view

The technology is low cost and even generates more farm income due to lower fuel use. The increased soil cover through winter and the contour ploughing have a notable positive effect on rill and gully formation in the fields. (How to sustain: The tillage between two fallow periods might be avoided to further reduce fuel use and maintain surface cover intact. However, in order to apply for subsidies for agricultural extensification, farmers are obliged to plough fallow land once a year in order to eliminate weeds.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
This is a low-cost technology that requires limited initial investments in equipment and potentially results in a slightly increased farm income, as well as a decrease in land degradation and an increase in soil quality and water-holding capacity. (How to sustain: In some higher areas with sufficient rainfall, the technology might be adapted to conservation tillage with direct sowing, reducing the tillage operations even more. However, this implies an important investment in machinery and a high level of organisation at the agricultural cooperation level.)
An increased soil surface cover throughout autumn and winter provides a good protection against soil erosion reducing rill and gully formation. (How to sustain: Sometimes a field is left fallow for two consecutive years, but it is still ploughed between them. This ploughing might be avoided as well.)

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?
In order to apply for subsidies for cereal cultivation in a rotation system with fallow, farmers are obliged to plough after each fallow period to control weeds, even when two consecutive years of fallow are applied. This is considered unnecessary	It might be worthwhile to test the need for this and look for alternatives without ploughing.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The most important weakness of this technology is that it does not significantly improve farm income and so may not be stimulating enough for farmers to apply	Provide information on all the advantages of good soil management that include many costs for society (including floods, reservoir siltation, etc.) and stress the fact that reduced tillage will lead to less work for the same or slightly higher profit.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Angás, P., Lampurlanés, J. and Cantero-Martínez, C., 2006. Tillage and N fertilization: Effects on N dynamics and Barley yield under semiarid Mediterranean conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 87(1): 59-71.

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Holland, J.M., 2004. The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 103(1): 1-25.

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Hoogmoed, W.B. and Derpsch, R., 1985. Chisel ploughing as an alternative tillage system in Parana, Brazil. Soil and Tillage Research, 6(1): 53-67.

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Josa, R. and Hereter, A., 2005. Effects of tillage systems in dryland farming on near-surface water content during the late winter period. Soil and Tillage Research, 82(2): 173-183.

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Lampurlanés, J. and Cantero-Martínez, C., 2006. Hydraulic conductivity, residue cover and soil surface roughness under different tillage systems in semiarid conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 85(1-2): 13-26.

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Lampurlanés, J., Angás, P. and Cantero-Martínez, C. 2002. Tillage effects on water storage during fallow, and on barley root growth and yield in two contrasting soils of the semi-arid Segarra region in Spain. Soil and Tillage Research, 65(2): 207-220

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

López-Fando, C., Dorado, J. and Pardo, M.T., 2007. Effects of zone-tillage in rotation with no-tillage on soil properties and crop yields in a semi-arid soil from central Spain. Soil and Tillage Research, 95(1-2): 266-276.

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Martin-Rueda, I., Muñoz-Guerra, L.M., Yunta, F., Esteban, E., Tenorio, J.L. and Lucena, J.J., 2007. Tillage and crop rotation effects on barley yield and soil nutrients on a Calciortidic Haploxeralf. Soil and Tillage Research, 92(1-2): 1-9

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ozpinar, S., 2006. Effects of tillage systems on weed population and economics for winter wheat production under the Mediterranean dryland conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 87(1): 1-8.

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Van Muysen, W., Govers, G., Van Oost, K. and Van Rompaey, A., 2000. The effect of tillage depth, tillage speed and soil condition on chisel tillage erosivity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation(355-364).

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Van Muysen, W., Govers, G., Bergkamp, G., Roxo, M. and Poesen, J., 1999. Measurement and modelling of the effects of initial soil conditions and slope gradient on soil translocation by tillage1. Soil and Tillage Research, 51(3-4): 303-316

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Van Oost, K., Govers, G., De Alba, S. and Quine, T.A., 2006. Tillage erosion: a review of controlling factors and implications for soil quality. Progress in Physical Geography, 30(4): 443-466.

Available from where? Costs?

Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

CARM 2008. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de la Región de Murcia 2007-2013 Tomo I. 508pp

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.carm.es/neweb2/servlet/integra.servlets.ControlPublico?IDCONTENIDO=4689&IDTIPO=100&RASTRO=c431$m1219

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Poesen, J., van Wesemael, B., Govers, G., Martinez-Fernandez, J., Desmet, P., Vandaele, K., Quine, T. and Degraer, G., 1997. Patterns of rock fragment cover generated by tillage erosion. Geomorphology, 18(3-4): 183-197.

Available from where? Costs?

Internet