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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 561, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'University of Reading (University of Reading) - United Kingdom', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

03/05/2016

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Acidification treatments were applied to improved pastures in an attempt to restore plots to low-intensity grazing land

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To convert the area from intensive pastureland to a semi-natural state with low intensity grazing through alteration of the soil pH. This change in land-use should have a positive effect on both above- and belowground biodiversity.

Methods: Plots were established on two adjacent farms owned by National Trust near Wareham, Dorset (Newlines Farm and Hartland Farm). A control and two sulphur amendments were compared on plots on ten fields (five from each farm) on 50 m x 50 m plots. Elemental sulphur (Brimestone 90TM) or ferrous sulphate (Mistrale “Wet Copperas” 50TM) were applied at equal rates of 2000 kg ha-1 in May 2000 and a second application of 1600 kg ha-1 in March 2001.

Stages of implementation: Treatments were applied in 2000 and 2001. Periodic monitoring has been conducted to monitor changes in plant diversity and soil chemical and biological properties.

Role of stakeholders: Stakesholders played an active role in identifying management options and implementing the technology. When the original plots were established, a charitable organisation was the primary stakeholder. For the intent of the current project, other stakeholders became involved, including parish council, landowners, and conservation organisations.

Other important information: Acidification treatments were applied to plots on the Isle of Purbeck that had previously been used for arable production and then high intensity grazing. The site is located on acidic fluvially-deposited soil and was in lowland heath until the middle of the 20th century at which time the land was tilled and treatments of rock phosphate, marl and chalk were added to increase soil pH and nutrient availability and improve the potential of the land for agricultural production.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (soil, pH, below-ground biodiversity, low-intensity grazing)

To manage soil pH change and associated effects on above and below-ground diversity and function

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Management of soil pH and land use change to less intensive system

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	external support	Land owners who acquired national support
planning	external support	By specialist
implementation	interactive	By land owner and specialist
monitoring/ evaluation	external support	By Specialist
Research	external support	By specialist

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• public meetings

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

• Public meetings

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service was not foreseen for this approach

Advisory service is totally inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; No additional government funding has been acquired.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research on the approach has been carried out by specialists at Bournemouth University and the University of Reading, UK.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs): 50.0%; national non-government (National Trust): 30.0%; other (University): 20.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Decreased spending on inputs where the only input in the system in dung from cattle grazing (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue grazing at a low enough density to allow adequate plant regrow)
Decreased labour required for management
Decreased compaction since regular use of tractors on site is no longer required (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Attempt to minimizing compaction by grazing livestock)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The conversion in land use from a improved agriculture to a semi- natural low input grazing system should have a positive effect on above- and belowground biodiversity.
Considering that the Isle of Purbeck was historically a region of cultural importance, returning the system to a more natural state has important implications for the cultural and recreational value of the land.
Low input systems can increase resilience of the system to global change

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Fertilizer application rate too high for one application	Smaller, regular additions over several years
Decrease in economic returns
Shrub encroachment (i.e. gorse; Alex europaeus) can be a problem when converting to low input pasture land in this region.	Grazing, mowing, and chemical herbicides are some options for slowing invasions.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Over time nutrients are being drawn down but exporting meat off the land with no inputs	Periodic applications of nutrients may be required to ensure long-term fertility of the system
Land use change and restoration are slow process and may result in economic losses on managed lands

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Re-creation of heathland on improved pasture using top soil removal and sulphur amendments: Edaphic drivers and impacts of ericoid mycorrhizas, Diaz, A., Green, I., Tibbett, M., 2008Heathland restoration on former agricultural land: Effects of artificial acidification on the availability and uptake of toxic metal cation, Green, I., Stockdale, J., Tibbett, M., Diaz, I., 2007Are sulphurous amendments an effective tool in the restoration of heathland and acidic grassland after four decades of rock phosphate fertlization, Tibbett, M., Diaz, A., 2005The restoration of heathland and acid grassland at Hartland and Newline Farms, Tibbett, M., Diaz, A., 2001

Available from where? Costs?

Biological Conservation, 141:1628-1635, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320708001353Water Air Soil Pollution, 178:287-295, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-006-9197-8Restoration Ecology, 13:83-91, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00010.x/epdfFirst Year Report to National Trust, Purbeck

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Heathland restoration on former agricultural land: Effects of artificial acidification on the availability and uptake of toxic metal cation, Green, I., Stockdale, J., Tibbett, M., Diaz, I., 2007

Available from where? Costs?

Water Air Soil Pollution, 178:287-295, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-006-9197-8

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Are sulphurous amendments an effective tool in the restoration of heathland and acidic grassland after four decades of rock phosphate fertlization, Tibbett, M., Diaz, A., 2005

Available from where? Costs?

Restoration Ecology, 13:83-91, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00010.x/epdf

Title, author, year, ISBN:

The restoration of heathland and acid grassland at Hartland and Newline Farms, Tibbett, M., Diaz, A., 2001

Available from where? Costs?

First Year Report to National Trust, Purbeck