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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1134, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'University of Muenster (WWU Münster) - Germany', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1134, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'University of Muenster (WWU Münster) - Germany', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1134, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'University of Muenster (WWU Münster) - Germany', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1134, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'University of Muenster (WWU Münster) - 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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

No-till farming (also called zero tillage or direct drilling) is a way of growing crops from year to year without disturbing the soil through tillage.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

No-till seeding (also direct-drilling, or direct-seeding) is most commonly identified by the feature that during tillage operations, as much as possible of the surface residue from the previous crop is left intact on the surface of the ground, whether this be the flattened or standing stubble of an arable crop that has been harvested or a sprayed dense sward of grass.

Purpose of the Technology: The purpose of no-till is to increase working efficiency (i.e. to save fuel, time and labour), increase soil organic matter and nitrogen contents, preserve soil structure and soil fauna, improve aeriation and water infiltration, conserve soil moisture, prevent soil erosion, and increase yields.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: We use field trials to evaluate if and to which extent no-till seeding can contribute to sustainable land-management in Western Siberia. In cooperation with a large local agricultural enterprise, Agroholding Yubileinij, and a German manufacturer of agricultural machinery (AMAZONEN-Werke H. Dreyer GmbH & Co. KG), a field trial on 10 ha was set up near the city of Ishim, Tyumen province. In a randomized block design, two seeding parameters were varied, namely seeding depth and seeding rate (number of wheat seeds/ha). Both options were tested under conventional tillage, and no-till seeding, over three seasons (2013–2015).
The parameters soil moisture, plant available soil nitrogen content and grain yield were compared between all possible options of tillage approach (no-till/till), seeding depth and seeding rate.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

established technique in many countries and agricultural systems, in the study area: on-farm application of the technology in own field trials from 2013 to 2015

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 cash crop: Wheat
Major food crop: Wheat
Major other crops: Potatoes

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Low yields; soil water content as main limiting factor for crop production

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): low and varying yields, yield uncertainty due to climate variability and changing political framework conditions

Forest products and services: timber, fruits and nuts

Constraints of settlement / urban (towns, villages and cities): population growth

Constraints of infrastructure network (roads, railways, pipe lines, power lines): major oil pipelines

Constraints of wastelands / deserts / glaciers / swamps (massive bogs and fens (mires))

Constraints of recreation (fishing, swimming)

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:

Main measures: agronomic measures, management measures

Type of agronomic measures: mulching, manure / compost / residues, zero tillage / no-till

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Ha: aridification

Main causes of degradation: soil management, crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub)

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

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

NA

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

fuel price, wages

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms: Also hill slopes, footslopes and valley floors (all ranked 3)
Slopes on average: Flat (90%) and gentle (5%)

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.

Soil depth on average: Very deep (ranked 1, most soils rather deep, 80% of all cultivated soils in this class) and deep (ranked 2)
Soil texture: Also coarse/light and medium (mix of soil textures)
Soil fertility: Medium (ranked 1). Also very high and high (both ranked 2) and low and very low (both ranked 3)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good (ranked 1) and medium and poor (both ranked 2)
Soil water storage capacity: High (ranked 1). Also very high and medium (both ranked 2) as well as low and very low (both ranked 3)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table: On surface (the ground water table is at 0 cm in spring. The water flows then off and fields are sown in late May. Later in the year, drought is often a problem)
Water quality (untreated): Good drinking water, poor drinking water (treatement required) and for agricultural use only (irrigation) all ranked 1, unusable (ranked 2)

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Biodiversity also medium (ranked 2) and high (ranked 3)

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly Leaders / privileged

Difference in the involvement of women and men: due to historical reasons (Soviet workforce structure), many women actively participate, e.g. as tractor drivers

Population density: < 10 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 0.5% - 1%

2% of the land users are very rich and own 70% of the land.
1% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: additional sources: shops, slaughterhouses, or other parts of the producing chain. Farmers usually generate most of their income by farming

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

Land use rights:

• individual

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

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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	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	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not known

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	not known

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

Comments on acceptance with external material support: so far, only used on field trials, not commercially.

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: slow uptake due to strong tradition in use of conventional techniques

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

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

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
potential to maintain and improve soil fertility
potential to increase yields
potential to safe on-farm costs, i.e. make production per area unit more efficient
potential to ensure stable yields under varying climatic conditions

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?
as above

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
need for more chemical plant protection and weed control, therefore more herbicide applications needed, environmental externalities
well-educated, leading/advisory staff needed to implement technology

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

http://www.uni-muenster.de/SASCHA/en/index.html

Available from where? Costs?

free!