Technologies

Flower strips on paths within crops to support functional agrobiodiversity [Netherlands]

Creation: 08/15/2019 6:04 p.m.
Update: 09/01/2021 11:33 a.m.
Compiler: Alan Radbourne
Editors: David Robinson, David Norris, Sabine Reinsch
Reviewers: Renate Fleiner, William Critchley

FAB-randen in het spuitspoor

technologies_5381 - Netherlands

View sections

Expand all

Completeness: 86%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

co-compiler:

Hoogendijk Tijmen

Southern Agriculture and Horticulture Organization (ZLTO)

Netherlands

land user:

Maris Pieter

V.O.F. Maris-Geluk

Netherlands

SLM specialist:

Dieleman Wico

Southern Agriculture and Horticulture Organization (ZLTO)

Netherlands

SLM specialist:

Lavet Laura

Southern Agriculture and Horticulture Organization (ZLTO)

Netherlands

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

European Interreg project FABulous Farmers

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

UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) - United Kingdom

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

Zuidelijke Land en Tuinbouw Organisatie (ZLTO) - Netherlands

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?

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Flower strips are established on arable crop access paths to attract and support natural enemies to control and decrease crop pests

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Planting flower strips to provide nectar and pollen to attract beneficial insect species that can help control pests is a well-known and well-used technology in the arable dominated South-West of the Netherlands. The use of such wildflower strips is increasingly being used across the world. Usually these wildflower strips are planted in bands around the edge or through the middle of a crop field.

This technology describes an interesting experiment that aims to see if it is more beneficial to establish several smaller flower strips between the crops to attract functional agrobiodiversity benefits to be compared to a smaller number of wider flower strips as is the standard practice.

The technology is being tested on 2 parcels of land that contain 2 different crops in the South-West of the Netherlands using these micro-flower strips, each approximately 0.5 meters wide, alongside access tracks running through the crops. The premise is these small strips can be effective spaces to increase the number of wild flowers present alongside a crop for the functional agrobiodiversity benefits without needing to use productive crop land.

Overall, the technology ultimately reduces the requirement for spraying of pesticides to control problematic species, thus improving the health and production of the crops while reducing the cost and environmental impact of spraying pesticides.

This trial design for a well-known technology has proven to be successful if designed and implemented well. The increased locations in closer proximity to the crop supported beneficial species presence. However, how different this is compared to standard application of wildflower strip technology is still to be fully understood, especially when considering the slightly more challenging application of the trial technology design.

The technology trial is supported by the EU Interreg FABulous Farmers project.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

Media Gallery

General remarks regarding photos:

Technology not yet implemented

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

Country:

Netherlands

Region/ State/ Province:

Noord-Brabant

Further specification of location:

Dinteloord

Specify the spread of the Technology:

applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

Comments:

Pieter Maris, Dinteloord
parcel 1 Lat 51.618219 Lon 4.359685
parcel 2 Lat 51.617056 Lon 4.347348

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2019

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

through land users' innovation
through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

FABulous Farmers project

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

preserve/ improve biodiversity

Provide habitat for functional agrobiodiversity to control pests

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Cropland

Annual cropping

Number of growing seasons per year:

Is intercropping practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify which crops are intercropped:

Wildflowers intercropped with main crop

Is crop rotation practiced?

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

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

No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

V5: Others

Comments:

Planting of wildflower strips alongside crops.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

biological degradation

Bh: loss of habitats

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

not applicable

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/jpeg', 'preview_image': '/media/b2/c/b2cffb81-4c4e-44fd-a11b-d317581f36a1.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/d1/6/d16a804a-21d1-4591-9899-b430d9c414c5.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

There are two sorts of flower strips. One strip 3 meters wide and several small strips 0.5 meters wide. The wide strip will be established along the edge of the fields. The small strips will be established within the crops. The distance between the small strips will be varied in order to investigate the effect of spacing.

Author:

Tijmen Hoogendijk (ZLTO)

Date:

05/08/2019

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

per Technology area

Indicate size and area unit:

0.5m wide 'micro-strip'

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 =:

0.85

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

150

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Planting of wildflower strips alongside access paths	Spring
2.	Planting of larger wildflower stip alongside boarder of crop field	Spring

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	Seeding wildflower strips	150m strip	6.0	15.0	90.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor & attchments (already owned)	1	1.0			100.0
Plant material	Wildflower seed mix	per 150m strip	6.0	50.0	300.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					390.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					458.82

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

The EU Interreg FABulous Farmers project

Comments:

The technology is testing a new design for wildflower planting. The use of wildflower strips is already used by the land user so no new equipment or knowledge required, just additional time for labour and the seed mix required to trial the new design.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Comments:

No ongoing maintenence for this technology.

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

Comments:

No ongoing maintenence for this technology.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The price of seed mix required.
If implementing this technology in a new area the cost of equipment would also be required, but not required at this site as the general practice of wildflower strips is already being used.

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall

< 250 mm
251-500 mm
501-750 mm
751-1,000 mm
1,001-1,500 mm
1,501-2,000 mm
2,001-3,000 mm
3,001-4,000 mm
> 4,000 mm

Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

875.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

800-950 mm

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

KNMI

Agro-climatic zone

semi-arid

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:

flat (0-2%)
gentle (3-5%)
moderate (6-10%)
rolling (11-15%)
hilly (16-30%)
steep (31-60%)
very steep (>60%)

Landforms:

plateau/plains
ridges
mountain slopes
hill slopes
footslopes
valley floors

Altitudinal zone:

0-100 m a.s.l.
101-500 m a.s.l.
501-1,000 m a.s.l.
1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
> 4,000 m a.s.l.

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

not relevant

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:

very shallow (0-20 cm)
shallow (21-50 cm)
moderately deep (51-80 cm)
deep (81-120 cm)
very deep (> 120 cm)

Soil texture (topsoil):

medium (loamy, silty)

Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):

medium (loamy, silty)

Topsoil organic matter:

medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

< 5 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

for agricultural use only (irrigation)

Water quality refers to:

both ground and surface water

Is water salinity a problem?

Is flooding of the area occurring?

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:

medium

Habitat diversity:

medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:

Sedentary

Market orientation of production system:

commercial/ market

Off-farm income:

less than 10% of all income

Relative level of wealth:

average

Individuals or groups:

individual/ household

Level of mechanization:

mechanized/ motorized

Gender:

Age of land users:

middle-aged

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

< 0.5 ha
0.5-1 ha
1-2 ha
2-5 ha
5-15 ha
15-50 ha
50-100 ha
100-500 ha
500-1,000 ha
1,000-10,000 ha
> 10,000 ha

Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?

medium-scale

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

company

Land use rights:

individual

partnership

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Specify:

Land use rights are based on ownership or lease agreement

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:

poor
moderate
good

education:

poor
moderate
good

technical assistance:

poor
moderate
good

employment (e.g. off-farm):

poor
moderate
good

markets:

poor
moderate
good

energy:

poor
moderate
good

roads and transport:

poor
moderate
good

drinking water and sanitation:

poor
moderate
good

financial services:

poor
moderate
good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop quality

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Reduced pests of crops with increased number of beneficial species for pollination and competition has reduced the crop stress and disease improving the crop quality.

Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

Use of wildflower stips has reduced requirement for pesticide application

Ecological impacts

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

beneficial species

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Reduced pests on crops with increased number of beneficial species for pollination and competition has reduced crop stress and disease improving the crop quality.

pest/ disease control

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Reduced pests on crops with increased number of beneficial species for pollination and competition has reduced crop stress and disease improving the crop quality.

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

Comments:

The technology has shown a positive outcome of the use of micro-strips of a similar outcome to the use of wider wildflower strips. Generally the use of wildflower strips is very positive for the control of pests and increase in beneficial species.

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?

0-10%

Comments:

Support by an SLM expert thought the EU FABulous Farmers project

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Utilises the space alongside paths within a crop rather than taking over larger areas on the borders of field (though often these are marginally productive areas anyway so almost a swap like for like).

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Places the wildflowers, and thus the beneficial species, nearer to the crops in the centre of the field.
Reduces the requirement for pesticide use.

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?
More challenging to plant wildflowers in smaller strips in between crops compared to the use of wider strips.	Tractor atachment technology development specifically for implementation could be developed

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Potentially more challenging to plant and harvest crop with more diverse intercropping with wildflowers	Well designed intercropping practice this issue can be overcome

7. References and links

Links and modules

Expand all