Technologies

Hedgerows as shelter belts along agricultural fields [France]

gestion des haies

technologies_5644 - France

Completeness: 88%

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)

SLM specialist:

Pivain Yann

Chambre d’agriculture de Normandie

France

land user:

Odienne Eric

EARL Bril Odienne

France

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)
Association des Chambres d’agriculture de l’Arc Atlantique (AC3A) - France

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

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Hedgerows are important to shelter the functional biodiversity necessary for natural regulation of crop pests. The extent of this effect depends on hedgerow management at farm level.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Hedgerows are typical landscape features of rural Normandy. They surround agricultural fields, whether cultivated or under grassland. Hedges were already prominent in Normandy during the 19th century, and they reached a peak between the first and second world wars. However, since the 1960s, the restructuring of agricultural land and technical and technological developments in agriculture have led to the disappearance of hedgerows. The challenge since the beginning of the 21st century has been to maintain the existing hedgerows and to establish others. This is important in the light of today’s agri-environmental and climate issues.

The technology of replacing, restoring or planting new hedgerows has been applied in an area of mixed farming for the benefit of crop and animal protection, watercourse and soil erosion buffering and protection, and landscape and habitat connectivity improvements. The technology has been applied in a locality by a small number of farmers over a number of recent years.

Hedgerows are planted on the periphery of the fields with species spaced at 0.5 to 1 m apart. There are between 1 and 3, sometimes even 4 different vegetative types used in establishing the hedgerows - herbaceous, bushy, and shrubby plants and trees. The current average length is 36 metres of hedge per hectare. The position of ancient hedgerows in the landscape is the result of the history of parcels of land. In contrast, over the last ten years, agri-environmental criteria have been taken into account in selecting planting sites. The main local species used for new hedges are: Fraxinus, Quercus, Tilia, Carpinus, Acer campestre, Crataegus, Corylus and Ilex. Each hedge is considered to have an influence ranging from 50 to 200 m away from it in terms of windspeed, runoff, and biodiversity.

Hedgerows play a very important role in preventing:
- Biological degradation through maintaining and increasing wildlife biodiversity and stimulating biological regulation of crop pests
- Climate-induced impacts both at the local level (decrease of wind speeds, decrease of evapotranspiration, shade for animals) and at global level (carbon storage, substitution of fossil energies by renewable energy)
- Water degradation through maintaining and improving qualitative and quantitative regulation of water at the watershed scale
- Soil erosion by water and chemical deterioration through the conservation of soils
- Soil erosion by wind

Despite these benefits, this SLM technology has not yet been taken up widely. It is more than necessary to restart hedgerow management with Normandy farmers, especially as the use of external inputs (e.g. fertilizers and pesticides) is increasingly expensive for both farmers and society.

The compilation of this SLM is a part of the European Interreg project FABulous Farmers which aims to reduce the reliance on external inputs by encouraging the use of methods and interventions that increase the farm’s Functional AgroBiodiversity (FAB). Visit www.fabulousfarmers.eu and www.nweurope.eu/Fabulous-Farmers for more information.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

Country:

France

Region/ State/ Province:

Normandy

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • 10-100 km2
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

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:
  • as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
  • through projects/ external interventions

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No


Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
  • various root and cereal crops over time
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Is intercropping practiced?

No

Is crop rotation practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify:

A variety of crops are grown in rotation, usually cereal or root crops dependent upon market demand - this technology is less dependent on the crop grown but the benefits of a hedgerow planted at the edges reduce the cropping area into smaller parcels.

Grazing land

Grazing land

Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
  • Improved pastures
Animal type:
  • cattle - non-dairy beef
Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced?

No

Species:

cattle - non-dairy beef

Count:

20

Forest/ woodlands

Forest/ woodlands

  • Tree plantation, afforestation
Tree plantation, afforestation: Specify origin and composition of species:
  • Mixed varieties
Type of tree plantation, afforestation:
  • temperate continental forest plantation
  • Main local species Fraxinus, Quercus, Tilia, Carpinus, Acer campestre, Crataegus, Corylus, Ilex
Are the trees specified above deciduous or evergreen?
  • mixed deciduous/ evergreen
Products and services:
  • Fuelwood
  • Nature conservation/ protection

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:
  • rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • windbreak/ shelterbelt
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
structural measures

structural measures

  • S11: Others
management measures

management measures

  • M3: Layout according to natural and human environment
  • M5: Control/ change of species composition

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bh: loss of habitats
  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
  • Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators

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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Hedgerows are planted on the periphery of the plots. The trees are spaced 0.5 to 1 m apart. The height varies from 1.5 m to more than 20 m. There are between 1 and 3, even 4 different vegetative strata (herbaceous, bushy, shrubby, tree). The local average length is 36 m of hedge per hectare (the departmental average is 19 m / ha). The position of old hedges is more the result of the history of parcels (properties) than linked to agri-environmental criteria. Over the last ten years, agri-environmental criteria have been taken into account in choosing planting sites. The main local species: Fraxinus, Quercus, Tilia, Carpinus, Acer campestre, Crataegus, Corylus and Ilex.

Each hedge is considered to have an influence ranging from 50 to 200 m away from it (in terms of wind, runoff, biodiversity).

Author:

Yann Pivain

Date:

01/11/2019

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology unit
Specify unit:

per 1 km of new / replanted hedgerow

other/ national currency (specify):

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

0.9

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

120

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Decide on planting site, the design/layout of the hedge and the species Spring
2. Soil preparation through clearing of land and harrowing After harvest of crops
3. Application of mulch to planting strip After harvest of crops
4. Planting of trees & protections (e.g. deer guards) November to January

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 Design and planning person-days 0.3 120.0 36.0 50.0
Labour Surface preparation for planting person-days 0.1 120.0 12.0 100.0
Labour Application of mulch person-days 0.3 120.0 36.0 100.0
Labour Planting trees person-days 11.0 120.0 1320.0 100.0
Equipment Tractor with harrow machine-days 0.1 50.0 5.0 100.0
Plant material Trees Piece 1000.0 2.0 2000.0 50.0
Plant material Tree protection (i.e. wild animal guards) Piece 1000.0 0.5 500.0 80.0
Plant material Mulching Piece 1000.0 1.3 1300.0 80.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 5209.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 5787.78
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

local community / subsidy

Comments:

Costs do not include training of farmers.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Hedgerow maintenance (cutting/pruning) From June to December every 3rd year
2. Wood harvest (20 years after planting) December to March

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 Hedgerow maintenance (cutting/pruning) day 0.2 120.0 24.0 100.0
Equipment Maintenance cutter day 0.2 50.0 10.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 34.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 37.78

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Time necessary for maintenance,
Good training to do quality work

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:

850.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

No dry season or marked rainy season. The rains fall fairly regularly

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Evreux (27000)

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

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)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

> 50 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

Water quality refers to:

both ground and surface water

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • high

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:
  • rich
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Age of land users:
  • youth
  • 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:
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • communal (organized)
Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

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 production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Possible loss of some cropland replaced with hedgerows, although most hedging in this instance was reinstating old field boundaries - i.e. where historic boundary lines existed but were removed for machenery or to enlarge field size.

crop quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Greater crop protection and more beneficial species improve crop quality

animal production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Shelter belts improve animal welfare leading to better weight gain.

wood production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Hedgerows can be coppiced for wood crop.

risk of production failure

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Shelter belt reduces risk of crop failure from weather extremes (i.e. wind)

product diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Wood crop added to diversity of products

production area

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Although loss of crop land, this is replaced with wood crop diversity

land management

hindered
simplified
Comments/ specify:

Smaller parcels of land make land management more restrictive for large machinery.

Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Balance of increased time and management of a diversity of crops, yet less crop management with improved pest control and phyicsl stress reduction from more shelter.

farm income

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

No change in balance of less crop production but addition of woody crop.

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Diversity added with option of woody crop

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Smaller field parcels make crop management harder having to use smaller machinery and there is an addition of hedgerow maintenence workload.

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Hedgerows act as buffer strips capturing wash off from fields before it reaches the water course

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Hedgerows act as buffer strips capturing wash from fields

excess water drainage

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Improved soil infiltration in hedgerows helps drain excess water

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Improved soil infiltration in hedgerows helps maintain soil moisture capacity

soil loss

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Hedgerows act as buffer strips capturing soil wash from fields

soil compaction

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Reduced machinery size (in places) reduces compaction, plus less soil compaction by hedgerows.

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Increased organic matter in hedgerows

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

More year round cover

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Increased wih hedgerows

plant diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

More diverse species with planting for hedgerows

animal diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Increased habitat diversity and area for more animal presence and diversity

beneficial species

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Encouragement of beneficial species with habitat creation in hedgerows that can aid natural pest and disease control through the presence of predator species that control pest species.

habitat diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Within hedgerow habitat addition

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Encouragement of beneficial species with habitat creation in hedgerows that can aid natural pest and disease control through the presence of predator species that control pest species.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

flood impacts

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Improved soil infiltration reduces flooding risk

wind velocity

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Shelter belts reduce wind velocity over crops

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

groundwater/ river pollution

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Hedgerows act as buffer strips capturing wash off from fields before it reaches the water course

buffering/ filtering capacity

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Hedgerows act as buffer strips capturing wash off from fields before it reaches the water course

wind transported sediments

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Shelter belts reduce wind velocity over crops and bare soil for less erosion & transportation

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Shelter belts reduce wind velocity over crops and bare soil for less erosion & transportation

impact of greenhouse gases

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Increased tree cover supports a reduction in GHG

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 moderately
annual rainfall increase well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm moderately
local windstorm moderately
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
drought not well
forest fire not well
land fire not well
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood not well
Biological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases moderately
insect/ worm infestation moderately

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period not well
reduced growing period not well at all
sea level rise not well at all

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

negative

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

Long-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • 1-10%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

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

Yes

other (specify):

Over the last ten years, agri-environmental criteria have been taken into account in choosing planting sites

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduced winds and wind erosion
Creation of spaces for wildlife leading to increased biodiversity
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Creation of climate zone "temperate" favourable to crops and / or animals
More space for biodiversity and habitat, particularly those that provide a beneficial return for agricultural production
Diversification to add woody crops
Connected landscape and habitats through hedgerow linkages to each other and woodlands.

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?
Cost and maintenance time Use harvested wood/material to cover increased costs for farmer to maintain hedgerows
Competition between cropping areas for natural resources Increase the technical understanding of tree management / crop fringes
Unclear EU financial support for hedge management (instability of the common agricultural policy) Unknown / public or private payment for ecosystem services and goods
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Unclear EU financial support for hedge management (instability of the common agricultural policy) Unknown / public or private payment for ecosystem services and goods

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

1 field visit

  • interviews with land users

2 land users who have implemented hedgerow planting

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

1 SLM expert consulted as information compiled

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

Les haies Rurales : rôles, création, entretien

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

08/10/2019

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Les haies Rurales : rôles, création, entretien / Fabien LIAGRE / 2006 / ISBN 2-85557-137-5

Available from where? Costs?

Edition France Agricole / 40 €

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules