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

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

Comments:

The technology promotes ecological and phytocoenotic compatibility between natural and cultivated forage plants, enhances biodiversity, and prevents the degradation of pasture vegetation; therefore, it is classified as an environmentally friendly (nature-conserving) technology.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Strip seeding of desert drought-resistant plants on degraded pastures creates an improved and stable structure of pasture phytocoenoses composed of natural and cultivated forage plants, and increases forage potential of desert pastures.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This technology was developed and adapted by the Samarkand Scientific Research Institute of Karakul Sheep Breeding and Desert Ecology on a 2,100-ha area, with the aim of restoring and improving natural ephemeral–ephemeroid vegetation on degraded pastures. The approach is highly relevant for livestock farms, as more than 80% of Uzbekistan’s pastures are located in desert zones, characterized by a very hot, dry climate and low precipitation. Desert ephemeral vegetation completes its growth cycle within a very short, moist spring period.

In addition to harsh natural conditions, pastures are subject to excessive stocking rates, overgrazing, and the absence of pasture rotation, all of which accelerate degradation. Due to unfavorable natural and climatic factors, disturbed vegetation cover recovers very slowly through natural regeneration. Meanwhile, the growth of livestock production requires increasing pasture productivity to secure adequate forage resources. This technology offers an effective method for natural pasture improvement.

The method involves sowing seeds of various local drought-resistant plant species (such as 'Haloxylon persicum', 'Salsola arbuscula', 'Calligonum' spp., and others) in 10-meter-wide strips alternating with strips of natural pasture of equal width. On the plowed strips, seedlings are planted in furrows spaced 1-m apart, with seeds additionally sown in the same furrows to ensure reliable germination. Over time, shrubs and subshrubs expand into the interstrip areas, while natural vegetation reestablishes on the plowed strips. This results in the formation of a complete agro-phytocoenosis: grasses + subshrubs + shrubs.

The technology is inexpensive - approximately USD 100–150 per ha, and yields positive results within 3–4 years. Farmers can later expand and enrich pastures by distributing seeds without incurring additional costs. The established plantations allow for year-round grazing.

Key stakeholders in pasture phytomelioration include farmers, agricultural clusters, forestry enterprises, rural citizen assemblies, farmers’ associations, agricultural and land management departments and environmental protection agencies.

It is recommended to carry out sowing of desert plants during the wet season (December–February), taking into account weather forecasts. Sowing may be done using seed drills or manually. To improve germination, seeds are mixed with manure and dry sand in a 1:5 ratio. Recommended seeding rates are: 'Halothamnus subaphyllus' – 10–12 kg/ha, 'Calligonum' spp. – 8–10 kg/ha, 'Haloxylon ammodendron' – 6–7 kg/ha.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2003

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The technology was introduced in 2003 as part of the activities of the Research Institute of Karakul Sheep Breeding and Desert Ecology. It has been tested by land users relatively recently as a method for increasing pasture productivity and adapting to changing environmental conditions.
The adoption of this technology is supported by donor-funded projects and by the work of the Samarkand Research Institute, carried out under State Committee for Science and Technology programs focused on preventing degradation and restoring pastures.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• mitigate climate change and its impacts

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-silvopastoralism

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

Comments:

The sites where the technology is implemented are natural pastures used for livestock grazing and forage harvesting.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Water and wind erosion (deflation), as well as biological degradation, are caused by natural factors (high temperatures and evaporation, soil desiccation, wind activity, and poor vegetative ground cover) and anthropogenic factors (poor management and irrational use of pastures — exceeding the permissible grazing load, overgrazing, lack of rotation, etc.). The combination of these factors creates a cumulative effect, leading to an increase in the proportion of bare/unprotected surfaces, reduced soil resistance to erosion, and ultimately, land degradation.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Pasture enrichment through phytomelioration — reseeding/planting vegetation in strips — helps reduce degradation and create favorable conditions for the development of natural pasture vegetation, increase the density of plant cover and prevent deflation, enhance soil moisture retention during the growing season, promote seed dispersal, and support further natural vegetation regeneration, among other benefits.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Soil preparation: plowing, harrowing, rough leveling.	December – February.
2.	Planting/sowing	Mid December – mid February
3.	Crop maintenance and plant protection.	March - September

Comments:

Pasture enrichment activities through phytomelioration are carried out during the winter period. Sowing is preferably done in rainy weather, under snow, or in snow.

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	Labor of workers	ha	60.0	15.0	900.0
Equipment	Preparing the land, sowing	ha	60.0	100.0	6000.0
Plant material	Seeds + manure	ha	60.0	25.0	1500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					8400.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					8400.0

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

The costs were covered from the institute/project budget.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Control of livestock grazing, prevention of overgrazing	Constantly

Comments:

To maintain the technology, only management measures are required to prevent pasture degradation due to overloading and to create conditions favorable for regeneration of the natural vegetation. With proper management, the productive lifespan of enriched pastures is 40–60 years.

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

Comments:

No additional investments are required to maintain the technology. Management activities aimed at preserving the vegetation cover ensure the longevity of enriched pastures.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The highest costs of implementing the technology are associated with soil preparation and sowing/planting, which include labor and fuel and lubricants. All expenses are incurred in the first year; in subsequent years, costs are virtually nonexistent.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The technology was applied on terrain with gentle and sloping inclines.

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Yes

Specify:

There are no surface water sources on desert pastures. Saline water from artesian wells and boreholes is used for watering livestock.

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water in surface sources is polluted by drainage discharge from irrigated fields.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

In rocky and clay deserts, vegetation includes wormwood, saltworts, and, in some areas, ephemeral grasses. In saline areas, salt-tolerant plants (halophytes) dominate, including various saltwort species, Turgay biyurgun ('Anabasis salsa'), white wormwood, and others. In deserts with loess soils, ephemeral grass communities such as sedge, bluegrass, poppy, and ferula predominate; these dry out with the onset of summer heat. The sparse vegetation cover of sandy deserts consists of psammophytic grasses (such as 'Aristida'), shrub-like juzgun ('Calligonum'), tree and shrub saxaul, and semi-shrub wormwood species.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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:

• state

Land use rights:

• leased

• через ассоциации водопользователей и управления ирригационных систем

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

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

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

The technology has only positive effects on the environment, both within and beyond the area of its implementation.

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
seasonal temperature	winter	increase	moderately
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	moderately
annual rainfall		decrease	moderately
seasonal rainfall	spring	decrease	moderately
seasonal rainfall	summer	decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	moderately
drought	moderately

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period	very well

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:

The technology is inexpensive; therefore, the results achieved relative to the investment are modestly positive even in the short term.

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?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The technology is simple and inexpensive, and all activities related to land preparation, sowing, and crop maintenance are well known.
Local drought-resistant forage plant species are used for pasture enrichment.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The technology delivers exclusively positive effects, both economic and environmental.
Low costs, the absence of any need for further investments to maintain the technology, and its ease of implementation make it attractive for land users.
Local plant species are used for phytomelioration, and their seeds are easy to obtain for sowing.

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?
The effectiveness of pasture phytomelioration (seed germination and seedling survival) strongly depends on weather conditions.	Plan sowing and planting based on weather forecasts, timing them to coincide with periods of rainfall.
Insufficient awareness among farmers and the public about pasture improvement methods.	By conducting training sessions, educational seminars, and establishing demonstration plots.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Maintaining the technology requires a high level of management measures to prevent overgrazing and create favorable conditions for vegetation recovery.	Organizational measures are necessary, including the establishment of pasture user committees and other self-governance bodies.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rabbimov A., Mukimov T., Bekchanov B., Boboeva A. Phytomelioration of pastures in Uzbekistan and its necessity in combating desertification and degradation. Current issues of development of productive camel breeding in Kazakhstan. Shymkent, 2014, pp.265-269

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rabbimov A., Mukimov T. Recommendations for rational use and increasing the productivity of desert pastures. Recommendations, Tashkent, 2012, p. 48

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rabbimov A., Mukimov T. Intensification of feed production in the desert is the main way to modernize desert-pasture animal husbandry. Chul-yaylov chorvachiligini modernizationlash muammolari. Republic of Ilmiy - Amaliy Conference Sining Materiallari Samarkand, 2012, 308-315 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

T.Mukimov. Rangelands and Pasturelands: Problems and Prospects. Chapter 12 Rangelands along the Silk Road: Transformative Adaptation under Climate and Global Change. Editors: Victor Roy Squires, Shang Zhan-Huan and Ali Ariapour (International Dryland Management Consultant, Adelaide, Australia, and others)