4. Implementing field trials

General conclusions for groups of techniques

2013-10-01T10:32:03Z

There are no best practices, only local solutions. Each site has its specific set of bio-physical, social and economic circumstances that each plays a role in the success. In general there are clear positive results, especially in terms of ecological benefits. The techniques selected in Research Theme 3 have clear effects on most sites. Where they don’t, it can be explained why.

Techniques that work well must directly benefit farmers or else the investment will be too big. If the benefit is not directly experienced (such as for instance for soil erosion) it is even more difficult. There are usually compelling reasons, from a farmer’s points of view, not to implement a technique that is successful from a desertification point of view. Success based on longer trials and demonstration farms and even education/extension programs could be helpful. Generally desertification addresses a problem that has a much larger scale than can be addressed by the farmers alone, and they correctly claim that help and subsidy is needed. Also the comparison confirms that desertification can only be addressed if there are direct benefits in terms of production and income. If benefits take a few years to establish (such as with minimum tillage and grazing management) subsidy is needed to overcome the first few years.

The efficiency of combatting desertification of the seven functional groups can be summarized as follows.

1. Minimum tillage

Summary

Crete: no-tillage under olive trees: (top) no-tillage and no herbicide; (middle) no-tillage and herbicide; (bottom) conventional tillage. The difference in soil cover is clearly visible.

This technology is meant to restore a natural stable soil structure, which is relatively rich in organic matter. A good soil structure will increase infiltration and reduce runoff and erosion, and the surface is stronger in a sense protection against rainfall impact. The increased infiltration promotes water availability. On the down side there has to be some pest control at the moment of crop emergence, which is usually achieved with a combination of herbicides and light tillage. This land use system only works for cereals, not for root crops.

The results from the experiments show that under the right circumstances these mitigation processes are actually achieved, except in Morocco where the soil is very stony and has to be ploughed to make any type of sowing feasible.

Generally water availability increases, as well as a reduction in runoff. The method works well in combination with other conservation practices such as increasing soil cover. Environmental effects from using more herbicides were not included in the study and unfortunately no conclusions van be drawn in that respect. In spite of the relatively positive bio-physical effects, this technology is not well accepted by the farmers for several reasons.

Crop yield is usually slightly lower, although still on comparable levels with the conventional tillage methods. Thus there is a drop in income which is only positive because the expenses are less. In these expenses however labour is also included as a cost factor (besides lower fuel costs), but labour may not always be expressible in hard cash, where it concerns family labour. With this in mind the reason for doing minimum tillage would be to control erosion. The increased water availability is generally considered moderately positive. Erosion control however does not translate directly in yield increase and the offsite effects are not the responsibility of farmers alone. Erosion is therefore not seen as an immediate problem and that benefit does not outweigh the trouble of implementing minimum tillage. Lastly minimum tillage field look different form conventional fields, often less “clean”. The social implication is that you are a “bad” or “lazy” farmer, which is a strong negative incentive.

2. Soil cover, mulch and residue management

Summary

The effects of these measures are a protection of the soil, obstruction to runoff control and protection against direct surface evaporation, conserving water. Green cover/green manure can be used between annual crops to cover the soil during a bare period in the growing season (such as with alfalfa or mustard seed). Nitrogen rich species are used that are ploughed into the soil as extra nutrient supply and structure improvement.

Experiment combining green manure and minimum tillage in Spain

In a different fashion green cover can also be introduced in orchards to cover bare area between the trees, as is the case for almonds (Spain) or olives (Crete). On the down side the mulch may actually also intercept rainfall, while green cover can in certain situations be in competition for water with the first crop (almonds, olives).

The overall results of these experiments are unclear. In the first place in semi-arid environments it is not easy to get mulch, biomass is in short supply and it may even be expensive to obtain, while (at least in Spain) the results were not at all convincing. So mulch was not accepted by the farmers at all in this one case. Green manure between almonds had some clear positive effects but this may not outweigh the extra trouble, this depends on the price you get for the harvest of this second crop. So it is market driven. Green cover in olive groves has a clear effect in runoff and erosion mitigation, but farmers generally feared too much water competition, which could not really be disproven, and erosion conservation is not their first concern.

3. Runoff control

Summary


Turkey: contour ploughing and fencing on small dykes following contour lines	Cape Verde: vegetative barrier helps to make terraces	Mexico: construction of check dams

The purpose of these measures is always twofold: reduce runoff and erosion, and increase water availability through increased infiltration. This is a mixed group of various techniques, from actual terracing subsidized by the government (China, Cape Verde) to a stakeholder approach in Turkey (Eskeshir) where farmers made fences woven from branches that capture sediment and runoff that will gradually form terraces. In general the results are good if the terraces are established with outside help and people are used to it. This experience is confirmed form many parts in the world (Nepal, Peru, South East Asia). Water availability is higher, crop yield is also higher in all cases. However from a point of view of local stakeholders, soil erosion is seen as a wider problem where it concerns offside effects, and the responsibility of the government. Also, teraccing is very expensive, needs a great deal of technical experience to avoid erosion and landslides, and generally destroys the soil structure when they are created, which takes long to restore. The project results confirm that it is almost never a local stakeholder solution that can be carried by the community.

The experience of Turkey however shows that good results can be obtained with a much less rigorous intervention: woven fences are easy to establish and restore and combined with contour plouging work well to increase moisture and prevent runoff. However, again there is a downside that might prevent farmers from using this technique: depending on the field shape and orientation towards the slope direction, the technique may result in very short and wavy tillage lines with many tractor turns needed. The tractor is also hampered by the fences. Thus operational costs may be higher, while the yield may be lower. In Turkey this was not the case: yield was actually higher but the reasons were not quite clear.

4. Water harvesting

Summary

The water harvesting techniques tested are all related to capturing natural runoff and leading this to terrace like, flat pieces of land. In Tunisia this system has been used for many decades and people are used to it and know exactly what they can expect. Water of the surrounding area is captured to have a (sometimes subsistence) olive harvest. Since this is in a true arid area with very low rainfall, there would be no agricultural activity without this system. Thus here is not really a unmitigated system to test. It can be said however that the groundwater is sometimes also for additional watering and this causes overexploitation. The system functions if it is combined with groundwater infiltration zones. There is complete acceptance of this technique as it is the only low-cost solution available. However, it may not give a secure future for younger generations.

In Spain, a similar traditional water harvesting system exists, using natural runoff water (traditional boqueras system), combined with almond orchards. It is being revived after having been neglected for a period of time, due to economic fluctuations. It works well in terms of increased water availability, increasing yield. It will not be available to everybody because your fields need to be downstream of a water delivering system. An added benefit might be that the natural surrounding area increases in value.

Spain: boquera system inlet gate on almond terrace

In China bench terraces and check dams are being built by the government that also serve as water harvesting systems, simply because the steep slope and fast runoff is now being captured on the flat terrace surfaces. The construction is expensive and can only be done by the government, who is interested in decreasing downstream sediment problems (because of hydroelectric power installations and domestic and industrial use of river water). Once established, the terraces work well and show increased yields and decrease of soil loss. Currently farmers in the area find work outside agriculture and the interest is less.

China: (top) check dam land; (bottom) bench terraces

5. Irrigation management

Summary


Salinised soil	Sprinkler system in the Novy study site	Installing drip irrigation lines in tomato plots, Dzhanybek

Irrigation is of course done in areas with water shortage to be able to grow crops. In all areas however there was a risk of salinization, because of brackish groundwater and high evaporation. Salts concentrate in the top soil over time and decrease yields. Salinisation is very difficult to combat. Flushing with fresh water (as is done in Nestos) is usually expensive and the water has to be available. Drip irrigation is very successful: the water use declines improving the overall water availability and reducing the dependence on brackish groundwater. The detrimental effect on the soil surface of excessive furrow irrigation is absent. Yields are high although they were tested for tomatoes grown at vegetable garden scale, and not for large scale cereals. Drip irrigation also promotes much better water management; furrow irrigation system can be very uneconomical with excess water use (as in the Novy site in Russia) and Sprinkler irrigation can also waste water because of direct evaporation and wind action. Drip irrigation might actually also be a solution for the Greek site of Nestos, but this was not tested. The downside is that drip irrigation systems cost some initial investment, so it depends on the local situation of taxes on water use, fuel expenses for pumping large amounts of water in furrow systems etc.

6. Rangeland management

Summary

This technique promotes to set aside a part of a communal grazing area so that there can be a natural reseeding of species and a higher boidiversity. Often overgrazed lands still have vegetation but generally unpalatable for cattle and sheep, even for goats. Bushes are thorny or have chemicals that prevent eating. Set aside of grazing areas gave very positive and immediately visible results in an increase in biomass, cover and species composition. The returning species (possibly dormant in the soils) were of a high quality for grazing.

Morocco: gully stabilisation with Atriplex

This technique was used directly to increase the rangeland quality (Tunisia, Crete) or it was used in combination with various erosion mitigation measures such as gully control (Morocco). Stakeholders see and recognize the benefits and are generally positive because the implications for their lifestock are immediate. However there are important initial constraints and considerations:

Setting aside a part of the land there must be some fencing to keep cattle out, that is often free roaming. Fencing and maintenance are very expensive. Possibly in a larger integrated approach, areas that have natural barriers (valleys) could be assigned as set aside.
In the first few years when restoration is established, there is potentially too much cattle in an area because part is set aside. Thus calls for a decrease in livestock (very sensitive issue) or extra feeding with fodder brought in, and therefore a subsidy would be needed.
When cattle is kept out of restricted areas, care must be taken that not other areas become overgrazed. For instance in Morocco the Mamora forest is already under pressure from overgrazing, and large scale protection of gullies would be detrimental for this forest. An integrated approach is needed.
Land rights are often a sensitive issue so delineating lands means also defining rights of grazing. This on the one hand might promote a democratic and discussion process, but is a very sensitive issue that cannot be done by outside “scientific” teams.

7. Forest fire management

Summary

In Portugal two techniques for forest fire mitigation have been tested: strip networks where vegetation is cut along major roads, and prescribed burning. The latter is a technique to do controlled burning in spring to reduce the fuel load in summer and thus prevent heavy fires. Both have as an added problem that the bare areas might result in increased soil erosion. The soil surface may become water repellent after burning due to the heat of the fire that affects the organic matter in the soil. Soil erosion was not really a problem in case of the strip network. It might become a problem when he network is extended to secondary roads.

Prescribed burning, during the wet period seems to have less impacts on the soil and vegetation than the summer wildfires, therefore it is suitable as a land management technique. It has a reduced cost/effect rate, especially when compared with other techniques. It can be used to promote higher landscape diversity and therefore promote biodiversity. The landscape diversity can induce a higher diversity of economic activities, therefore increasing the appeal of mountain areas, by improving the local community’s livelihoods.

More details ... download the full report
	Comparison of conservation technologies and identification of best practices (Report 99 D4.5.1 May12) [3.51Mb]

General conclusions from individual experiments

2013-09-24T13:55:23Z

From the analysis of the field experiment results and the discussions with the stakeholders held by the site coordinators, the following general conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness and feasibility of each of the sustainable land management techniques trialled in all the study sites.

Select study site and measure

General conclusions

Detailed conclusions

»Click here

More details ... download the full report
	Implementation of conservation technologies at stakeholder level: results of field experiments (Report 91 D4.3.1 Apr2012) [7.23 Mb]

Contact the Wageningen University team

2012-12-03T15:45:07Z

Institute full name:	Erosion and Soil & Water Conservation Group Wageningen University
Institute acronym:	ESW-WU
Institute profile:	Research of the Erosion and Soil & Water Conservation Group of Wageningen University (ESW-WU) focuses on physical and socio-economic processes that cause land degradation, and the design of technology that conserves soil and water and tailor it to the local socio-economic conditions. We mostly operate in interdisciplinary groups in developing countries, but are active in Europe, the USA, Australie and elswhere also. ESW-WU has at its diposal laboratory facilities, field monitoring devices, an experimental field in The Netherlands and research facilities in several tropical countries. Research is undertaken on scales ranging from the plot, field, farm, village to the watershed. ESW-WU is the leading partner in several interdisciplinary projects on soil & water conservation and has formal cooperation agreements with many EU and DC partners. Through collaborative research ESW-WU participates in NUFFIC/NPT- programmes in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Uganda and collaborates with CGIAR-centres such as ICRISAT, ICRAF and CIP
Website	www.esw.wur.nl
Address	Erosion and Soil & Water Conservation Group P.O. Box 47 Droevendaalsesteeg 4 6700 AA Wageningen Netherlands Fax: +31 317 486103
Institute logo
Institute image

Involved personnel

Name	Contact details	Key qualifications	Photo
Prof. Leo Stroosnijder	Tel: +31 317 482446 E-mail: leo.stroosnijder@wur.nl	Head of ESW-WU. Supervising 15 international PhD-students. Coordinating several international research projects. Fields of expertise: soil and water conservation, system analysis , agronomic modeling, land use planning and policy
Ms. Dr. Monique Slegers	Tel: +31 317 486131 E-mail: monique.slegers@wur.nl	Social scientist. Fields of expertise: adoption of soil & water conservation measures, policies and impact assessment
Ms. Dr. Saskia Faye-Visser	Tel: +31 317 484583 E-mail: saskia.faye-visser@wur.nl	Physical geographer. Fields of expertise: assessment of erosion & design of soil & water conservation. Modeling in an GIS environment.
Dr Cathelijne Stoof	Tel: +31 317 486619 E-mail: cathelijne.stoof@wur.nl personal website: www.fire.wur.nl	Soil scientist/ soil physicist. Expert in soil physical field and lab experiments, hydrological modeling. PhD topic: Fire effects on soil-water movement.
Dr Jantiene Baartman	Tel: +31 317 486620 E-mail: jantiene.baartman@wur.nl	Soil scientist/geomorphologist with special interest in landscape evolution, soil erosion and dynamic modelling. PhD topic: Natural and human-induced erosion - combining short-term event-based research and landscape evolution modelling.
Feras Youssef

Main contributors to "Implementing & monitoring field trials"

2012-12-03T15:27:20Z

»International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (NL)	Victor Jetten, Abbas Farshad, Dhruba Shrestha
»Wageningen University (NL)	Leo Stroosnijder, Cathelijne Stoof, Jantiene Baartman, Feras Youssef

... and all the study site teams

»Estación Experimental de Zonas Áridas (ES)	»Universidade de Aveiro (PT)
»Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra (PT)	»University of Wales Swansea
»Agricultural University of Athens (GR)	»Democritus University of Thrace (GR)
»Eskişehir Osmangazi University (TR)	»UNESCO-GN Chair, University Mohammed V-Agdal, Rabat (MA)
»Institut des Régions Arides (TN)	»Moscow State University of Environmental Engineering (RU)
»Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)	»University of Botswana (BW)
»Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (FR)	»Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (CL)
»Instituto Nacional de Investigação e Desenvolvimento Agrário (CV)

Contact the ITC team

2012-12-03T14:21:15Z

Institute full name:	International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation
Institute acronym:	ITC
Institute profile:	The International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC) is aims at international education, flanked by research and project services. It's international training programmes offer some 40 different specialization courses, at MSc and PhD levels. ITC’s research activities concentrate on Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. ITC has six scientific departments, of which the Department of Earth Systems Analysis (ESA) is the partner in this project. ESA develops models based on remote sensing data and GIS and data integration techniques for: soil resources assessment for multiple uses, especially land degradation assessment and monitoring, soil erosion and surface runoff, natural hazards and disaster management (earthquakes, floods, landslides and desertification-land degradation) in relation to earth dynamic processes. The ITC is also an associate institute of the United Nations University (UNU) on Disaster Geo-Information Management and on Land Administration (http://www.itc.nl/unu). In DESIRE ITC is coordinator of Workblock 4.
Website	www.itc.nl
Address	Hengelosestraat 99 P.O. Box 6 7500 AA Enschede The Netherlands Phone: + 31 (0)53 4874444 Fax: +31 (0)53 48744336 (Dept. ESA)
Institute logo
Institute image

Involved personnel

Name	Contact details	Key qualifications	Photo
Prof. Dr. Victor Jetten	Tel: +31 53 4874412 E-mail: jetten@itc.nl	Chair in earth Surface Systems Analysis. Development of spatial models of land degradation processes (erosion, flooding, mass movement).
Dr. Dhruba Pikha Shrestha	Tel: +31 53 4874 264 Email: shrestha@itc.nl	Spatial modelling of soil erosion; remote sensing techniques applied to land use change and land degradation studies including soil salinity
Prof. Dr. Freek van der Meer	Tel: +31 53 4874353 E-mail: vdmeer@itc.nl	Imaging spectrometry applied to geological characterization of the environment; Monitoring and 4D temporal analysis of geological processes; Spatial statistics applied to image analysis.
Dr. Abbas Farshad	Tel: +31 53 4874318 E-mail: farshad@itc.nl	Soil-landscape relationships (soil geography, geo-pedology); land degradation and desertification assessment; sustainable land management.
Dr. David Rossiter	Tel: +31 53 4874499 E-mail: rossiter@itc.nl	Models of spatial variation & geostatistics; Continuous-model mapping; Quantitative modelling of soil-landscape relations; Parameterization of process.
Mrs. Sabine Maresh (MSc)	Tel: +31 53 4874370 E-mail: maresh@itc.nl	Management, project services and marketing of educational and research projects. Experience with EU projects, Asaian Dvelopment Bank projects and others. International marketing.

Analysis of results

2011-02-15T10:19:28Z

Using common methods of bio-physical and socio-economic analysis, the results of the field trials in all study sites were examined to see what effects they had on production, culturally, ecologically and off-site.

Bio-physical analysis

The monitoring strategy used in Research Theme 4 allowed direct comparison between (normalized) time series of, for instance, soil moisture or sediment loss. Variables were generally soil physics related (moisture) or chemistry related (fertility and salinity). Crop yields were measured for arable farming and vegetation density and quality were measured for rangeland type environments. The study sites that focused on a catchment level (such as the forest fire analysis in Portugal) used catchment results to draw conclusions.

Socio-economic analysis

Bio-physical effects only make sense within the wider context of the study site. An increase of 30 mm in soil moisture per year may be significant in one setting (where for instance the grazing capacity and fodder quality is increased) but not enough in another which depends on certain crops. The full effect of implementing a change in practice depends on many specific environmental, economic and socio-cultural details.

The WOCAT system provides users with a Questionnaire to evaluate technologies (QT). QT addresses the following questions:

what are the specifications of the Technology,
where is it used (natural and human environment), and
what impact does it have.

The last section on impact was used to evaluate the DESIRE field experiments. In WOCAT QT a technology is compared to an untreated reference situation. By means of a large series of questions the benefits and disadvantages with respect to the 0-situation are appraised. These effects are evaluated in 4 levels of change: 0-5%; 5-20%; 20-50% and >50% (decrease or increase).

Part of the WOCAT QT questionnaire

These lists were used to create 59 questions that can be scored as positive or negative (for instance: ‘increase in crop yield’ and ‘decrease in crop yield’ becomes ‘crop yield’ that can be scored e.g. +20 or – 5). In order to display the results in readable tables, related questions were grouped under the headings "Production & socio-economic", "Ecological", "Socio-cultural" and "Off site".

Final set of factors used to summarize the answers to the questionnaires

The questionnaires were filled in by the site coordination teams because many of the questions required specialist knowledge (especially to quantify the level of change). However the teams had many discussions with the stakeholders during and after the experiments so it was felt that the evaluation was not biased towards any particular experiment. In several cases the results of the experiments were counterintuitive or disappointing, and this was noted objectively.

More details ... download the full report
	Implementation of conservation technologies at stakeholder level: results of field experiments (Report 91 D4.3.1 Apr2012) [7.23 Mb]

Overview of field experiments for all study sites

2009-06-08T17:36:33Z

Four different types of soil and water conservation measures were implemented in 33 the field experiments.

Agronomic measures

Definitions

are usually associated with annual crops
are repeated routinely each season or in a rotational sequence
are of short duration and not permanent
do not lead to changes in slope profile
are normally independent of slope.

The agronomic measures implemented in DESIRE were

minimum tillage
stubble management
mulch/residue
green cover
contour ploughing
rotation/fertility
deep ploughing with minimum tillage

Vegetative measures

Definitions

involve the use of perennial grasses, shrubs or trees
are of long duration
often lead to a change in slope profile
are often aligned along the contour or against the prevailing wind direction
are often spaced according to slope.

The vegetative measure implemented in DESIRE were

planting (trees)
woven fence
fire break

Management measures

Definitions

involve a fundamental change in land use
involve no agronomic and structural measures
often result in improved vegetative cover
often reduce the intensity of use.

The management measures implemented in DESIRE were

prescribed burning
fencing/resting
biogas

Structural measures

Definitions

often lead to a change in slope profile
are of long duration or permanent
are carried out primarily to control runoff, wind velocity and erosion and to harvest rainwater
often require substantial inputs of labour or money when first installed
are often aligned along the contour/against prevailing wind direction
are often spaced according to slope
involve major earth movements and/or construction with wood, stone, concrete etc.

The structural measures implemented in DESIRE were

terrace (bench)
terrace (sloping)
land reclamation (dam)
freshwater to wash saline soil
drip irrigation
water harvesting
gully control

What measures were implemented in which study sites?

Notes:

Look up table v.4Oct11
Source for definitions: Liniger et al. 2008. A framework for documentation and evaluation of sustainable land management technologies. WOCAT/CDE/FAO/ISRIC

More details ...

Read an overview of the monitoring strategy and implementation of field experiments

Overview of field experiments

Read the full Site Implementation Plans for each study site

Guadalentín, Spain

Mação and Gois, Portugal

Rendina, Italy

Agia Barbara, Crete, Greece

Augeniki, Crete, Greece

Nestos River Delta, Greece

Karapinar, Turkey

Eskisehir, Turkey

Sehoul, Morocco

Zeuss Koutine, Tunisia

Dzhanibek, Russia

Novy, Russia

Yan River Basin, China

Boteti, Botswana

La Cienega, Cointzio, Mexico

La Cortina, Cointzio, Mexico

Secano Interior, Chile

Ribeira Seca, Cape Verde

Site Implementation Plan blueprint

2009-06-08T15:30:35Z

To ensure comparability between the results of the soil and water conservation field trials, a blueprint was developed for all the site implementation plans.

Content

General: location of the monitoring plots
Summary: brief summary of the problems at this particular location and the SWC chosen, summary from Research Theme 3
Location description: soil type, relief, climate and photo's of the plot/field area
Stakeholder info: name, level of technology applied on this location
Land use: crop, rotation, grazing practice etc.
Conservation measures and experimental setup: short description of SWC measures, experimental setup, plot layout, situation map
Monitoring activities
Timetable of activities
Analysis strategy

More details ... download the full document
	WP4.1 Site Implementation Plan: blueprint [0.82 MB]

ManPrAs - Agricultural management practices assessment

2009-01-13T12:44:35Z

Combating desertification in Mediterranean Europe: linking science with stakeholders
Funded by European Commission contract number: EVK2-CT2001-00109. 2001-2004

ManPrAs is a tool for Agricultural Management Practices Assessment set up within DESERTLINKS project. The objective is to suggest a method, based on the indicators list in DIS4ME, to assess the sustainability of agricultural practices through its soil conservation index (SCI) and economic results (Gross Margin-GM), and to simulate the impact on soil degradation, farm profitability and socio-economic features of alternative crops in a specific context. The tool is strongly user-orientated, and allows assessment of the environmental and economic aspects of agricultural practice, giving a powerful simulation tool to farmers and stakeholders involved in land management.

More details ... go to the ManPrAs website

ManPrAs website

You will need to enter
Username: "desertlinks"
Password: "dis4me"

Field measuring and monitoring methods

2008-09-11T13:20:28Z

DESIRE implemented nearly 40 field experiments across all the study sites to assess the potential strategies that the stakeholders identified. To assist the design of these experiments a manual "Field measuring and monitoring methods for on-site effects of soil and water conservation measures" was compiled, giving an overview of currently available methods, techniques and instruments.

The manual draws (among others) on measuring and montoring methods developed or used in the LADA, WOCAT and MEDALUS projects.

Contents

1 Introduction to DESIRE Work block
1.1 Methodology
1.2 WOCAT and desertification processes
1.3 Indicators
1.4 Local indigenous indicators
2 General plot descriptions
2.1 Participatory impact monitoring
2.2 Description of the plot setting
2.3 General monitoring
2.4 A note on sample size
3 Monitoring of socio-economic indicators
3.1 Focus-group discussions on feasibility and acceptability (source: CDE)
3.2 Production in cropland (source: LADA local assessment manual)
3.3 Household level livelihoods analysis (source: LADA local assessment manual)
3.4 Farm management
3.5 Cost-benefit analysis
4 Meteorological measurements
4.1 Temporal resolution of meteo variables
4.2 Rainfall
4.3 Evapotranspiration
5 Soils and soil properties
5.1 Static quality indicators
5.2 Pedotransfer functions
5.3 Soil moisture monitoring
5.4 Infiltration
5.5 Soil Strength parameters

6 Soil surface dynamics
6.1 General visual monitoring
6.2 Crusting dynamics
6.3 Roughness
6.4 Flow resistance
6.5 A combined soil surface index
7 Water erosion
7.1 Splash detachment
7.2 Flow detachment
7.3 Deposition
8 Runoff
8.1 Monitoring runoff
9 Vegetation properties
9.1 Processes
9.2 Sampling strategy
9.3 Canopy characteristics
9.4 Species composition and functional types
9.5 Biomass
9.6 Root depth and density
9.7 Litter, mulch and soil organic matter
10 Wind erosion
10.1 Monitoring wind erosion
10.2 Assessment of wind erosion
11 Salinity
11.1 Saline and sodic soils
11.2 Salinisation monitoring
12 Remote Sensing vegetation indices
12.1 Sensors and satellites
12.2 Vegetation, soil surface and drought indices

More details ... download the full document

WP4.2 Field measuring and monitoring methods (Draft 1.0) [1.71 MB]