首页> 外文期刊>Italian Journal of Agronomy >Effectiveness of the GAEC standard of cross compliance Management of set aside on soil erosion control
【24h】

Effectiveness of the GAEC standard of cross compliance Management of set aside on soil erosion control

机译:GAEC交叉遵守标准的有效性预留水土流失控制管理

获取原文
           

摘要

The GAEC standard Management of set aside is applied to arable lands subjected to set aside and kept non-cultivated throughout the year. The standard is also applied to other set aside areas eligible for direct payments. For the implementation of this Standard, the farmer must assure the presence of natural or artificial green cover on the surface throughout the year and adopt consistent agronomic practices as mowing, or other equivalent, in order to maintain the normal state of soil fertility, protect wildlife, prevent the formation of a potential inoculum of fires, especially during drought and prevent the spread of weeds. Up to the CAP Health Check the legislation on the set aside required the farmer to plough the soil by mid-May. Therefore, the natural vegetation cover could neither establish nor express its value against erosion throughout the year. Since mid 2004, cross compliance has banned ploughing of set aside surfaces. This novelty is very important in relation to the effectiveness of the standard in erosion control. In Italy there are only few studies carried out in the field that have measured the effect of set aside on soil erosion. The few existing experiments regarded the effect of set aside managed in accordance with the CAP dictates prior to the CAP Health Check . The results of case studies show very contrasting results regarding soil erosion on set aside plots managed through the annual ploughing in the period in which this rule remained in force. This finding can be explained by considering that most of soil erosion in the Mediterranean environment is determined by extreme events; so, set aside resulted ineffective in protecting the soil, when very erosive events occurred on bare soil (soil in seed bed condition after ploughing and harrowing) or when the plant cover of soil was still scarce. In these conditions soil erosion rate resulted similar to that observed in the intensive cropping systems. On the contrary, for events occurred when the natural vegetation was sufficiently developed, the beneficial effect of set aside in limiting erosion was similar to that exerted by total grass cover. In general, it can be argued that on plough set aside, an average period of 2 months is needed for the establishment of natural cover sufficient enough to ensure a significant protection of soil from erosion. The results show that in Italy set aside before the CAP Health Check might have determined a decrease of soil erosion by 50% (on average). Since 2005, set aside under cross compliance regime appears to have had a greater beneficial effect than before in reducing erosion, as total grass cover was able to decrease soil loss by 98% compared to intensive farming systems.
机译:GAEC预留耕地标准管理系统适用于全年预留耕地和未耕种的耕地。该标准还适用于其他有资格直接付款的预留区域。为实施本标准,农民必须全年确保表面上存在天然或人造绿色覆盖物,并采用一致的农艺措施进行修剪或其他等效操作,以保持土壤肥力的正常状态,保护野生动植物。 ,防止形成潜在的火苗,尤其是在干旱期间,并防止杂草扩散。根据CAP的健康检查,有关预留的法律要求农民在5月中旬之前耕种土壤。因此,一年四季的天然植被都无法建立或表达其抗侵蚀的价值。自2004年中期以来,交叉顺应禁止刨除预留的表面。就腐蚀控制标准的有效性而言,这一新颖性非常重要。在意大利,只有很少的研究在田间进行,这些研究测量了搁置对土壤侵蚀的影响。现有的少数实验认为,在CAP健康检查之前,应根据CAP的要求管理搁置的效果。案例研究的结果表明,在保留该规则的有效期内,通过年度耕作管理的预留土地上的土壤侵蚀的结果截然不同。可以通过考虑到地中海环境中大部分土壤侵蚀是由极端事件决定的来解释这一发现。因此,当在裸露的土壤上发生非常侵蚀性的事件(耕作和耙地后处于苗床状态的土壤)或植物的土壤覆盖仍然不足时,搁置一旁导致保护土壤无效。在这些条件下,土壤侵蚀速率的结果与集约种植系统中观察到的相似。相反,当自然植被充分发育时发生的事件,预留在限制侵蚀方面的有益效果与全草覆盖产生的效果相似。总的来说,可以说,在犁耕地上,平均需要两个月的时间来建立足够的自然覆盖层,以确保有效保护土壤免受侵蚀。结果表明,在意大利进行CAP健康检查之前,我们已经决定将土壤侵蚀减少50%(平均)。自2005年以来,在交叉履约制度下搁置似乎在减少水土流失方面具有比以往更大的有益作用,因为与集约耕作制度相比,总的草皮能够使土壤流失减少98%。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号