Home

chapter 3: global sensitivity analysis of rusle illustrates importance of

1. Sediment ReportedEstimated projected Aa delivery ratio Soil loss Soil loss Dam year MW millionsm millionsy millions y millions y tha tha Reservoir i Cachi 1966 100 160 48 1 1 3 5 0 32 26 14 ICE Birris 1990 4 3 13 6 0 2 0 6 0 28 ADE 42 JACEC Angostura 2000 177 10 7 1 5 5 5 0 27 2OFEEN 26 ICE Total gt 2 4 2 8 JASEC Junta Administrativa del Servicio El ctrico Municipal de Cartago ICE Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad The original volume is 54Mm however the latest estimation in 1993 indicated a volume loss of 11 of the original volume Jim nez Ram rez and Rodr guez Mesa 1992 The original volume is 11MmY however after two years of functioning the dam lost 2 5 of the original volume Jim nez Ram rez and Rodr guez Mesa 1992 Marchamalo 2004 Abreu 1994 Vignola et al 2010 The Reventazon watershed is located on the Caribbean side of the Costa Rica mountain range Figure 15 with annual precipitations ranging from 1 551 to 6 303 mm y 1 with an average of 2 955 mm y 1 The watershed is characterized by steep slopes in the upper and middle part of the watershed of altitudes ranging from 449 to 3 475 m a s l and with an average slope of 21 slope 37 5 The watershed is largely covered with forest 51 of the total area perennial crops 25 pasture 16 and semi perennial and annual crops 5 Coffee and sugarcane are the dominant perennial and semi peren
2. rpart Source http cran r project org web packages rpart rpart pdf Tiwari A K Risse L M Nearing M A 2000 Evaluation of WEPP and its comparison with USLE and RUSLE American Society of Agricultural Engineers 43 5 1129 1135 Van Remortel R Maichle R W Hickey R J Remortel R D Van 2004 Computing the LS factor for the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation through array based slope processing of digital elevation data using a C executable Computers amp Geosciences 30 1043 1033 95 Wagner H M 1995 Global sensitivity analysis Operations research 43 6 948 969 Wang G Gertner G Anderson A B Howard H Gebhart D Althoff D Davis T Woodford P 2007 Spatial variability and temporal dynamics analysis of soil erosion due to military land use activities uncertainty and implications for land management Land Degradation amp Development 18 519 542 Waylen P R Quesada M E Caviedes C N 1996 Temporal and Spatial Variability of Annual Precipitation in Costa Rica and the Southern Oscillation International Journal of Climatology 16 173 193 Wischmeier W H Smith D D 1978 Predicting rainfall erosion losses a guide to conservation planning U S Department of Agriculture Agriculture Handbook No 537 pp 69 Yang D Kanae S Oki T Koike T Musiake K 2003 Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes Hydrological Processes 1
3. I am not sure if this This change did not place as aresult of place but not as a taka pl change took place or ake place the initiative result of the initiative E itis too early to tell Rare threatened or endangered species were better C protected Overall biodiversity of the region was better protected C The amount or connectivity of natural habitats was increased Water quality quantity or regularity improved Ecosystem services that support agriculture e g irrigation water supply pollination soil fertility were restored or protected Other ecosystems services e g urban water supplies flood control carbon storage were restored or protected Other benefit please specify Effects on livelihoods and the poor This change took This change took I am not sure if this This change did not place as a resultof place but not as a take flaca change took place or the initiative result of the initiative p it is too early to tell Food security or nutrition for landscape inhabitants were C C C improved Household cash income for low income residents was increased Non cash measures of livelihoods e g greater material assets cleaner or more reliable water better educational resources were improved Communities became less vulnerable to shocks and disasters e g landslides floods droughts epidemics Access to health services improved Other benefit please specify 146
4. amp Rose C W 1995 Alley cropping for managing soil erosion of hilly lands in the Philippines Soil Technology 8 3 193 204 doi 10 1016 0933 3630 95 00019 4 Pansak W Hilger T Dercon G Kongkaew T amp Cadisch G 2008 Changes in the relationship between soil erosion and N loss pathways after establishing soil conservation systems in uplands of Northeast Thailand Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 128 3 167 176 doi 10 1016 j agee 2008 06 002 Presbitero A L Escalante M C Rose C W Coughlan K J amp Ciesiolka C A 1995 Erodibility evaluation and the effect of land management practices on soil erosion from steep slopes in Leyte the Philippines Soil Technology 8 205 213 Rodriguez O S P 1997 Hedgerows and mulch as soil conservation measures evaluated under field simulated rainfall Soil Technology 11 79 93 Ruiz Colmenero M Bienes R amp Marques M J 2011 Soil and water conservation dilemmas associated with the use of green cover in steep vineyards Soil and Tillage Research 117 211 223 doi 10 1016 j still 2011 10 004 Ruiz Colmenero M Bienes R Eldridge D J amp Marques M J 2013 Vegetation cover reduces erosion and enhances soil organic carbon in a vineyard in the central Spain Catena 104 153 160 doi 10 1016 j catena 2012 11 007 Thapa B B Cassel D K amp Garrity D P 1999 Ridge tillage and contour natural grass barrier strips
5. 2012 Negotiation analysis for mechanisms to deliver ecosystem services The case of soil conservation in Costa Rica Ecological Economics 75 22 31 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2012 01 004 Vignola R McDaniels T L amp Scholz R W 2013 Governance structures for ecosystem based adaptation Using policy network analysis to identify key organizations for bridging information across scales and policy areas Environmental Science amp Policy 31 71 84 doi 10 1016 j envsci 2013 03 004 Vignola R Ot rola M amp Calvo G 2008 Defining ecosystem based adaptation strategies for hydropower production stakeholders participation in developing and evaluating alternative land use scenarios and the strategies to achieve desired goals In C Marinez Alonso B Locatelli R Vignola amp P Imbach Eds Seminario Internacional sobre Adaptaci n al Cambio Clim tico el Rol de los Servicios Ecosist micos SIAASE pp 68 79 Turrialba Costa Rica Serie t cnica Manual t cnico CATIE no 99 Vogl A Tallis H Douglass J Sharp R Veiga F Benitez S Sebasti n Lozano J 2013 Resource Investment Optimization System RIOS Palo Alto CA Retrieved from http ncp dev stanford edu dataportal rios_releases RIOSGuide_Combined_8 22 13 pdf Wischmeier W H amp Smith D D 1978 Predicting rainfall erosion lossess a guide to conservation planning 1978 Washington D C WOCAT 2012 Desire for
6. 2014 Future efforts with more complete available data may include more comprehensive hydrological and calibrated models to assess hydrological services e g G mez Delgado et al 2011 6 Conclusion Our results indicate that the cost of implementing ideal cropping systems combination of at least two or three soil conservation practices is potentially similar or cheaper than dredging Particularly we estimated that the highest soil retention per dollar spent is obtained by targeting efforts on erosive crops C factor gt 0 4 or crops C factor gt 0 07 on steep lands gt 23 using medium budget allocations such as 10 20 millions Low budget allocations yielded marginal benefits providing an increase of soil retention ES lower than 3 However all targeting strategies extended the life span of the dams by reducing sediment yields in the reservoirs given our modeling assumptions Our estimation of the provisioning of the soil retention ES due to changes in agroecosystem management is an empirical based and conservative methodology that can be adapted and modeled iteratively to improve PES spatial planning in agroecosystems Our methodology may also improve private or 122 industry sector long term and strong engagement with more clear and direct benefits of their investments Future research should incorporate transaction cost and explore other strategies to boost the voluntary implementation of ideal cropping systems through train
7. Continental Review Survey LPFN English Effects on governance institutions and social capital This change took This change took I am not sure if this This change did not place as a resultof place but not as a taka pl change took place or ake place the initiative result of the initiative E itis too early to tell Local communities gained capacity to sustainably C manage agriculture and natural resources Local communities became more empowered to C negotiate and participate in political decisions Coordination and cooperation among stakeholders e g local communities district government private sector NGOs improved Coordination and cooperation among sectors e g agriculture environment health improved Women gained power or capacity to improve their wellbeing Traditional and local knowledge on agriculture and natural resources has been preserved and used Other benefit please specify What has been the most successful aspect of the initiative What has been the least successful aspect of the initiative Would you be willing to participate in a more in depth interview regarding your experiences with this landscape initiative C Yes C No 147 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Do you know of any other ecoagriculture initiatives in Latin American that might be willing to share about their experiences Name of the initiative s Country
8. Klik A Loiskandl W 2006 Modeling soil erosion and sediment yield at a catchment scale the case of Masinga catchment Kenya Land Degradation amp Development 17 557 570 Nash J E Sutcliffe J V 1970 River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I A discussion of principles Journal of Hydrology 10 282 290 Nearing M A Govers G Norton L D 1999 Variability in Soil Erosion Data from Replicated Plots Soil Science Society of America Journal 63 1829 1835 Nearing M A Romkens M J M Norton L D Stott D E Rhoton F E Laflen J M Flanagan D C Alonso C V Binger R L Dabney S M Doering O C Huang C H Mcgregor C Simon A 2000 Measurements and Models of Soil Loss Rates of Soil Loss Science New Series 290 5495 1300 1301 Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H Cameron Dr Chan K M Daily G C Goldstein J Kareiva P M Lonsdorf E Naidoo R Ricketts T H Shaw M R 2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversity conservation commodity production and tradeoffs at landscape scales Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 1 4 11 Pang H Lin A Holford M Enerson B E Lu B Lawton M P Floyd E Zhao H 2006 Pathway analysis using random forests classification and regression Bioinformatics Oxford England 22 16 2028 36 Pedroni L 2003 Improved classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper data using
9. 2006 Measuring soil erosion by field plots Understanding the sources of variation Earth Science Reviews 78 267 285 Breiman T Cutler A 2012 Package randomForest p 29 http cran r project org web packages randomForest randomForest pdf Bryan R B 2000 Soil erodibility and processes of water erosion on hillslope Geomorphology 32 385 415 Burke L Sugg Z 2006 Hydrologic Modeling of Watersheds Discharging Adjacent to the Mesoamerican Reef Development World Resources Institute WRD p 40 http eprints eriub org 24 1 MAR_Hydrologic_Model_Results_ _English pdf Cutler D R Edwards T C Beard K H Cutler A Hess K T Gibson J Lawler J J 2007 Random forests for classification in ecology Ecology 88 11 2783 2792 De Baets S Poesen J Gyssels G Knapen A 2006 Effects of grass roots on the erodibility of topsoils during concentrated flow Geomorphology 76 54 67 Eslinger D L Carter H J Dempsey E VanderWilt M Wilson B Meredith A 2005 The Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool NSPECT Systems Research Charleston South Carolina NOAA Coastal Services Center p 42 http www csc noaa gov digitalcoast tools opennspect Estrada Carmona N Declerck F 2012 Payment for Ecosystem Services for Energy Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Reduction in Costa Rica In J C Ingram F Declerck and C Rumbaitis del Rio Eds Integrating
10. Maintenance y WD 11 18 0 19 8 2 0 18 0 35 9 3 5 18 0 62 9 Total 148 8 270 6 473 6 Agroforestry high density Agroforestry low density 277 trees 62 trees Establishment Qty Total ha Qty Total ha WD 13 1 18 0 235 7 3 2 18 0 57 7 Seeds kg 0 06 96 0 6 7 0 01 87 0 1 4 Maintenance y WD 13 1 18 0 235 7 3 2 18 0 57 7 Total 462 2 116 7 Mulch Cover crops lt 15 gt 15 Establishment Qty Total ha Qty Total ha WD 8 5 18 0 153 1 4 3 18 0 76 5 Seeds kg 51 6 5 0 258 1 Animal day 14 20 0 28 4 Maintenance y WD 7 1 18 0 127 6 7 1 18 0 127 6 Total 309 1 462 2 Minimum wage in Costa Rica for 2014 is 8944 51 according to the Ministry of labor and Social Security http www mtss go cr images stories Lista_salarios 2014 1semestre pdf We used the average value reported in Oanda to convert it from Costa Rica currency to US dollar 497 677 1 Highest tree density usually associated to pastures Density reported in the agroforestry guideline of the Costa Rican national office http onfcr org media uploads documents guia_saf_onf_para_web pdf Rainforest Alliance certified coffee farms number of trees in average http www rainforest alliance org about documents tensie 25amniversary presentation pdf 0One kilogram of mixed seeds of endangered trees species contain in average 19 950 viable seeds per kilogram 174 APPENDIX G Results from the literature review to estimate the soil retention e
11. The roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 156 27 36 doi 10 1016 j agee 2012 04 017 125 Garrick D McCann L amp Pannell D J 2013 Transaction costs and environmental policy Taking stock looking forward Ecological Economics 88 182 184 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2012 12 022 G mez Delgado F 2002 Evaluaci n de la erosi n potencial y producci n de sedimentos en tres cuencas de Costa Rica Assessment of the potential erosion and sediment production in three Costa Rican watersheds Costa Rican University G mez Delgado F Roupsard O le Maire G Taugourdeau S P rez A van Oijen M Moussa R 2011 Modelling the hydrological behaviour of a coffee agroforestry basin in Costa Rica Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15 1 369 392 doi 10 5194 hess 15 369 2011 Hall C A S Levitan L amp Schlichter T 2000 Land energy and agricultural production in Costa Rica In Quantifying Sustainable Development The future of tropical economics eds Hall C A S Academic Press San Diego CA 121 156 Harvey C A Medina A S nchez D M V lchez S Hernandez B Saenz J C Sinclair F L 2006 Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes Ecological Applications 16 5 1986 1999 Retrieved from http www jstor org stable 40
12. o procedimientos que fueron especialmente tiles para apoyar e incentivar desarrollo de la iniciativa 161 INTERPRETATIVA TRIANGULACI N Nota entrevistador Ac estamos preguntando espec ficamente sobre las pol ticas que apoyaron el proceso integrado o participativo del manejo del paisaje Por lo tanto eso puede incluir pol ticas de descentralizaci n pol ticas que reconocen a las entidades locales como administradores de los recursos procesos a nivel regional para la planeaci n de los usos de la tierra o desarrollo territorial etc NO estamos preguntado a los entrevistadores que identifiquen las pol ticas que tienen el prop sito de incrementar la compatibilidad entre la agricultura y el ambiente o apoyar paisajes multifuncionales como los pagos por servicios ambientales leyes para la protecci n ambiental etc Hubo alguna pol tica p blica ley o procedimiento que especialmente obstaculiz el desarrollo de la Iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TRIANGULACI N Nota entrevistador Similar a la pregunta anterior ac estamos preguntando espec ficamente sobre las pol ticas que inhibieron el proceso integrado o participativo del manejo del paisaje Por lo tanto esta puede incluir estructuras de gobierno que fallaron en devolver el poder a las autoridades locales o entidades administradoras de los recursos naturales De nuevo NO estamos preguntando al entrevistado identificar las pol ticas relacionadas a la agricultura y el a
13. reported sediment yield in each reservoir offered a non monetary assessment of the benefits We found that targeting strategies RIOS amp C S budgets 10 and 16 4 million and RIOS budget 34 5 million retained up stream during the whole dam s life span the equivalent to two years of the current sediment yield in Angostura s dam 1 5millions t y r 1 Table 4 and 7 The same targeting strategies 119 retained up stream what is the equivalent amount to 7 15 and 17 years respectively of the annual sediment yield 1 1 millions t y r 1 Table 4 in Cachi s dam 5 Discussion Our application of InVEST and RIOS tools to assess the provisioning of the soil retention ES is an initial attempt to better assess the role of agroecosystems as ES providers in Costa Rica Our results indicate that targeting efforts to implement ideal cropping systems combination of at least two or three soil conservation practices on erosive crops or crops on steep slopes will likely provide the highest cost effectiveness investment scenario or in other words the highest soil retention per dollar spent Under this particular targeting strategy investments in ideal cropping systems may be more cost effective than dredging sediment from the downstream reservoirs given our modeling assumptions 5 1 Role of agroecosystems as ES providers The Costa Rican PES scheme is becoming more supported by local ES consumers such as hydropower companies industry tourism
14. statistics software R core team 2012 Global sensitivity analyses We used the GSA approach designed by Harper et al 2011 This GSA approach uses Random Forest RF to rank factor and parameter importance and Classification and Regression Tree CART to analyze and visualize the complex relationships among model factors Random Forest is an improved version of CART since it is a forest a collection of trees where each tree is created by bootstrap sampling and where the factor and parameter at each node of the tree is randomly selected Cutler et al 2007 For each tree 30 of the data called the out of bag OOB data are randomly sampled and used to estimate model efficiency by cross validating results with the other 70 of the data Cutler et al 2007 Model efficiency is estimated as one minus the ratio between the mean squared error MSE and the variance of the response variable Pang et al 2006 Table 3 We used the R package randomForest 4 6 2 to estimate model efficiency Breiman amp Cutler 2011 The contribution of each factor to model predictability can be assessed by two metrics from RF The first metric the lost efficiency metric estimates factor importance by calculating the changes of the mean squared error when each factor is randomly permutated The second metric the node impurity metric measures changes in the residual sum of squared errors by splitting the factor at each node of the tree Breiman amp Cutle
15. 004 Brandt S A amp Swenning J 1999 Sedimentological and geomorphological effects of reservoir flushing The Cah reservoir Costa Rica Geografiska Annaler 81 391407 Bravo Ureta B E Sol s D Cocchi H amp Quiroga R E 2006 The impact of soil conservation and output diversification on farm income in Central American hillside farming Agricultural Economics 35 267 276 Brenes C 2009 An lisis multitemporal de cambio de uso de suelo y din mica del paisaje en el Corredor Biol gico Volc nica Central Talamanca Costa Rica CATIE CADETI 2004 Programa de Acci n Nacional de Lucha contra la Degradaci n de Tierras en Costa Rica 2 ed p 122 San Jose Costa Rica Comisi n Asesora sobre Degradaci n de Tierras CADETTI y Ministerio del Ambiente y Energ a MINAB Cocchi H amp Bravo ureta B E 2007 On site cost and benefits of soil conservation among hillside farmers in El Salvador p 45 Washington D C Retrieved from http ove ovelntranet DefaultNoCache aspx Action W UCPublications ImpactEvaluations Comerford N B Franzluebbers A J Stromberger M E Morris L Markewitz D amp Moore R 2013 Assessment and Evaluation of Soil Ecosystem Services Soil Horizons 54 3 1 14 doi 10 2136 sh12 10 0028 Comisi n para el Ordenamiento y Manejo de la Cuenca Alta del R o Reventaz n COMCURE 2009 Manual T cnico de Incentivos Retrieved from http comcure go cr nosotr
16. 11 doi 10 1016 j landurbplan 2014 05 001 FAO 1989 Evaluaci n de los estados de la erosi n h drica de los suelos en Costa Rica Assessment of soil erosion by water in Costa Rica Informe t cnico N 2 Programa de cooperaci n FAO Italia Roma FAO 2000 Manual on integrated soil management and conservation practices 1st ed p 228 Rome Italy Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationas Retrieved from ftp ftp fao org agl agll docs lw8e pdf FAO 2001 Lessons learned and farmer to farmer transfer of technologies p 86 FAO Retrieved from ftp ftp fao org agl agll docs sb76e pdf FAO 2013 Statistical Yearbook World food and agriculture p 307 Roma Italia Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal FONAFIFO 2014 Estad sticas del Pago por Servicios Ambientales Retrieved from http www fonafifo go cr psa estadisticas_psa html Fremier A K Declerck F Bosque P rez N Estrada Carmona N Hill R Joyal T Wulfhorst J D 2013 Understanding spatiotemporal lags in ecosystem services to improve incentives BioScience 63 6 472 482 doi 10 1525 bi0 2013 63 6 9 Gaffer R L Flanagan D C Denight M L amp Engel B A 2008 Geographical information system erosion assessment at a military training site Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63 1 1 10 doi 10 2489 63 1 1 Garbach K Lubell M amp DeClerck F A J 2012 Payment for Ecosystem Services
17. 12 60025 0 D ring T E Brandt M He J Finckh M R amp Saucke H 2005 Effects of straw mulch on soil nitrate dynamics weeds yield and soil erosion in organically grown potatoes Field Crops Research 94 2 3 238 249 doi 10 1016 j fcr 2005 01 006 FAO 2000 Manual on integrated soil management and conservation practices 1st ed p 228 Rome Italy Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationas Retrieved from ftp ftp fao org agl agll docs Iw8e pdf G mez J a Guzm n M G Gir ldez J V amp Fereres E 2009 The influence of cover crops and tillage on water and sediment yield and on nutrient and organic matter losses in an olive orchard on a sandy loam soil Soil and Tillage Research 106 1 137 144 do1 10 1016 st111 2009 04 008 Guto S N de Ridder N Giller K E Pypers P amp Vanlauwe B 2012 Minimum tillage and vegetative barrier effects on crop yields in relation to soil water content in the Central Kenya highlands Field Crops Research 132 129 138 doi 10 1016 j fcr 2011 10 014 Huang D Han J G Wu J Y Wang K Wu W L Teng W J amp Sardo V 2010 Grass hedges for the protection of sloping lands from runoff and soil loss An example from Northern China Soil and Tillage Research 110 2 251 236 doi 10 1016 still 2010 08 013 178 INIA 2002 Tecnolog as apropiadas para el manejo sustentable de los suelos de la regi n del Maule E Varas
18. 2008 Local stakeholders highlighted that efforts to promote the desired change should be targeted to high priority areas Vignola et al 2012 To define which targeting strategy will be the most cost effective we used a coupled economic and soil loss model to evaluate multiple strategies for reducing soil loss and compared these estimates to the costs of dredging three reservoirs in the upper and middle part of the Reventazon River Costa Rica We estimated the effect of implementing soil conservation practices as a strategy to provide the ES soil retention under three targeting strategies and three budget levels We were particularly 100 interested on two key questions First which targeting strategies investment distribution and budget is the most effective to provide the ES soil retention Second at which point investments to provide the ES soil retention are cheaper than the cost dredging To answer both questions we conducted a literature review to select the most suitable practices according to the agroecological and productive conditions of the study area We also conducted a meta analysis to estimate the efficacy of each practice retaining soil The Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs InVEST help us to estimate soil retention under current and the different targeting strategies at the watershed scale And we used the Resources Investment Optimization System RIOS tool to test three targeting strategies Tho
19. ES such as hydrological services particularly water quality scenic beauty carbon sequestration and biodiversity Pagiola 2008 The PES scheme provides funds for forest protection forest management reforestation and recently agroforestry The recognition of agroforestry only trees within agricultural land in the Costa Rican PES scheme was an important step towards recognizing the role agroecosystems as ES providers The total land area covered with PES for agroforestry has increased from 2 in 2003 to 12 in 2011 FONAFIFO 2014 Despite this increase we still lack a quantified understanding of which practices guarantee ES provisioning at the site level and how site level implementations across a watershed improve larger scale services in agroecosystems such as soil retention Design efficacy and site prioritization of agroforestry practices becomes key component in designing PES programs that get what they pay for To curb soil loss from agroecosystems many conservation practices not only spread trees as current PES scheme have proven to increase farm productivity while improving soil retention and water 99 quality Dogliotti et al 2013 Lenka et al 2012 WOCAT 2012 Cocchi Bravo Ureta 2007 Alegre amp Rat 1996 In Honduras ground cover technologies such as crop mulch residue management green manure and conservation tillage led to an increase of farm income up to 20 Cocchi amp Bravo Ureta 2007 While in Chil
20. Ecology and Poverty Reduction The Application of Ecology in Development Solutions Springer New York pp 191 210 Falk M G Denham R J Mengersen K L 2009 Estimating Uncertainty in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation via Bayesian Melding Journal of Agricultural Biological and Environmental Statistics 15 1 20 37 92 FAO 1989 Evaluaci n de los estados de la erosi n h drica de los suelos en Costa Rica Assessment of soil erosion by water in Costa Rica Informe t cnico N 2 Programa de cooperaci n FAO Italia Roma Ferreira V A Weesies G A Yoder D C Foster G R Renard K G 1995 The site and condition specific nature of sensitivity analysis RUSLE Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50 5 493 Flanagan D C Nearing M A 1995 USDA Water Erosion Prediction project Hillslope profile and watershed model documentation NSERL Report no 10 USDA ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory West Lafayette IN 47097 1196 http www ars usda gov Research docs htm docid 18073 Fremier A K DeClerck F A J Bosque P rez N A Estrada Carmona N Hill R Joyal T Keesecker L Klos P Z Mart nez Salinas A Niemeyer R Sanfiorenzo A Welsh K and Wulfhorst J D 2013 Understanding spatiotemporal lags in ecosystem services to improve incentives BioScience 63 6 472 482 Gaffer R L Flanagan D C Denight M L Engel B A 2008 Geographical information system er
21. Greener Land Options for sustainable land management in drylands G Schwilch R Hessel amp S Verzandvoort Eds Bern Switzerland and Wageningen The Netherlands SRIC World Soil Information and CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation Retrieved from https www wocat net fileadmin user_upload documents Books DESIRE_BOOK_low_resolution pdf Wiinscher T Engel S amp Wunder S 2008 Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services A tool for boosting conservation benefits Ecological Economics 65 4 822 833 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2007 11 014 128 APPENDIX A Internet Search Terms in English Spanish and Portuguese Terms English 1 Agrobiodiversity 2 Agroecology 3 Agroforestry 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plus names of each of the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean 23 Countries Biological corridor Buffer zone Community based forest management Community based natural resource management Conservation agriculture Food security and conservation Initiative Integrated landscape management Integrated management Integrated watershed management Landscape initiative Landscape management Landscapes and livelihoods Livelihoods Multi stakeholder Natural resource management Participatory Program Project Socio ecological Territorial development Territorial ma
22. RUSLE has been applied at different scales both in the US where the data were originally collected Renard amp Ferreira 1993 Gardiner amp Meyer 2001 Gaffer et al 2008 and elsewhere including regions with differing environmental conditions Biesemans et al 2000 Lu et al 2004 Bewket amp Teferi 2009 Falk et al 2009 Likewise the purposes of applying RUSLE have been diverse For example to assess past present and projected soil loss at a global scale Yang et al 2003 soil loss risk Lu et al 2004 Schuler amp Sattler 2010 policy effect on soil loss Schuler amp Sattler 2010 soil management Wang et al 2007 conservation priority or policy design Burke amp Sugg 2006 and more recently ecosystem service provisioning Nelson et al 2009 Reviews of USLE and RUSLE have demonstrated its capacity to accurately predict on site soil loss at the plot and the watershed scale At the plot scale both equations predicted measured soil loss accurately coefficient of correlation R gt 0 75 Nash Sutcliffe model efficiencies gt 0 72 but both models tend to over predict and have lower accuracy for lower measures of soil loss lt 10 ton ha y Nearing et al 1999 Tiwari et al 2000 At watershed scales assessments of transported eroded sediment and measured sediment loads at the basin outlets demonstrated that RUSLE can be used to estimate soil loss in South East Asia R gt 0 72 Ranzi et al 2012
23. amp J Riquelme Eds Serie Acta p 146 Villa Alegre Chile Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias INIA Kinama J M Stigter C J Ong C K Ng ang a J K amp Gichuki F N 2007 Contour Hedgerows and Grass Strips in Erosion and Runoff Control on Sloping Land in Semi Arid Kenya Arid Land Research and Management 21 1 1 19 doi 10 1080 15324980601074545 Lenka N K Dass A Sudhishri S amp Patnaik U S 2012 Soil carbon sequestration and erosion control potential of hedgerows and grass filter strips in sloping agricultural lands of eastern India Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 158 31 40 doi 10 1016 j agee 2012 05 017 Li X H Zhang Z Y Yang J Zhang G H amp Wang B 2011 Effects of Bahia Grass Cover and Mulch on Runoff and Sediment Yield of Sloping Red Soil in Southern China Pedosphere 21 2 238 243 doi 10 1016 S1002 0160 11 60123 9 Lin C Tu S Huang J amp Chen Y 2009 The effect of plant hedgerows on the spatial distribution of soil erosion and soil fertility on sloping farmland in the purple soil area of China Soil and Tillage Research 105 2 307 312 doi 10 1016 still 2009 01 001 Malik R K Green T H Brown G F amp Mays D 2000 Use of cover crops in short rotation hardwood plantations to control erosion Biomass and Bioenergy 18 6 479 487 doi 10 1016 S0961 9534 00 00016 7 Paningbatan E P Ciesiolka C a Coughlan K J
24. cada iniciativa La mayor a si no la totalidad de los entrevistados as deben tener una perspectiva de todo el paisaje No queremos respuestas que sean informadas solamente por el conocimiento del entrevistado a respecto a su finca o pueblo Una posible excepci n es cuando algunos actores ubicados en comunidades est n familiarizados principalmente con un rea local pero no con todo el paisaje Esto est OK en la medida que sus perspectivas parezcan tem ticamente anchas 1 e consciente de las cuestiones de agricultura medios de vida y conservaci n adem s de las instituciones pol ticas y estrategias relacionadas a ellas 151 Presentaci n nuevo contacto en el TIER 2 Introducci n Actualmente Amigos de la Ecoagricultura en asocio con el CATIE estamos llevando a cabo una sistematizaci n o b squeda de experiencias de ecoagricultura en Am rica Latina La finalidad de este estudio es conocer y aprender sobre el contexto o bajo qu condiciones de dan este tipo de manejo de integral de paisajes Nosotros definimos una iniciativa de ecoagricultura como aquella iniciativa que busca al mismo tiempo mejorar la producci n agropecuaria la conservaci n de los recursos naturales la calidad y medio de vida de las comunidades y la gobernanza o empoderamiento de las comunidades sobre sus RN a una escala de paisaje Descripci n proyecto La primera etapa del proyecto consisti en contactar a las personas l deres o personas contacto de u
25. forestry or natural resource management Watershed management program or activities e g restoration of riparian areas Other investment in forestry conservation or natural resource management please specify 140 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Which of the following investments in livelihoods and human wellbeing were actively promoted by the landscape initiative Was not actively Was not actively promoted but it occurred promoted and did not Was actively promoted N A or Don t know simultaneously in the occurred in the landscape landscape Programs to reduce malnutrition and hunger C C Programs for improving human health e g O improved access to health services Programs for improving gender equity Programs to help secure land tenure and resource access rights Preservation of traditional knowledge values or cultural resources Programs to support enterprise development savings and investment or financial education Activities to promote income generation and diversification outside of agriculture or forestry e g handicrafts ecotourism Efforts to reduce migration out of the landscape Other investment in livelihoods and human wellbeing please specify 141 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Which of the following investments in multi sectoral coordination and planning were actively promoted by the landscape initiative Was not actively Was not a
26. from outside the landscape In appreciation of your contribution you will receive an electronic copy of the final review study highlighting key lessons learned resources and opportunities for supporting and expanding ecoagriculture initiatives We will send this document to the e mail address that you provide us in your survey response Also upon completion of the full questionnaire you will be automatically entered to win one of three Apple iPad computers which will be awarded to three randomly selected respondents If you have any questions about the survey please contact Abby Hart at ahart ecoagriculture org Thank you very much for your valuable contribution to this research and to supporting the sharing of knowledge about sustainable landscape management Sincerely The Ecoagriculture Global Review Team 132 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 2 Part 1 Respondent Information Please provide the following basic information about yourself and your role in the landscape or landscape initiative Title C First name Middle name n Last name Email address What is the name of your organization Telephone number please include any country or regional codes What is your position or title within the organization What is your role in the landscape or landscape initiative please describe m 133 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 3 Part 2 Basic
27. in the reservoirs is removed during the dredging For instance the life span of the dams was estimated as the sum of the accumulated sediment 30 of the sediment yield through time until the reservoir capacity was full The total retained soil is the cumulative throughout the life span of the dams The avoided cost is estimated then as the dredging cost multiplied by the extended life span of the dam and the total retained soil up stream due to the implementation of the ideal cropping systems We excluded the first five years after of implementation to account for the time it will take to the practices to fully establish The avoided cost is estimated only for Cachi and Angostura s dams Birris was incorporated into the Angostura drainage area in this analysis since we lacked information about the volume of the reservoir Table 4 We assumed constant conditions i e sediment yield in the reservoirs land cover through time to estimate the avoided cost and the extension of the life span of the dams since we lack of 113 historical data for all the dams Measurements in Angostura indicates a high yearly variability with reported extremely high sediment yields in the reservoirs up to five times greater than the average yields Jim nez Ram rez et al 2004 4 Results Modeling results indicated a wide range of ES provisioning rates across targeting and budget allocation InVEST particularly the USLE accuracy assessment indicated that mod
28. m s influyentes Los grupos pueden ser Los entrevistados puede que mencionen varios grupos de actores del paisaje como grupos que no son actores del paisaje pero que est n involucrados en el financiamiento desarrollo facilitaci n de la iniciativa Grupos p e organizaciones Papel Externo o local locales comunitarias gobiernos locales gobiernos regionales nacionales sociedad civil sector privado donantes organizaciones internacionales academia u otros 158 Grupos p e organizaciones Papel Externo o local locales comunitarias gobiernos locales gobiernos regionales nacionales sociedad civil sector privado donantes organizaciones internacionales academia u otros Se involucraron los grupos marginados del paisaje en el dise o de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALI EN LA PREGUNTA 4 1 sino obviar Nota entrevistador Grupos marginalizados puede incluir minor as tnicas campesinos sin tierra y mujeres De todas maneras sin definir el t rmino le permitimos al entrevistado interpretar la pregunta basado en los grupos que l piensa son marginalizados dentro del paisaje Se involucraron a los peque os productores o las asociaciones de productores nota entrevistador incluir si aplica a los gestores forestales de peque a escala del paisaje en el dise o de la iniciativa INTER PRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALIO EN LA PREGUNTA 4 1
29. n divididas con base en los HECHOS o las INTERPRETACIONES y con base en qui n cu ntos entrevistados deben responder las preguntas Estas clasificaciones tienen los siguientes significados HECHOS b sicamente preguntan sobre una informaci n objetiva basada en hechos que debe ser verificable independientemente Cualquier entrevistado a bien informado a debe proveer b sicamente la misma respuesta para cuestiones basadas en HECHOS As no es necesario preguntar cuestiones de HECHOS para todos as los as entrevistados as INTERPRETATIVA la pregunta incluye un elemento de subjetividad interpretaci n y percepci n personal Inclusive donde existe una realidad objetiva e g que tan efectiva ha sido una iniciativa con relaci n a indicadores variados diferentes personas pueden tener percepciones distintas de esa realidad Cuando estamos interesados en entender esas diferentes percepciones es cuando hacemos las preguntas INTERPRETATIVAS SOLO 1 la entrevistadora debe preguntar la pregunta a solamente un a entrevistado a l la cual se considera ser l la mayor conocedor a del asunto en cuesti n Las preguntas SOLO1 son basadas en HECHOS y una vez que obtenemos la informaci n necesaria no hay necesidad de hacer la pregunta a otras personas TRIANGULAR la entrevistadora debe hacer la pregunta a cuantos as entrevistados as crea necesario para establecer una respuesta confiable Preguntas TRIANGULARES generalmente son preg
30. of the landscape population benefited by the initiative Number of beneficiaries 7 Percent of total landscape population do not know How many At the beginning of the initiative was a baseline study pre project assessment project document or similar material prepared C Yes C No C don t know Does the initiative have cartographic information aerial photographs or imagery of the landscape C Yes C No C 1 don t know If so has this cartographic information been used for analysis and planning at landscape scale C Yes i C Iam not sure 138 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 5 Part 4 Initiative activities and investments Please tell us about the major activities investments or other changes that were included as part of the initiative Which of the following investments in agriculture were actively promoted by the landscape initiative Was not actively Was not actively promoted but it occurred promoted and did not Was actively promoted g N A or Don t know simultaneously in the occurred in the landscape landscape Promotion or introduction of new crops or C crop varieties Crop intensification with increased C mechanization or application of fertilizers pesticides or herbicides Crop intensification with agroecological methods e g organic production conservation agriculture no till integrated pest management improved fallows etc Livestock intensification w
31. reduce tillage erosion Soil and Tillage Research 51 341 356 179 Wang Y Zhang B Lin L amp Zepp H 2011 Agroforestry system reduces subsurface lateral flow and nitrate loss in Jiangxi Province China Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 140 3 4 441 453 doi 10 1016 j agee 2011 01 007 Xiao B Wang Q Wang H Dai Q amp Wu J 2011 The effects of narrow grass hedges on soil and water loss on sloping lands with alfalfa Medicago sativa L in Northern China Geoderma 167 168 91 102 doi 10 1016 j geoderma 2011 09 010 Xiao B Wang Q Wang H Wu J amp Yu D 2012 The effects of grass hedges and micro basins on reducing soil and water loss in temperate regions A case study of Northern China Soil and Tillage Research 122 22 35 doi 10 1016 j still 2012 02 006 Xiao B Wang Q Wu J Huang C amp Yu D 2010 Protective function of narrow grass hedges on soil and water loss on sloping croplands in Northern China Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 139 4 653 664 doi 10 1016 j agee 2010 10 011
32. si no tiene conocimiento o informaci n para responder alguna pregunta no hay ning n problema y solo pasamos a la siguiente pregunta 152 Antes de comenzar me gustar a agradecerle de antemano por su tiempo y colaboraci n y tambi n me gustar a saber si tiene alguna duda o comentario 153 SECCION 1 INFORMACI N SOBRE LA PERSONA ENTREVISTADA Por favor provea la siguiente informaci n b sica sobre usted mismo y su papel en el paisaje y o en la iniciativa de paisaje Primer nombre Segundo nombre Apellidos Direcci n correo electr nico Nombre de su organizaci n Tel fono Por favor incluir el c digo del pa s regi n Su posici n o cargo dentro de la organizaci n Cu l es su papel en el paisaje o en la iniciativa de paisaje por favor describa 154 SECCION 2 INFORMACI N SOBRE EL PAISAJE POR FAVOR USE EL CUADRO PARA INGRESAR LA INFORMACI N 2 1 2 11 ESTE SEGURA QUE INDICA LA IMPORTANCIA 1 mas importante 4 menos En orden de importancia cu les son las cuatro sectores econ micos p e agropecuario forestal pesquero turismo extracci n industria y otros m s importantes en el paisaje HECHOS TRIANGULAR Si la agricultura es mencionada por favor clasifique si es Sector Peque a escala Mediana escala Gran escala Subsisten Comercial Comercial Comercial cia Mercad Mercados Mercad Mercados Merc
33. the datasets showed that the RUSLE predictions are most sensitive to the cover management factor C factor regardless of factor and parameter estimation Figure 10and Figure 12 In most datasets the relative importance of the C factor was twice as high as the second most important factor in each dataset Figure 12 This result was consistent despite significant differences among factor estimates across datasets Fisher LSD test p value lt 0 05 for all factors with the exception of slope length S factor in the US and theoretical datasets Figure 10 We also found that estimated soil loss with the CR dataset was significantly greater than with other datasets Fisher LSD test p value lt 0 05 yet the US and theoretical estimated soil losses were not significantly different from each other Figure 10 These consistent results across datasets indicate that the sensitivity of RUSLE model predictions is produced from the formulation equations of soil loss processes with less uncertainty coming from variability in the parameter estimates At the parameter level root mass density Bur and percent surface cover Sp were found to be the most important parameters from the C factor driving uncertainty in model predictions Table 2 Figure 12 84 Figure 12 Factor importance order for US CR and T theoretical datasets for structured and unstructured datasets at factor and parameter level see Table 2 for factor and parameter descriptions Rel
34. to identify the factors and parameter estimates that produce the most uncertainty in model predictions for different environmental conditions and scales of data resolution Empirically and physically based models are commonly used to predict watershed scale soil loss from a range of systems WEPP Flanagan and Nearing 1995 RUSLE Renard et al 1997 EUROSEM Morgan et al 1998 One of the most commonly applied models is the Universal Soil Loss Equation USLE and its revised version RUSLE Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 Renard et al 1997 Table 2 These empirical models are used to predict soil loss over large scales particularly in data poor locations Mueller et al 2005 Bewket amp Tefari 2009 Although physical based models more precisely represent the forces control soil loss empirical models remain widely used due to the lack of available data to parameterize more physical based models Gaffer et al 2008 Bewket amp Teferi 2009 The Universal Soil Loss Equation USLE was formulated from more than 10 000 plot years of basic runoff and soil loss data measurements on agricultural lands during 50 years in the United States 71 Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 In the 1990s the USLE equation was revised and improved to be applicable across a wider range of environmental conditions and crops Renard et al 1997 Both equations estimate long term average annual soil loss A per unit of area A R S L C K P Factor es
35. to model uncertainty regardless of factor parameterization For example the CR dataset had four factor estimate ranges outside the theoretical estimates K R L S factors yet still the C factor was the most important factor controlling soil loss For this reason we suggest that applications pay close attention to C factor parameterization regardless of the method used or the scale of the data source Other factor contributions to model uncertainty were dataset or context dependent Level landscapes require more accurate parameterization of the C and K factors whereas estimation of the C and the S factors require greater focus on steeper landscapes This particular result differs compared to other studies at the watershed scale Zhang et al 2013 highlighted the importance of the R factor in mountainous areas while Falk et al 2010 highlighted the S factor in flatter areas in contributing to model uncertainty These differences are potentially explained by the higher order interactions considered when a GSA approach is used 89 Our discussion here is not intended to support or refute the application of RUSLE outside the original factor and parameter estimates We understand that RUSLE s wide use and acceptance for management Eslinger et al 2012 is due to its relatively easy calibration and lack of data requirements compared to more mechanistic models Mueller et al 2005 Bewket amp Tefari 2009 We do suggest however that paramet
36. was the third most invested activity across targeting strategies and 117 budgets despite the highest implementation and maintenance cost Supplemental Material II This means that investing on bare soil is effective in comparison to other activities 4 3 Benefit of implementing soil conservation practices avoided cost Avoided cost is the cost the hydropower companies would have to spend dredging if the retained soil by the cropping systems entered the reservoir Here we assumed a constant sediment yield through the life span of each dam We also assumed a constant soil retention rate through time after five years of cropping system establishment Table 6 The estimated rates indicated that the targeting strategy RIOS amp C S is the only strategy that consistently retained enough soil up stream across budgets allocations to make the investment on cropping systems cheaper than to remove the sediment from the reservoirs Figure 19a The targeting strategy RIOS amp C S also extended the dams life span close to the maximum that could extended with RIOS and the highest budget 34 5 which covers 78 of the watershed area where ideal cropping systems can be implemented Figure 18 RIOS targeting strategy with a budget of 34 5millions extended the life span of the Angostura and Cachi dams 2 9 years and 17 6 years respectively RIOS amp C S targeting strategy and with half of the budget 16 5millions extended both dams life span 2 5 y
37. 03 per year Soil erodibility factor K tonf acre hour 100 acre foot tonf inch K factor K 2 1 10 4 12 OM M 1 14 3 25 s 2 2 5 p 3 100 OM Organic matter 4 00 Based on the nomograph HB 537 Clay lt 0 002 mm 40 00 10 00 Silt 0 002 0 1 mm 70 00 10 00 Based on the nomograph HB 537 Sand 0 1 2 mm 70 00 10 00 Based on the nomograph HB 537 p Permeability 5 2 Wischmeier and Smith 1978 affirms that the s Structure class 4 1 USLE equation estimate accurately soil loss for medium textured soil M M Silt Very fine sand 100 Clay Topographic factor dimensionless Slope length L 1 72 6 m Slope steepness 10 2 S IF 0 lt 5 10 8 sin8 0 03 16 8 sin8 0 5 6 slope angle in degrees A Slope length ft 400 10 Soil runoff will usually concentrate in less than Horizontal projection 400ft which is a practical slope length limit in many situations although longer slope lengths of up to 1 000 ft are occasionally found The equation for S can t be applied to slopes shorter than 15 ft m a variable slope length 0 44 0 17 m P 1 P exponent B ratio of rill erosion to inter 0 80 0 21 pB sin6 0 0896 3 sin8 0 8 0 56 rill erosion Conversion to SI system 2 242 metric ton ha eyr Conversion to SI system 17 02 megajoule millimetersha shour year Conversion to SI system 0 1317 metric tonshashoursha megajoule millimeter 167 APPENDIX
38. 061768 Haun S Kj r s H L vfall S amp Olsen N R B 2013 Three dimensional measurements and numerical modelling of suspended sediments in a hydropower reservoir Journal of Hydrology 479 180 188 doi 10 1016 jhydrol 2012 11 060 Holt Gim nez E 2002 Measuring farmers agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua a case study in participatory sustainable land management impact monitoring Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 93 1 3 87 105 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 02 00006 3 Imbach P 2006 Modelo de Elevaci n Digital Digital Elevation Model Grupo Cambio Global CATIE Jim nez Ram rez O Rodr guez Mesa C R amp Olsen N 2004 Sedimentaci n del embalse del p h angostura estudios y experiencias In 9th International Symposium on River Sedimentation Vol 2 Yichang China Lal R 2001 Soil degradation by erosion Land Degradation amp Development 12 6 519 539 do1 10 1002 1dr 472 Lenka N K Dass A Sudhishri S amp Patnaik U S 2012 Soil carbon sequestration and erosion control potential of hedgerows and grass filter strips in sloping agricultural lands of eastern India Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 158 31 40 doi 10 1016 j agee 2012 05 017 Maetens W Poesen J amp Vanmaercke M 2012 How effective are soil conservation techniques in reducing plot runoff and soil loss in Europe and the Mediterranean Earth Science Reviews 11
39. 07 amp DeClerck 2010 food security and human nutrition DeClerck et al 2011 and reduce vulnerability to extreme events Altieri 2002 Holt Gim nez 2002 3 3 Tools Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs InVEST and Resources Investment Optimization System RIOS Our metric for ecosystem service provision was soil retention or in other words the reduction of the exported soil off site by implementing the ideal cropping systems estimated with InVEST and RIOS InVEST and RIOS were developed by the Natural Capital Project and are complementary tools to assess ecosystem services InVEST determines the quantity or presence of an ecosystem service while RIOS identifies priority areas where changes on land use management to protect or restore an ecosystem service are potentially more cost effective Sharp et al 2013 Vogl et al 2013 Soil retention was estimated as the difference between the estimated exported soil with InVEST under current conditions and the three targeting strategies we explored using also three budget levels with RIOS over the current conditions exported soil Our analysis only included agricultural lands available to ideal cropping systems 53 of the watershed 73 441 ha area For instance we excluded protected areas forest urban or water bodies as well as areas classified as clouds or shadows RIOS identifies the areas that are more cost effective retaining soil by combining informatio
40. 10 CADETI 2004 Poor management practices impacts the national economy with an estimated reduction of 7 7 of the agriculture gross domestic product due to soil erosion and nutrient depletion MINAE 2002 Costa Rica consumes 4 8 times more fertilizers particularly nitrogen and potash than the average Latin America country FAO 2013 High amounts of fertilizers are required to compensate for the high erosion rates that probably are exceeding soil formation rates in most of the agricultural land Rubin amp Hyman 2000 In addition to the loss of crop productivity from soil loss the transport and accumulation of sediment has further economic implication for downstream reservoirs for hydropower Vignola et al 2008 Hydropower is the main source of energy in Costa Rica constantly challenged by the high sediment loads and pollution into upstream reservoirs Haun et al 2013 Brandt amp Swenning 1999 Besides high sediment loads reduce the life span of dams by rapid infilling Haun et al 2013 Pollution source and non source from agriculture production affects water quality riparian habitats and aquatic communities Echeverr a S enz et al 2012 Efforts to protect soil and the services it provides are weaker than the efforts to protect forest cover and the services it provides in Costa Rica Forest cover area in Costa Rica is slightly increasing FAO 2013 while soil is being depleted MINAE 2002 The increase of forest cover
41. 4 million dredging the dams Vignola et al 2012 Vignola et al 2010 These costs exclude the financial support the ICE contributed to the Reventazon management 112 plan PREVDA 2008 Finally the largest budget corresponds to the maximum amount 7million that would be needed to allocate to cover the maximum extent of agricultural land available for ideal cropping systems We assumed an adoption rate of 100 during the first five years of implementing and maintaining ideal cropping systems We assumed that at least a five year of continuous budget allocation would be needed for two reasons First this period is approximately what it will take to fully establish ideal cropping systems maximum soil retention and to potentially increase yield production Alegre amp Rat 1996 Second FONAFIFO distributes the payments for agroforestry in a five year period FONAFIFO 2014 We estimated the avoided cost as the cost of dredging the retained soil by each targeting strategy at the different budget allocations for the life span of the dams Then we compared both the cost of implementing ideal cropping systems budget allocation and the avoided cots The cost of dredging one ton of sediment in the area is 1 3t 1 according to Vignola et al 2010 who reported that ICE dredges every year 5millions tonnes of sediment from the reservoirs Angostura and Cachi with a cost of at least 2 million USD Approximately 70 of the sediment yield
42. 5 1 2 21 36 doi 10 1016 j earscirev 2012 08 003 Marchamalo M 2004 Ordenaci n del territorio para la producci n de servicios ambientales h dricos Aplicaci n a la cuenca del R o Birr s Costa Rica Territory management for hydrological environmental services An application to the Birris basin Costa Rica Universidad Politecnica de Madrid 126 Mart nez Salinas M A amp DeClerck F 2010 The role of Agroecosystems and forests in the conservation of birds within biological corridors Mesoamericana 14 3 Retrieved from http biblioteca catie ac cr 5151 repositoriomap bitstream 123456789 127 3 224 pdf Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Energ a MINAB 2002 GEO Costa Rica una perspectiva sobre el medio ambiente Observatorio de Desarrollo de la Universidad de Costa Rica San Jose 162 pp Pagiola S 2008 Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica Ecological Economics 65 4 712 724 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2007 07 033 Pagiola S Agostini P Gobbi J de Haan C Ibrahim M Murgueitio E Ruiz J P 2005 Paying for Biodiversity Conservation Services Mountain Research and Development 25 3 206 211 doi 10 1659 0276 4741 2005 025 0206 PFBCS 2 0 CO 2 PASOLAC 2000 Gu a t ctica de conservaci n de suelos y agua 1st ed p 205 San Salvador El Salvador Programa para la Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas de Am rica Central PASOLAC Pedroni L 2003 Improved classification of Land
43. 69 CHAPTER 3 GLOBAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF RUSLE ILLUSTRATES IMPORTANCE OF COVER MANAGEMENT ACROSS ENVIRONMENTS IN PREDICTING SOIL EROSION RATES Natalia Carmona Estrada Elizabeth Harper Fabrice DeClerck Alexander K Fremier In revision Geomorphology 1 Abstract Soil loss remains a critical issue for sustained agricultural production and reduction of downstream environmental impacts Modeling soil loss at watershed scales helps researchers and decision makers quantify the impact of policy and land use decisions The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation RUSLE is a common empirical model used for quantifying soil loss This model is widely applied across spatial extents and environmental conditions despite a lack of site specific data for many regions To better understand the consequences of the broad applications of RUSLE and to provide recommendations for prioritization of site specific data collection we performed a global sensitivity analysis GSA on three dissimilar factor estimate datasets covering varying scales plot and watershed and environmental conditions temperate and tropical The GSA technique allowed us to rank factor importance in estimating erosion rates and identify important factor interactions controlling soil loss across environmental conditions We also compared the robustness of both global and local sensitivity analyses in assessing factor contributions to model uncertainty Using a non parametric approach R
44. 7 2913 2928 Zhang R Liu X Heathman G C Yao X Hu X Zhang G 2013 Assessment of soil erosion sensitivity and analysis of sensitivity factors in the Tongbai Dabie mountainous area of China Catena 101 92 98 96 CHAPTER 4 PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE IMPLEMENTING SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES MAY BE CHEAPER THAN DREDGING Natalia Estrada Carmona Fabrice DeClerck Alexande K Fremier 1 Abstract Assessing changes in the provisioning of ecosystem services ES due to changes in agroecosystem management will better inform Costa Rican PES escheme This scheme is recognizing the role of agroecosystem as ES providers still an assessment of the provisioning of ES by implementing ideal cropping systems combination of at least two or three soil conservation practices rather than only spread trees is missing One of the most critical ES provided in agroecosystems is soil retention this ES have on site benefits for the farmer and off site benefits for downstream consumers such as hydropower companies We estimated changes on soil retention ES by implementing ideal cropping systems in three of the most important basins for hydropower and agricultural production in the Upper Middle Reventazon watershed in Costa Rica We tested three targeting strategies four budgets allocations and compared the avoided cost of dredging the retained soil with current dredging cost We quantified the provision of the soil retention ES using the Integra
45. C L Hati K M amp Bandyopadhyay K K 2005 How Mulching Influences the Soil Environment In D Hillel C Rosenzweig D Powlson K Scow M Singer amp D Sparks Eds Encyclopedia of soils in the environment 1st ed pp 521 532 New York NY Academic Press Adekalu K O Okunade D a amp Osunbitan J a 2006 Compaction and mulching effects on soil loss and runoff from two southwestern Nigeria agricultural soils Geoderma 137 1 2 226 230 doi 10 1016 j geoderma 2006 08 012 Angima S D Stott D E O Neill M K Ong C K amp Weesies G a 2002 Use of calliandra Napier grass contour hedges to control erosion in central Kenya Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 91 1 3 15 23 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 01 00268 7 Armecin R B Seco M H P Caintic P S amp Milleza E J M 2005 Effect of leguminous cover crops on the growth and yield of abaca Musa textilis Nee Industrial Crops and Products 21 3 317 323 doi 10 1016 j indcrop 2004 04 028 Blanchart E Villenave C Viallatoux a Barth s B Girardin C Azontonde a amp Feller C 2006 Long term effect of a legume cover crop Mucuna pruriens var utilis on the communities of soil macrofauna and nematofauna under maize cultivation in southern Benin European Journal of Soil Biology 42 136 S144 doi 10 1016 j ejsobi 2006 07 018 Bu C Cai Q Ng S Chau K amp Ding S 2009 Effects of hedgerows o
46. E Description of the selected soil conservation practices in terms on the mechanism to retain soil pros and cons and factors that limit the efficacy of the practices 168 Mulch Cover crops Hedgerow Agroforestry Mitigates the impact of the The root system offers resistance Reduce Runoff promotes Mitigates the impact of the E rain drops reduction soil to the overland flow Edwards amp deposition and water rain drops protect soil and El detachment and increase Burney 2005 infiltration return nutrients via litter or S water infiltration Also offers same protection as mulch material Donjadee amp Chinnarasri Mulch Deep roots favors water 2012 infiltration and reduce runoff Niemeyer et al 2013 S Reduce soil loss and Incorporate organic matter and Facilitates terraces formation More profitable than runoff Adekalu Okunade nutrients to the soil Edwards amp through time Lin et al conventional agriculture amp Osunbitan 2006 Burney 2005 2009 Neupane amp Thapa 2001 Mulch may form dams and Prevent nutrient loss Ruiz Provides fodder for Deep rooted trees reduce build up hollows which Colmenero Bienes amp Marques ruminants mulch or grains the environmental risk by delays the afterflow 2011 Angima et al 2002 Dinh et NO3 N pollution and D ring et al 2005 May form positive associations al 2014 increased water retention Finer mulch texture cover with crops providing key nutrients Increase crop yiel
47. FO 2014 Spread trees can particularly provide ES such as scenic beauty carbon 103 sequestration and biodiversity Harvey et al 2006 Perfecto et al 2008 However to particularly provide hydrological services other soil conservation practices should be considered In this modeling effort we incorporated other vegetative soil conservation practices that minimize soil loss and maintain agricultural production with lower implementation cost than engineered structures Bravo Ureta et al 2006 Maetens et al 2012 For each selected soil conservation practice we completed a literature review to list the pros and cons Supplemental Material I and to estimate the cost of implementation and the soil retention efficiency Figure 16 The Program for Sustainable Agriculture in Steep lands in Central America PASOLAC systematized revised and validated promising soil conservation practices using Honduras Nicaragua and El Salvador farmers technicians and organizations knowledge and experience PASOLAC 2000 We used this dataset and selected the most suitable soil conservation practices for the agroecological and production conditions of the Reventazon Four main soil conservation practices were selected mulch herbaceous hedgerows agroforestry systems low and high density and cover crops or intercropping Figure 16 In the Reventazon watershed farmers are already familiar with these selected practices Vignola et al 2010 which are
48. RUSLE and can be a fixed number or a range of values that are independent of one another APPENDIX D We created a script in Matlab to create 30 000 Monte Carlo simulations of randomly chosen parameter estimates Sobol 2001 Each parameter set was created by randomly drawing from a uniform distribution within the documented parameter ranges and each factor value was estimated using the 80 reported equations Renard et al 1997 Supplementary material I Random interactions between parameters were constrained when required to represent real interactions for example to estimate the K factor the percentage of clay silt and sand must sum to one hundred We used the 30 000 Monte Carlo simulations at factor six factors and at parameter level 18 independent parameters Table 2 and APPENDIX B in the GSA This randomization process breaks potential correlations between parameters and factors but does not impact the GSA results Harper et al 2011 3 4 Unstructured datasets The aim of the unstructured datasets was to validate the theoretical dataset and assess how correlations among factors affect GSA outcomes In both the US and CR datasets factors were cross correlated e g greater rainfall runoff erosivity at greater altitude and slope steepness in CR but factors in the theoretical dataset were uncorrelated since we know the maximum and the minimum values but not how the factors cross correlate To assess the effect of factor cor
49. Region Contact person Telephone Email Help us improve our survey Please leave your comments about the survey Did you have any difficulty understanding the questions Was the survey too long or difficult Did you have any technical difficulties completing the survey Thank you for your thoughtful comments a 148 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 8 Thank you Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire In appreciation of your contribution we will send you an electronic copy of the final review study to the e mail address that you provided You have also been entered to win one of three Apple iPad computers which will be awarded to three randomly selected respondents For more information about the Landscapes for People Food and Nature Initiative that is supporting this study please visit http landscapes ecoagriculture org 149 APPENDIX C Interview to assess Integrated Landscape Management for agriculture rural Livelihoods and ecosystem conservation in Latin America and The Caribbean 150 NOTAS SOBRE LA ENTREVISTA DEL TIER 2 LOGISTICA Verifique que la conexi n entre el skype y el callnote est activa Este segura de comenzar la grabaci n antes de llamar Leer las respuestas del TIER 1 para estar un poco contextualizada con la iniciativa Antes de llamar verifique cu les pregunta le har al entrevistado ESTRUCTURA ENCUESTA Las preguntas est
50. Se involucraron a los grandes productores o agronegocios nota entrevistador incluir si aplica a los gestores forestales de gran escala del paisaje en el dise o de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALIO EN LA PREGUNTA 4 1 Considera que se debi incluir alg n grupo de actores en el dise o de la iniciativa y que no fue incluido Cu les grupos INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Cu les fueron los principales grupos involucrados en la implementaci n de la iniciativa Cu l fue el papel de cada uno de estos grupos INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Esta es una pregunta abierta Estamos interesados en ver si los entrevistados identifican los grupos locales y externos y cu les sectores son considerados los m s influyentes Los entrevistados puede que mencionen varios grupos de actores del paisaje como grupos que no son actores del paisaje pero que est n involucrados en el financiamiento desarrollo facilitaci n de la iniciativa Grupos p e organizaciones Papel Externo o local locales comunitarias gobiernos locales gobiernos 159 regionales nacionales sociedad civil sector privado donantes organizaciones internacionales academia u otros Se involucraron los grupos marginados del paisaje en la implementaci n de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALIO EN LA PREGUNTA 4 2 Nota entrevistador s Preguntar sin definir el t rmino ma
51. TODOS Nota entrevistador Esta pregunta est hecha para combinar las dos preguntas anteriores en t rminos de las lecciones aprendidas y los aspectos de la iniciativa que son replicables en cualquier lugar Si el entrevistado no parece responder la pregunta de esta manera si ntase libre de redirigirlo Termine agradeciendo a la persona por su participaci n y d jele saber que recibir una copia del estudio cuando ste termine 164 APPENDIX D Description of each factor and its parameters including the maximum values minimum values and equations used to create the theoretical dataset HB handbook 165 Factors Parameters RUSLE S C R K L S tonf acre year Equations Max and min values sources Cover Management factor C dimensionless C factor PLU Prior Land Use Cf surface soil consolidation factor decay exponentially when soil is left undisturbed Bur Mass density of live and dead roots found in the upper inch of soil lbacre in Bus mass density of incorporate surface residue in the upper inch of soil Ibacre lin Cuf impact of soil consolidation on the relative effectiveness of incorporated residue Cb relative effectiveness of subsurface residue in consolidation Cur calibration coefficient indicating the impacts of the subsurface residues acre in Ib Cus calibration coefficient indicating the impacts of the subsurface residues acre in Ib CC Canopy cove
52. Thapa B B Cassel D K amp Garrity D P 1999 Ridge tillage and contour natural grass barrier strips reduce tillage erosion Soil and Tillage Research 51 341 356 Wang Y Zhang B Lin L amp Zepp H 2011 Agroforestry system reduces subsurface lateral flow and nitrate loss in Jiangxi Province China Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 140 3 4 441 453 doi 10 1016 j agee 2011 01 007 171 Xiao B Wang Q Wang H Dai Q amp Wu J 2011 The effects of narrow grass hedges on soil and water loss on sloping lands with alfalfa Medicago sativa L in Northern China Geoderma 167 168 91 102 doi 10 1016 j geoderma 2011 09 010 Xiao B Wang Q Wang H Wu J amp Yu D 2012 The effects of grass hedges and micro basins on reducing soil and water loss in temperate regions A case study of Northern China Soil and Tillage Research 122 22 35 doi 10 1016 j still 2012 02 006 172 APPENDIX F Establishment and maintenance cost for the selected soil conservation practices Some cost varies depending the slope steepness gentle lt 15 moderate 15 30 steep gt 15 Cost are established at pixel level 900m2 WD Working days 173 Hedgerow lt 15 60 lineal m 15 30 90lineal m gt 15 180lineal m Establishment Qty Total ha Qty Total ha Qty Total ha WD 44 18 0 79 1 8 0 18 0 143 8 140 18 0 251 6 Seeds kg 10 0 5 0 50 0 18 2 5 0 90 9 31 8 5 0 159 1
53. a estas en las tres o cuatro actividades Por lo tanto si las tres o cuatro actividades no incluyen las actividades o inversiones relacionadas a las categor as hacer la siguiente pregunta 1 2 3 4 157 La iniciativa incluy alguna actividad relacionada con X INTER PRETATIVA SI ES NECESARIO Nota entrevistador X puede ser agricultura cultivos ganado conservaci n medios de vidas rurales y fortalecimiento institucional si no fue mencionada en las tres o cuatro m s importantes Cu les fueron las principales fuentes de financiamiento para las actividades o componentes HECHOS TRIANGULAR Nota entrevistador Esta pregunta debe ser hecha varias veces una para cada una de las tres o cuatro actividades o inversiones que fueron mencionadas en la pregunta 3 3 Actividades mencionadas 3 3 y apoyo local en especie directo apoyo externo p e donante o 3 3 1 p e plantaci n rboles fondos del gobierno terrazas hechas por los finqueros o grupos comunitarios esfuerzos de los trabajadores de los gobiernos SECCION 4 PARTICIPACI N EN LA INICIATIVA Cu les fueron los principales grupos involucrados en el dise o de la iniciativa Cu l fue el papel de cada uno de estos grupos INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Esta es una pregunta abierta Estamos interesados en ver si los entrevistados identifican los grupos locales y externos y cu les sectores son considerados los
54. actively being promoted by the watershed management plan COMCURE 2009 In our analysis we also assessed the combined effect of coupling multiple of the soil conservation practices termed ideal cropping systems Coupled practices were based on previous research WOCAT 2012 Vignola et al 2010 Raudes amp Sagastume 2009 COMCURE 2009 FAO 2000 and 2001 Figure 16 104 Figure 16 Ideal cropping systems or activities implementation and maintenance cost per hectare I amp M estimated as the sum of each soil conservation practices implementation and maintenance cost Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia Soil retention efficacy SRE estimated as the sum of the minimum reported efficacy for each soil conservation practice Legend of the soil conservation practices at the bottom Hedgerow agroforestry cover crops and mulching Perennial amp M cost 825 6 Annual amp M cost 825 6 SRE 59 SRE 59 Semiperennial i amp M cost 414 4 Pasture amp M cost 775 9 SRE 35 SRE 35 an Hedgerow Cover crops Mulching 105 Each soil conservation practice has important pros and cons and factors that limit their efficacy trapping soil and the adoption by individual farmers Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia For example soil conservation practices might limit the ability of machinery to enter the field or a practice could increase crop management complexity or increase shade area th
55. ad Mercados os internacion os internacion os internacion locales ales locales ales locales ales nacional Exportaci nacional Exportaci nacional Exportaci es n es n es n Agropecua rio Forestal Pesca Turismo Extracci n Industria Otro Otro Es posible que varias de esas categor as agr colas sean prioritarias POR FAVOR USE EL CUADRO PARA INGRESAR LA INFORMACI N 2 2 2 2 1 ESTE SEGURA QUE INDICA LA IMPORTANCIA 1 m s importante 4 menos importante En orden de importancia cu les son los cultivos u otros productos agropecuarios forestales m s importantes en el paisaje HECHOS SOLO A 1 Nota entrevistador Esto puede incluir cultivos ganader a fibras cultivos para biocombustible otros productos maderables y no maderables etc Se debe especificar el cultivo o el producto por ejemplo ma z banano caf leche puercos teca o pisc colas M s importantes en t rminos de su contribuci n econ mica para el caso de cultivos orientados a mercados o contribuci n para suplir los mercados locales para el caso de los cultivos de subsistencia Cu l es el mercado principal o usos para cada uno de esos cinco cultivos o productos HECHOS SOLO A 1 p e cultivos cu les ganader a fibras Subsistencia Mercados Mercados cultivos para biocombustible otros productos locales internacionales maderables y no maderab
56. ainly because it captures interactions amongst factors and it is little affected by data variability The application of a GSA before final model parameterization will help constrain model uncertainty and focus resources and efforts on parameterizing the most important factors Our datasets from different environmental conditions indicate that the cover management factor is the most important factor in RUSLE and much of the soil loss occurs on a limited area of the watershed However the importance of other RUSLE factors varies across environmental contexts 91 8 References Benkobi L Trlica M J Smith J L 1994 Evaluation of a Refined Surface Cover Subfactor for Use in RUSLE Journal of Range Management 47 1 74 78 Bewket W Teferi E 2009 Assessment of soil erosion hazard and prioritization for treatment at the watershed level case study in the Chemoga Watershed Blue Nile Basin Ethiopia Land Degradation amp Development 20 609 622 Biesemans J Van Meirvenne M Gabriels D 2000 Extending the RUSLE with the Monte Carlo error propagation technique to predict long term average off site sediment accumulation Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55 1 35 42 Bilotta G S Grove M Mudd S M 2012 Assessing the significance of soil erosion Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37 342 345 Boix Fayos C Mart nez Mena M Arnau Rosal n E Calvo Cases A Castillo V Albaladejo J
57. ameters to assess model uncertainty and to estimate factors of importance Harper et al 2011 GSA varies all factors simultaneously to sum all factor uncertainty and evaluate the combined impact of each factor on the model prediction Wagner 1995 For the RUSLE despite the wide application and accuracy assessments a GSA has not been completed Results from a GSA described in section 3 1 will further help focus model parameterization when the model is applied to new environmental contexts The overall goal of this study was to understand factor contributions to uncertainty in RUSLE predictions over a range of factor and parameter estimate conditions To do this we selected two datasets with factor estimations covering different scale of source data and environmental conditions We also created a randomized synthetic dataset with the widest possible range of factor and parameter 74 estimates from the original values used to created RUSLE to test overall model sensitivity Since the goal of our analysis was not to predict soil loss nor compare soil loss predictions across datasets we did not select comparable datasets e g same location different source data or vice versa nor validate model predictions against observed data We reviewed model accuracy assessments and parameterization methods from the literature but do not perform an accuracy assessment with our dataset as model accuracy does not directly impact our goal of confirming whe
58. analysis in the uppermost portions of the Pacuare area 64 919 ha and the Reventazon area 175 915 ha watersheds located on the Caribbean side of CR s central mountain range The L and S factors were estimated from a digital elevation model with 10 meter resolution and with the ArcInfo Arc Macro Language program developed by Van Remortel et al 2004 The C values for local crops were collected from previous studies in the region G mez Delgado 2002 Marchamalo Sacristian 2004 whereas the land uses were defined by a 1996 LandSat image classification Pedroni 2003 The K values were obtained from FAO surveys at a national level and soil type classification at a scale of 1 200 000 FAO 1989 The R factor was estimated using the total storm energy E and a maximum 30 minute intensity 130 for each erosive storm 1 e storms with total accumulated rainfall greater than 13 mm and separated by at least 6 hours for 148 station years of measurements in 54 meteorological stations of the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity ICE G mez Delgado 2002 The P factor was assumed to be 1 0 because no detailed information about the support practices in the watersheds exists 78 The CR dataset comprised an area of 240 834 ha with 2 675 934 pixels so it was necessary to sub sample to generate factor estimates We randomly sampled the CR dataset with 30 000 pixels to overcome computer and program limitations The sampled dataset was not statisti
59. and in Kenya RE 0 80 Mutua et el 2006 73 Assessments of the individual importance of each factor in model uncertainty at the plot scale found that the cover management factor C factor was the most important in determining soil loss under different agriculture systems with the second most important factor being topography Risse et al 1993 Benkobi et al 1994 Ferreira et al 1995 At the watershed scale discrepancies exist regarding which factor produces the most model uncertainty with some studies highlighting the topographic factor Biesemans et al 2000 the slope steepness Falk et al 2009 and rainfall runoff erosivity Zhang et al 2013 In all cases local sensitivity analyses LSA were applied to understand model uncertainty LSA is a common statistical method to assess uncertainty or importance of individual factor impact on model predictions e g Renard and Ferreira 1993 Risse et al 1993 Ferreira et al 1995 However LSA is limited in that it does not assess factor interactions as it estimates the contribution of each factor to model predictions by varying each one of the factors at a time while holding other factors constant Saltelli et al 1999 LSA is a constructive analysis but it does not capture the potential interactions among factors Wagner 1995 Harper et al 2011 Global sensitivity analysis GSA is a more robust approach because it considers higher order interactions among factors or par
60. andom Forest and Classification and Regression Trees we found that the greatest soil loss comes from small proportions of the watersheds and is largely determined by the interaction of cover management with slope steepness in steep areas and with soil erodibility in level areas Results highlight the importance of cover management in soil loss predictions regardless of environmental condition and model parameterization Our findings reinforce that conservation practices should be targeted at specific locations of high erosion by adjusting cover management specifically root density 70 and surface cover In addition we argue that a global sensitivity approach is more robust than the local sensitivity analysis because higher order interactions among factors are quantitatively considered 2 Introduction Soil loss poses threats to biodiversity with significant on and off site impacts including impacts to water quality reservoir capacity and food production Pimentel et al 1995 Bilotta et al 2012 Decision makers and land managers require efficient scientifically defensible findings to prioritize implementation of soil conservation programs Empirical and physical based models are commonly used to quantify the mechanisms and patterns of soil loss across scales environmental context and land use Model parameterization is a key step in representing inherent environmental variability Box Fayos et al 2006 in particular it is necessary
61. apier grass contour hedges to control erosion in central Kenya Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 91 1 3 15 23 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 01 00268 7 Bhatt R amp Khera K L 2006 Effect of tillage and mode of straw mulch application on soil erosion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab India Soil and Tillage Research 88 1 2 107 115 doi 10 1016 still 2005 05 004 Blanchart E Villenave C Viallatoux a Barth s B Girardin C Azontonde a amp Feller C 2006 Long term effect of a legume cover crop Mucuna pruriens var utilis on the communities of soil macrofauna and nematofauna under maize cultivation in southern Benin European Journal of Soil Biology 42 S136 S144 doi 10 1016 j ejsobi 2006 07 018 Bu C Cai Q Ng S Chau K amp Ding S 2009 Effects of hedgerows on sediment erosion in Three Gorges Dam Area China International Journal of Sediment Research 23 2 119 129 Dinh V Hilger T Macdonald L Clemens G Shiraishi E Duc T Cadisch G 2014 Field Crops Research Mitigation potential of soil conservation in maize cropping on steep slopes Field Crops Research 156 91 102 doi http dx doi org 10 1016 j fcr 2013 11 002 Donjadee S amp Chinnarasri C 2012 Effects of rainfall intensity and slope gradient on the application of vetiver grass mulch in soil and water conservation International Journal of Sediment Research 27 2 168 177 doi 10 1016 S 1001 6279
62. as with strong limitations i e classes IV We constrained RIOS to run and prioritize using only the areas in conflict 33 693 ha 41 of the upper Reventazon watershed area We determined the targeting strategy RIOS amp C S by overlapping the land use map and the slope Estrada Carmona et al in review identified for the same watershed using a global sensitivity analysis that the interaction between cover management and slope steepness is what mainly drives soil erosion in the region Therefore we used Estrada Carmona et al in review results and identify those areas located on 1 steep areas steepness gt 23 with productive uses C factor gt 0 07 and 2 erosive crops C factor gt 0 4 on level landscapes steepness lt 23 We constrained RIOS to run and prioritize using only the areas where C and S factors interacts generating greater soil loss in the upper Reventazon watershed area 36 009 ha 44 3 5 Budget allocation We assessed the changes on the provision of the ecosystem service soil retention across different budget levels Low budget allocations correspond to the amount 0 3 million USD the Reventazon watershed plan assigned to invest on soil loss control and to implement agroforestry systems during 2008 2010 PREVDA 2008 The medium budget allocations correspond to the lowest and larger reported yearly dredging cost for both Angostura and Cachi reservoirs The national hydropower company ICE spent between 2
63. ations and the right side represent the end of the tree with the averaged soil loss the percentage of data that follow each specific factor combination or tree branch and the percentage of the total estimated soil loss Factor interactions importance is from left to right and the value next to each factor is the factor threshold value at which the data are split and combined with the next factor Avg estimated ofthe data of the total Most important Factor Second mostimportant 9 E e soil loss estimated soil interaction Factor interaction tha yr loss US gt gt 05 gt 102 16 50 gt gt 0 03 gt C gt gt 0 31 gt K lt 0 5 42 20 25 C gt lt 0 03 gt 19 15 9 gt gt 0 13 gt 15 28 13 gt lt 0 31 C gt TS gt 4 21 3 CR gt gt 1 76 gt 404 7 42 FR gt 13 gt L gt lt 1 16 gt 165 10 23 gt gt 0 07 S gt gt 0 4 gt 237 2 5 c lt 13 gt C gt lt 0 4 gt 50 16 12 gt lt 0 07 gt 18 66 17 T gt gt 05 349 7 68 gt gt 5 gt P n gt gt 0 08 gt S gt lt 95 75 6 6 gt lt 5 gt 46 10 7 C gt gt 6 51 13 10 gt gt 0 03 gt S gt lt 0 08 gt C lt 16 17 4 gt lt 0 03 gt 7 47 3 Magnitudes of soil loss across datasets follow a similar pattern despite the different factor and parameter estimates The CART analysis shows that
64. ative importance is the normalized factor node impurity metric obtained from the Random Forest statistical procedure and indicates the relative importance of each factor parameter in influencing model predictions Factor Parameter Structured Unstructured Unstructured US c c a No data S S 2R R K K o P P G L L LL t o CR 2 c C No data S S a L L ER R DENES i K K 2 Bur ee o P P Sp mm pas 5 e o O 102030 40 50 a BUS T A 49 D u m 5 No data 2 E Fc M mu L Cf Jm 2 R a E kmj e 0 102030 40 50 0 5 1015 20 Relative Relative Relative importance importance importance Factor estimation procedures ground collected data versus GIS proxies or factor range estimates in each dataset mountainous high rainfall versus plains less rainfall may cause differences in the less important factors Figure 10 and Figure 11 After the C factor no clear pattern of factor importance emerged other than soil erodibility K factor being ranked in the three last positions across all 85 analyses Figure 12 L and S factors are the second and third most sensitive factors respectively in the CR dataset Figure 12 despite the greater rainfall runoff erosivity R factor estimates Figure 10 Results between structured and unstructured data were consistent Figure 12 implying that correlations among factors have a weak or null e
65. ative use an adaptive management approach Note adaptive management an iterative process that involves monitoring the results and effectiveness of project activities reflecting on lessons learned from this experience and then adjusting strategies to respond to this new information or to changing conditions C Yes C No C 1am not sure Which of the following outcomes or changes took place within the ten years following the start of the initiative If the initiative started less than ten years ago please indicate changes since the start of the initiative For each change please indicate if the change took place as a result of the initiative or not as a result of the initiative Please check the most appropriate box for each line Effects on agriculture This change took This change took 7 I am not sure if this This change did not place as a resultof place but not as a take pl change took place or ake place the initiative result of the initiative 7 it is too early to tell Agricultural yield per unit of land area e g tons per C C C hectare increased Agriculture became more profitable Total area under agriculture and pasture increased Environmental impacts of agriculture were reduced Agricultural biodiversity agrobiodiversity was protected or enhanced Other benefit please specify 145 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Effects on conservation and ecosystem services This change took This change took
66. azofeifa G A Alpizar F Le n C amp Rodr guez C M 2008 Environment for Development Deforestation Impacts of Environmental Services Payments August Rubin B D amp Hyman G G 2000 Soil erosion s economic impacts on Costa Rica In Quantifying Sustainable Development The future of tropical economics eds Hall C A S Academic Press San Diego CA 121 156 127 Ruckelshaus M McKenzie E Tallis H Guerry A Daily G Kareiva P Bernhardt J 2013 Notes from the field Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real world decisions Ecological Economics doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2013 07 009 Sharp R Tallis H T Ricketts T Guerry A D Wood S A Chaplin Kramer R Hamel P 2013 InVEST tip User s Guide p 324 Palo Alto CA Retrieved from http ncp dev stanford edu dataportal nightly build release_tip release_tip InVEST_tip_Documentation pdf Sims L amp Sinclair a J 2008 Learning Through Participatory Resource Management Programs Case Studies From Costa Rica Adult Education Quarterly 58 2 151 168 doi 10 1177 0741713607309802 Vignola R Koellner T Scholz R W amp McDaniels T L 2010 Decision making by farmers regarding ecosystem services Factors affecting soil conservation efforts in Costa Rica Land Use Policy 27 4 1132 1142 doi 10 1016 j landusepol 2010 03 003 Vignola R McDaniels T L amp Scholz R W
67. cally different from the complete CR dataset we tested each factors using T test p value gt 0 05 In contrast to the US study site the CR site includes a topographically complex terrain with long steep slopes and elevation ranges from 70 to 3 470 meters above sea level This region is characterized by intense rainfall events and high mean annual precipitation 3 251 mm yr Waylen et al 1995 The C factor range and estimates in the CR dataset are smaller than the US dataset Figure 10 The C factor range in the CR dataset is low because 52 of the area is covered by forest low erosive land cover while the other 34 is covered by perennial crops such as coffee 18 pastures with trees 13 and bi annual sugarcane 3 low medium erosive land cover and annual or ornamental crops high erosive land cover To estimate errors in model prediction we performed a correlation analysis between measured and estimated sediment loads in eight stations in the Pacuare and Reventazon watersheds We used the tool N SPECT to estimate sediment loads at each stations Eslinger et al 2005 We used the average sediment loads measured by ICE during 1996 for the eight available stations in the studied watersheds Before the correlation analysis we excluded two basins with high gravel mining and frequent landslides erosion factors not accounted in RUSLE which leaded to underestimation of sediment loads Figure 11 The correlation coefficient between meas
68. ce Index retention area to a pixel and the export coefficients retention factors index magnitude of the contribution slope RIOS Downslope Downslope Minimize 1 Estimates potential retention Flow length slope retention factors Retention index downslope of a pixel RIOS Index On pixel Sediment Maximize except 0 25 Factor C in USLE Indicates Obtained from literature review or by source export for transition keep the impacts of previous measuring surface cover mass coefficient native veg cropping systems the density of superficial roots Minimize protection offered to the soil effectiveness of surface cover mass surface by vegetative canopy density of incorporate surface residue erosion reduction due to surface soil consolidation factor surface cover and surface surface roughness canopy height roughness surface roughness fraction of land surface covered by canopy impacts of the subsurface residues USER On pixel Erosivity Maximize 0 25 Factor R in USLE Indicates No events per year erosive rain source factor the effect of raindrop impact Intensity USER and rate of runoff associated with rain of moderately sized storms with occasional large storms On pixel Erodibility Maximize 0 25 Factor K in USLE Reflects Soil structure soil permeability source factor soil profile reaction to organic matter Silt Very fine hydrologic processes e g sand Clay USER raindrop impact surface flow roughness topographic or induced an
69. corporate mulching practices but cover crops We used the average estimated SRE for ideal cropping systems using mulching or cover crops i e perennial avg 59 Table 1 Reported SRE corresponds to seventeen experiments also with highly variable results Table 1 also shows the minimum value reported for the combinations reported in the reviewed research Table 1 Minimum reported and estimated soil retention efficacy SRE for coupled soil conservation practices Reported soil retention efficacy corresponds to the minimum reported value in seventeen experiments Estimated SRE is the sum of the minimum SRE reported for each soil conservation practice Coupled soil conservation practices Mulch Cover Hedgero Agroforestry SRE crops w Reported SRE X X 26 X X 56 X X X 97 X X 20 Estimated SRE per ideal cropping system Perennial X X X 69 X X X 50 Annual X X X 69 X X X 50 Semi perennial X X 35 Pasture X X 35 177 References Adekalu K O Okunade D a amp Osunbitan J a 2006 Compaction and mulching effects on soil loss and runoff from two southwestern Nigeria agricultural soils Geoderma 137 1 2 226 230 doi 10 1016 j geoderma 2006 08 012 Alegre J C amp Rat M R 1996 Soil and water conservation by contour hedging in the humid tropics of Peru Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 57 17 25 Angima S D Stott D E O Neill M K Ong C K amp Weesies G a 2002 Use of calliandra N
70. creases with the slope steepness so we estimated the total cost for each ideal cropping as the sum of each soil conservation practice cost on level lt 15 moderate 15 30 and steep gt 30 slopes and used the averaged total cost across slope steepness Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia The cost of reforestation with endangered tree species equals the payment that FONAFIFO is currently 2014 assigning to this activity 1 470 Our cost of implementing and maintaining ideal cropping systems do not include cost associated with running and maintaining a PES program This includes 106 transaction training and opportunity costs Targeting efforts to a small portion of the landscape will decrease transaction and monitoring costs yet without a quantification of these costs this analysis should not be considered a complete program analysis Garrick et al 2013 The soil retention efficacy by each conservation practice and coupled practices were estimated from a meta analysis We searched in ScienceDirect using keywords such as mulch amp soil loss cover crops amp soil loss hedgerow amp soil loss and agroforestry amp soil loss We found 30 articles and 105 observations that reported the soil retention efficacy of specific soil conservation practices the difference in measured soil loss with and without the soil conservation practice 0 no retention and 100 maximum retention Error No se enc
71. ctively promoted but it occurred promoted and did not simultaneously in the occurred in the landscape landscape Was actively promoted N A or Don t know Activities to strengthen existing coordination C O bodies e g inter jurisdictional councils public private partnerships Creation of new landscape coordinating bodies Dialogue and mediation of conflicts among local communities or resource users Dialogue and mediation of conflicts between local national and international communities or resource users Capacity building activities to help communities and stakeholders conduct integrated landscape scale management Technical assistance to support integrated landscape scale management Other investment in livelihoods and human wellbeing please specify Please list any other activities or investments that were actively promoted not actively promoted but it occurred simultaneously in the landscape 142 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 6 Part 5 Stakeholders roles in the initiative Please tell us about the roles of different local and external groups in the initiative Which of the following types of groups have participated in designing or implementing the initiative Please list only those groups that played a role in creating or carrying out the initiative or its component activities Do not include groups that were merely informed or consulted about the initiative as affec
72. ctivity in Dry Tropical Nicaragua Vadose Zone Journal 13 1 11 doi 10 2136 vzj2013 01 0025 Ong C K Black C R Wallace J S Khan A A H Lott J E Jackson N A Smith D M 2000 Productivity microclimate and water use in Grevillea robusta based agroforestry systems on hillslopes in semi arid Kenya Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 80 121 141 Oshunsanya S O 2013 Spacing effects of vetiver grass Vetiveria nigritana Stapf hedgerows on soil accumulation and yields of maize cassava intercropping system in Southwest Nigeria Catena 104 120 126 doi 10 1016 j catena 2012 10 019 Rodriguez O S P 1997 Hedgerows and mulch as soil conservation measures evaluated under field simulated rainfall Soil Technology 11 79 93 Ruiz Colmenero M Bienes R Eldridge D J amp Marques M J 2013 Vegetation cover reduces erosion and enhances soil organic carbon in a vineyard in the central Spain Catena 104 153 160 doi 10 1016 j catena 2012 11 007 Ruiz Colmenero M Bienes R amp Marques M J 2011 Soil and water conservation dilemmas associated with the use of green cover in steep vineyards Soil and Tillage Research 117 211 223 doi 10 1016 j still 2011 10 004 Smets T Poesen J amp Knapen a 2008 Spatial scale effects on the effectiveness of organic mulches in reducing soil erosion by water Earth Science Reviews 89 1 2 1 12 doi 10 1016 j earscirev 2008 04 001
73. d rain water infiltration On pixel Soil depth Maximize 0 25 USER source On pixel Sediment Minimize except 0 5 Reflects the efficacy of a From literature review Factor retention retention for transition keep pixel trapping sediment and affected by land cover type and native vegetation holding it management geomorphology Maximize climate USER On pixel Riparian Maximize 0 5 Indicated the continuity DEM and land use map RIOS retention continuity riparian areas Beneficiaries Maximize 1 Indicate priority areas based USER on the number of beneficiaries of the ES no people or by the amount of the service energy produced InVEST models soil retention using the Universal Soil Loss Equation USLE Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 The USLE is an empirical but robust model that combines the effect of the characteristics of the 109 soil K factor the intensity of the precipitation R factor conservation practices P factor slope steepness S factor slope length L factor and cover management C factor Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 The empirical equation has important limitations Sharp et al 2013 Estrada Carmona et al in review however it has shown to be applicable across a wide range of conditions to indicate areas of greater risk to soil erosion by water Gaffer et al 2008 We parameterized the USLE using available data for the area The K values were obtained from FAO surveys at a national level and soil ty
74. ds due to capacity of subsurface soil higher land with not to and improving main crop yield the control of soil loss and Wang Zhang Lin amp Zepp moderate effects on soil i e total N content Armecin et the improvement of soil bulk 2011 moisture nor crop yield al 2005 density gravimetric moisture D ring et al 2005 Protect soils from extreme climatic content and infiltration Improves soil moisture fluctuations improves soil parameters Oshunsanya moderate soil thermal aggregates Armecin et al 2005 2013 regime improves soil In the long run it facilitates water Increase soil organic matter aeration promotes infiltration increases soil organic total nitrogen and total biological activity carbon and aggregate stability phosphorus contents Bu et improves soil structure Ruiz Colmenero et al 2013 al 2009 add organic matter and Result in higher macrofauna nutrients reduction N loss density and biomass higher Acharya Hati amp density of facultative Bandyopadhyay 2005 phytophagous bacterial feeding and predatory nematodes and lower density of obligatory Blanchart et al 2006 Helps to solve weed management Erenstein 2003 Low levels of mulch may Competition with the main crop After long periods the Lower trunk biomass and O have no effect on weeds for water and nutrients may portions below of the plant slower tree growth due to weed cover and above reduction main crop yields Ruiz hedgerows can also suff
75. e multi year planning and farm redesign halved soil erosion rates Dogliotti et al 2013 Past experiences studying a PES scheme on degraded pastures in Costa Rica Nicaragua and Colombia indicated that implementing both high density of trees and shrubs improved rangeland productivity biodiversity carbon sequestration and water quality Pagiola et al 2005 Garbach et al 2012 However potential negative effects such as competition for nutrients and light increase of diseases and seedlings suppression should also considered in full cost benefit analyses Alegre amp Rat 1996 Vegetative conservation practices offer diverse ES and are as effective as physical or structural practices particularly retaining soil but are more cost effective and more flexible Bravo Ureta et al 2006 Maetens et al 2012 Farmer s voluntary implementation of conservation practices is limited by short term needs lack of information and lack of resources Vignola et al 2010 In addition masking factors such as external inputs soil deposition deep soils and everyday contact also limits voluntary implementation Lal 2001 Vignola et al 2012 However a recent research in one of the most erosive and hydrological important watershed in Costa Rica indicated that farmers ES providers and hydropower companies ES consumers agreed on the need to change existent conditions in terms of land use and management towards a more sustainable Vignola et al
76. ears and 15 3 years respectively Figure 19b 118 Figure 19 Panel a shows the avoided cost by the hydropower companies estimated as the cost of removing the sediment retained up stream by the cropping systems black dots at the different budget levels and targeting strategies The black line represents the implementation cost of the cropping systems below this line gray area the implementation and maintenance cost of the ideal cropping systems is more expensive than the dredging cost of the retained soil by the ideal cropping systems Panel b shows the extension of the dams life span across targeting strategies and budgets a RIOS RIOS amp Legislation RIOS amp C S w o Avoided dredging cost millions N e 10 Cheaper to dredge b o 15 oc 2 D10 5 o c o o 0 E 5 3 Le m Angostura aad 0 m a 2 n 2 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 o0 10 20 30 Budget millions Budget millions Budget millions Other targeting strategies avoided costs was similar or lower than the implementation cost of the ideal cropping systems potentially due to a low soil retention rate Table 7 Still almost all targeting strategies extended the life span of the dams between 0 8y and 1 5y for Angostura s dam and between 4 5y and 9 3y for Cachi s dam with budgets greater than 1 5millions Figure 19b and Table 7 Comparing the total retained soil accumulated up stream by the ideal cropping systems with the
77. ed The US dataset comprises 1 704 plot years of data from natural runoff in 198 plots at 21 sites with annual measurements of soil loss and estimates of each 75 RUSLE factor C R LS P K also used and analyzed by Rapp 1994 and Tiwari et al 2000 Because this dataset provides estimates for the L and S factors combined LS we used equations from McCool et al 1997 to estimate the L and S factors separately The US dataset was primarily collected and measured prior to 1960 and therefore it does not represent modern agricultural practices or instrumentation to measure each factor Risse et al 1993 Tiwari et al 2000 estimated a Nash and Sutcliffe model efficiency of R 0 72 i e accuracy in predicting measured soil loss The range of the estimates for the and S factors in the US dataset was relatively narrow because data were obtained from agricultural erosion plots where 80 of the data had a slope length L factor lower than 25 m and 70 of the plots had a slope steepness S factor lower than 10 Figure 10 The cover management factor C factor included values for 21 crops mostly annual crops with large average C values erosive crops This dataset covers a wide range for the rainfall runoff erosivity factor R factor and soil erodibility K factor Figure 10 76 Figure 10 Factor distribution and estimates for the US CR and T theoretical datasets Box plot Mean values are represented by the black squa
78. eficio Personas sin tierra p e como los trabajadores de las fincas 39 66 arrendatarios parceros tala y quema Comerciantes e industriales agropecuarios Responsables administradores del bosque Comunidades nativas dependientes del bosque 163 Grupos Benefici No tuvo Perjudi 6 ning n efecto c Mujeres Comunidades viviendo en los pueblos y o ciudades no involucradas con la agricultura forester a M s ricos M s pobres Otros SECCION 8 LECCIONES APRENDIDAS Y REFLEX N GENERAL Finalmente nos gustar a solicitarle reflexionar cr ticamente sobre la iniciativa y compartir algunas de las lecciones que usted aprendi y pensamientos sobre c mo las iniciativas de paisaje como la actual pueden ser m s efectivas en el futuro Cu l fue el aspecto m s exitoso de la iniciativa INTER PRETATIVA TODOS menos al que llen la encuesta del TIER 1 Cu l fue el aspecto menos exitoso de la iniciativa INTER PRETATIVA TODOS menos al que llen la encuesta del TIER 1 Si tuviera m s plata para dise ar e implementar esta iniciativa qu har a diferente INTER PRETATIVA TODOS menos al que llen la encuesta del TIER 1 Realizar a un monitoreo y control m s eficientes De acuerdo a su experiencia qu consejo le dar a a sus colegas que est n comenzando una iniciativa de paisaje INTERPRETATIVA
79. el predictions are consistent with reported values for the study area Our comparisons across targeting strategies and budget allocations indicated that the most cost effective highest soil retention per dollar strategy is to target lands with erosive crops and crops on steep lands RIOS amp C S using medium budgets 10 16 4million Low budget allocations 1 5million yielded similar results across targeting strategies And the benefits of investing on ideal cropping systems exceeded the dredging cost using RIOS amp C S targeting strategy across budgets given our modeling assumptions 4 1 Universal Soil Loss Equation accuracy assessment The soil retention ES provision rate was estimated as the relative change between current condition and each targeting strategy across the three budgets Figure 17 and 18 We used this rate to estimate the reduction in sediment yield reaching the reservoirs and its effect extending the life span of the dams Table 6 rather than the gross estimates of cumulative sediment As a simple accuracy assessment of the gross estimates we compared our estimated average sediment per hectare with reported values The estimated average sediment per hectare for the Birris and Angostura dams correspond to the values reported in other studies The USLE underestimated measured values for the Cachi drainage area in which the frequency of landslides is higher Table 4 114 Figure 17 Covered area and retained soil by the i
80. ent targeting strategies at different budgets levels Implementa Life span Sediment yield Up stream Total Avoided tion cost retention retained cost millions y millions t y millions t y millions t millions Targeting Budget Dam NoICS_ ICS No ICS ICS ICS ICS ICS strategies RIOS amp Legislation 1 5 Angostura 24 24 1 5 1 49 0 01 0 3 0 4 1 5 Cachi 145 147 1 1 1 09 0 01 12 1 6 Total 1 9 RIOS amp C S 1 5 Angostura 24 24 1 5 1 49 0 01 0 2 0 3 1 5 Cachi 145 147 1 1 1 09 0 01 1 8 2 3 Total 2 6 RIOS 15 Angostura 24 24 1 5 1 49 0 01 0 3 0 3 1 5 Cachi 145 147 1 1 1 09 0 01 1 9 2 6 Total 2 9 RIOS amp Legislation 10 Angostura 24 25 1 5 1 45 0 05 1 0 1 3 10 Cachi 145 150 1 1 1 07 0 03 4 7 6 3 Total 7 6 RIOS amp C S 10 Angostura 24 26 1 5 1 37 0 13 2 7 3 6 10 Cachi 145 153 1 1 1 05 0 05 8 1 10 8 Total 14 4 RIOS 10 Angostura 24 25 1 5 1 45 0 05 1 0 1 3 10 Cachi 145 150 1 1 1 07 0 03 4 7 6 3 Total 7 6 RIOS amp Legislation 14 9 Angostura 24 25 1 5 1 41 0 09 1 8 2 4 149 Cachi 145 155 1 1 1 03 0 07 9 9 13 2 Total 15 7 RIOS amp C S 16 4 Angostura 24 26 1 5 1 36 0 14 3 0 4 1 16 4 Cachi 145 161 1 1 1 00 0 10 16 3 21 8 Total 25 9 RIOS 20 Angostura 24 25 1 5 1 43 0 07 1 5 2 0 20 Cachi 145 153 1 1 1 05 0 05 8 0 10 7 Total 12 7 RIOS 34 5 Angostura 24 27 1 5 1 34 0 16 3 5 4 7 34 5 Cachi 145 163 1 1 0 98 0 12 18 8 25 0 Total 29 7 4 2 Targeting strategies and budget all
81. er competition with crops ground biomass of weeds Colmenero Bienes amp Marques severe erosion Chaowen et during establishment Ong D ring et al 2005 2011 al 2007 et al 2000 If poor planned it can Can compete with main crop Superficial roots and high affect sowing or tillage for nutrients and light Dinh demand for water affect increase diseases or pest et al 2014 Oshunsanya crop yields Ong et al and limit seedling 2013 2000 emergence Acharya Hati Cutting cost to avoid crop Bandyopadhyay 2004 competition increase farm labor Kinama et al 2007 5 Slope gradient soil type Quantity and quality of biomass Low tillering ability and low Insecure land tenure land Z mulch type and dominant Edwards amp Burney 2005 root densities Rodriguez fragmentation poor 2 soil process Smets Cover type Ruiz Colmenero 1997 Xiao et al 2011 Xiao extension service limited 2 Poesen amp Knapen 2008 Bienes amp Marques 2011 et al 2012 technical know how and Dislodged by wind or Insecure land tenure need of short Steeper slopes and higher unavailability of planting 2 frequent runoff Edwards term outcomes Erenstein 2003 rainfall intensities Xiao et materials Neupane amp ta amp Burney 2005 al 2011 Thapa 2001 Tillage technologies Thapa Cassel amp Garrity 1999 Mulch with poor nutrients quality and complex decomposition patterns Heineman et al 1997 169 References Acharya
82. er estimation of the C factor should be a main focus during model calibration and continued improvement of the RUSLE We also recommend the implementation of the GSA approach in improving model parameterization by assessing factor importance including interactions 6 2 GSA versus LSA We show that a GSA approach provides a more detailed analysis of model uncertainty than LSA GSA is not highly affected by data variability and factor interactions are explicitly considered and visible Assessing data that are naturally highly variable in space and time such as soil loss Nearing et al 1999 with statistical methods sensitive to data variability may lead to inaccurate results Finally consistent results obtained in the GSA were due to the method s capacity to capture a broader range of model sensitivities and interactions among model factors and parameters Wagner 1995 Both of these are key characteristics to understand better and parameterize empirical models Harper et al 2011 6 3 Management implications Our GSA results further underline two key points in soil loss management across environments The cover management factor is the most important factor in RUSLE and much of the soil loss occurs in a limited area of the watershed These findings are important because cover management is the only factor that can be easily manipulated to reduce soil loss from agricultural lands Shi et al 2012 and reduce sediment accumulation in downst
83. ereby increase pest risk Raudes amp Sagastume 2009 In addition the specific crop be it annual perennial or semi perennial impacts the possible combinations of soil conservation practices For example burning is practiced in the region to harvest sugar cane semi perennial therefore hedgerows with trees in lineal arrangement are advocated over intermixed plantings We considered these factors to design our ideal cropping systems and to model the effect of implementing those as a strategy to minimize soil loss For example cover crops or mulch will protect the soil from detachment but if detached hedgerows downslope will potentially retain it and agroforestry systems will promote deeper roots and grater infiltration rates Supplemental Material I We implemented ideal cropping systems on current perennial annual semi perennial and pasture land cover types But we implemented reforestation with endangered tree species on bare soil cover type rather ideal cropping systems Implementation and maintenance cost for each one of the soil conservation practices were adopted from PASOLAC 2000 and updated to Costa Rican wages and prices Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia Seed costs were obtained from a tropical research center in Costa Rica CATIE seed bank prices and the cost of the tree seed species correspond to the tree endangered species promoted according to Costa Rican legislation The cost of implementing hedgerow in
84. erosion risk in Rond nia Brazilian Amazonia using RUSLE remote sensing and GIS Land Degradation amp Development 15 5 499 512 Marchamalo Sacristian M 2004 Ordenaci n del territorio para la producci n de servicios ambientales h dricos Aplicaci n a la cuenca del R o Birr s Costa Rica Land planning for the 93 provisioning of hydrological environmental services An application in the Birr s River Costa Rica PhD Dissertation Escuela T cnica Superior de Ingenieros de Montes Spain McCool D K Foster G R Yoder D C 1997 Slope length and steepness factor LS In K G Renard G R Foster G A Weesies D K McCool and D C Yoder Predicting soil erosion by water a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation RUSLE U S Department of Agriculture Agriculture Handbook No 703 Washington D C pp 404 Morgan R P C Quinton J Smith R E Govers G Poesen J W A Auerswald K Chisci G Torri D Styczen M E 1998 The European Soil Erosion Model EUROSEM A dynamic approach for predicting sediment transport from fields and small catchments Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 23 527 544 Mueller T G Cetin H Fleming R A Dillon C R Karathanasis A D Shearer S A 2005 Erosion probability maps Calibrating precision agriculture data with soil surveys using logistic regression Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 60 6 462 468 Mutua B M
85. ff resources carrying out activities on the ground or providing extension or capacity building services Please check all that apply but do not check sectors that were not directly involved in the initiative even if they were conducting other activities in the landscape Agriculture Health Livestock Education Forestry Energy Natural resources conservation or environment Roads transportation or infrastructure Tourism Others please specify Was any new institution or mechanism established to support the initiative C Yes C No C Ido not know If so what type of institutions or mechanisms were established to support integrated landscape management New cross jurisdictional planning or governance entity e g council of governments or territorial development group Other organization that plays the role of supporting landscape wide planning and coordination 7 Mechanism or process to coordinate plans and investments proposed by different sectors e g agriculture forestry infrastructure irrigation Mechanism or platform to allow different groups of land and resource users to resolve conflict Other institutions or mechanisms specify 144 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 7 Part 6 Initiative outcomes results Please tell us about the initiative s outcomes and results Does this initiative include a monitoring and evaluation component C Yes C No Does the initi
86. ffect on model factor importance Higher order factor interactions illustrated by the CART analysis indicated that the interaction between the C and K factors was the most important in determining greater magnitudes of soil loss despite the low K factor order for the US dataset Figure 12 and Figure 13 US Here crops with mean C values above 0 31 rye potatoes fallow or cotton lost soil at a mean rate between 19 and 102 t ha yr depending on soil type Figure 13 US This is contrasted with the CR dataset where the greater C and slope steepness S factor estimates indicate greater erosive loss Figure 13 CR Annual crops or bare soil with a mean C value above 0 4 produced erosion rates between 50 237 t ha yr when located on slopes below 13 however perennial crops i e coffee with C value above 0 07 can be also highly erosive when located on slopes above 13 Figure 13 CR The theoretical dataset behaves similar to the CR dataset where the interaction between C and S determined greater soil loss The C factor threshold that defined low and medium soil loss was similar C 0 08 0 07 for the theoretical within original equation factor estimates and CR datasets outside original equation factor estimates Figure 13 CR and T 86 Figure 13 Factor interactions for US CR and T theoretical datasets obtained from the CART analysis Each dataset is represented as a tree the left side of the tree represents factors combin
87. ffectiveness since they only reduced 1 of the total exported sediment and changed less than 3 of the area The targeting strategies of RIOS amp C S and RIOS amp Legislation used partially the 20millions budgeted 16 4millions and 14 9millions respectively indicating that the most effective areas retaining soil can be covered with lower budgets Figure 18 The slope of both the covered area and the soil retention at different budgets indicates a marginal benefit Figure 18 Modeling results indicates that on average every million invested may cover with ideal cropping systems 2 3 1 689 ha of the agricultural land however every extra million invested will only reduce exported soil in a magnitude of 0 4 0 5 and 0 8 percent using RIOS RIOS amp Legislation and RIOS amp C S targeting strategies respectively The marginal benefit across budgets was constant for RIOS amp C S but it increased for RIOS from 0 3 to 0 6 and RIOS amp Legislation from 0 3 to 0 8 when budget was increased from 10 to 20 million Figure 18 Budget allocation across cropping systems i e annual perennial semi perennial pasture or reforestation was consistent with the current land use distribution The largest proportion of the budget approximately 75 across targeting strategies and budgets was designated to support perennial and pasture ideal cropping systems Bare soil although occupying low proportion in the watershed 1 2 of the area
88. fficacy of each soil conservation practice we modeled 175 We conducted a literature review to estimate the soil retention efficacy SRE of each soil conservation practice A larger numbers of the assessed experiments were conducted at gentle slopes Figure 1 Figure 1 Soil retention efficacy reported by 30 studies and 107 observations Mulch Cover crops dd 4 3 gt S 80 A l 9 4 5 60 14 2 ry 3 so 5 5 c 40 5 e o Ds 204 99 0 T T T Hedgerow Agroforestry 100 n S t y e S 80 4 e 4 lt 9 5 60 eq an 3 5 2 2 20 3 0 O 10 20 30 40 50 60 eouples piace Slope steepness S100 a o lt o O 80 o g O E O E Agroforestry amp hedgerow 0 60 m 5 a O O m Agroforestry amp mulch 40 4 5 a m o Agroforestry amp mulch amp cover crops L2 2 4 O 3 OHedgerow amp Mulch 09 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Slope steepness 176 We estimated SRE since the reported combinations of soil conservations practices in the reviewed experiments did not match the combinations of our ideal cropping systems Also we consider the high variability of the reported SRE and decided to choose a conservative method The estimated SRE is the sum of the minimum reported SRE for each soil conservation practice in each ideal cropping system Ideal cropping systems at slopes higher than 30 should not in
89. greater magnitudes of soil loss come from a limited proportion of the area and from a limited combination of factors Figure 10 and Figure 12 For example soil loss estimated above 20 t ha yr comes from 36 of the US parcels 34 of the CR 87 pixels and 36 of the theoretical runs but account for 75 83 and 91 of the total estimated soil loss respectively Figure 13 The GSA and LSA similarly explained average plot level soil loss in the US study site LSA 73 and GSA 75 Figure 14 However the GSA explained more of the measured annual plot level soil loss 82 than the LSA 58 Figure 14 Both LSA and GSA indicated that the C factor is the most important factor determining soil loss when averaged plot level data are used The LSA results were highly affected by the difference in data variability between the averaged versus annual plot data since the order of the three most important factors was different Figure 14 The LSA and GSA on averaged plot level data distinctly disagreed on the role of the support practice P factor The GSA ranked this factor as more important than slope length Z factor a factor with narrower range of estimates Figure 10and Figure 13 Figure 14 RUSLE efficiency and factor importance order for global and local sensitivity analyses of the average and annual US datasets Model efficiency corresponds to a pseudo R from estimated and measured soil loss Loss of efficiency value indicates the contr
90. h to make investments more cost effective than remediating the effects of dredging e g implementation and maintenance cost 16 4millions versus estimated dredging cots 23 3millions Figure 4 Investments in soil conservation practices might also extend dam life span which is one of the most critical concerns of hydropower companies with high sedimentation rates Haun et al 2013 5 2 Targeting strategies The majority of ES are spatially explicit as well as the pressure or threats e g deforestation soil erosion to ecosystems and the services they provide Targeting efforts incentive or policy based rather than first come first served guarantees the additionality and efficiency of the efforts Robalino amp Pfaff 2013 Pfaff amp Robalino 2012 Wiinscher et al 2008 The Costa Rican PES scheme prioritizes PES for agroforestry systems based on land use capability FONAFIFO 2014 similarly to our RIOS amp Legislation targeting strategy yet less aggressive at targeting erosive lands However our results indicate that targeting efforts to increase the provision of the ES soil retention on erosive crops and crops on steep slopes gt 23 RIOS amp C S potentially will yield the highest benefits per dollar invested Particularly with the medium and larger budgets we tested for this targeting strategy 10 or 16 4 million Another advantage of the RIOS amp C S targeting strategy is that both the slope steepness and cover manageme
91. ibution of each factor to model error The negative value indicates a decrease in model predictability GSA Averaged Annual O C mmm C m R uu R m SS mm S mu EK mu K m oP mm al P m _ SL R2 75 tom R 82 x LSA C m R m G S m C mm ER m S mmm gK m K a Z La L 2 la 2 E S pld R2 73 p R 58 q 10 30 70 10 30 70 Lostefficiency Lost efficiency 88 6 Discussion Our results indicate that cover management is the most important factor driving soil loss in RUSLE across both the scale of data resolution and environmental context In other words the C factor produces the greatest degree of variation in model predictions This illustrates the need to focus on C factor estimation over other factors to improve the accuracy of model predictions In addition this result suggests that the C factor in RUSLE could be further improved to reduce uncertainty in model predictions This is not surprising considering the complex processes in which vegetation influences soil loss Schwilch Hessel amp Verzandvoort 2012 The results also underline the importance of understanding the complex interactions among vegetation topography and soil type in determining soil loss and the high spatial variability in soil loss rates 6 1 Model uncertainty under different environmental conditions Our modeling efforts illustrate the importance of C factor estimation because across datasets the C factor is the main contributor
92. in agroforestry systems e g shade grown cocoa or coffee Other sun grown perennial crops e g fruit orchards coffee Wetland Forestry plantations Villages towns urban O FM O KJ O Industry mining oil gas development Please list any other land use land cover that is a major landscape component occupy more than 5 of the area a minor landscape component occupy less than 5 of the area 135 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 4 Part 3 Basic information on the landscape initiative Please tell us about the landscape initiative in which you have been involved In your responses please describe the landscape initiative as it is currently organized and managed even though it may have a longer history under previous organization and management Initiative name or brief description Initiative dates Starting date year only End date year if applicable State of the project beginning in process ending permanent Which organizations lead the initiative please provide the complete name of the organization if possible Please list key organization s within the landscape e g farmers associations community or indigenous groups local government local NGOs Please list key organization s outside the landscape e g donors international organizations or NGOs Is this initiative a continuation of a previous project
93. information on the landscape Please describe the landscape where you were involved in promoting integrated activities to benefit food production ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods On which continent is the initiative located Where is the landscape located please fill in as many as relevant Country State province or region Locality please list the districts municipalities or towns within the landscape If the landscape has a name please provide it here Approximately how large is the landscape area please answer in hectares or in square kilometers Hectares SS Square kilometers Do you know approximately how many people live in the landscape an estimate is OK 7 Yes No How many people AAA 134 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Please provide a general characterization of land use land cover in the landscape by checking the boxes that apply Major landscape Minor landscape component occupy component present Does not exist in the more than 5 of the but occupy less than landscape area 5 of the area Tropical moist forest C Cc Tropical dry forest Temperate upland or montane forest Grassland or savanna without livestock Pasture grassland for livestock Lakes and other water bodies Annual grain crops Other annual crops horticulture etc Cm RC ORJ OKY O G O BOR O BOR O BOR O BO NM O BOR O BOR OKI O Perennial crops
94. ing experimental farms or farmer scientist 123 7 References Abreu H M 1994 Adoption of soil conservation in Tierra Blanca Costa Rica In Lutz E Pagiola S Reiche C 1994 Economic and institutional analysis of the soil conservation projects in Central America and the Caribbean World Bank Development paper No 8 Washington DC USA 207 pp Alegre J C amp Rat M R 1996 Soil and water conservation by contour hedging in the humid tropics of Peru Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 57 17 25 Alp zar F Nord n A Pfaff A amp Robalino J 2013 Effects of Exclusion from a Conservation Policy Negative Behavioral Spillovers from Targeted Incentives p 29 Retrieved from http sites nicholasinstitute duke edu environmentaleconomics files 2013 11 WP EE 13 06 Pfaff et al _full pdf pdf Altieri M a 2002 Agroecology the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 93 1 3 1 24 do1 10 1016 50167 8809 02 00085 3 Bhattarai R amp Dutta D 2006 Estimation of Soil Erosion and Sediment Yield Using GIS at Catchment Scale Water Resources Management 21 10 1635 1647 doi 10 1007 s11269 006 9118 z Blackman A amp Woodward R T 2010 User financing in a national payments for environmental services program Costa Rican hydropower Ecological Economics 69 8 1626 1638 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2010 03
95. is due to a combination of factors such as the creation and enforcement of the Forestry Law 7575 in 1997 which forbids deforestation while promotes incentive based conservation via payment for environmental 98 services PES schemes besides other external factors such as the increase of ecotourism and the reduction of cattle ranch profitability Robalino amp Pfaff 2013 The Soil Law 7779 created in 1998 has a poor enforcement that has led to poor conditions law inconsistencies and constrained budgets that weakened agricultural extension offices key organizations transmitting information technology and sustainable soil conservation practices Vignola et al 2013 Vignola et al 2010 Hydropower companies an industry highly dependent and affected by water quality has been also promoting environmental education Blackman amp Woodward 2010 supporting soil conservation management Vignola et al 2012 and supporting watershed management plans PREVEDA 2008 to increase soil retention at the source Also major voluntary or non voluntary tax payments investments to fund the PES scheme comes from hydropower companies to improve the provision of hydrological services and extend the life span of the dams but most importantly to improve their relationship with local stakeholders Blackman amp Woodward 2010 Payment for ecosystem services PES scheme goals is to increase national forest cover to generate multiple ecosystem services
96. ith agroecological methods e g improved grass and browse supply management of water availability etc Establishment or improvement of irrigation systems Adoption or expansion of agroforestry Programs to adopt or improve home gardens Implementation of laws or incentives to reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture Implementation of soil conservation practices Extension or capacity building programs to support agriculture Establishment of new supply chain or marketing channels including value addition and certification for agricultural products Promotion of native food species and agrobiodiversity Other investment in agriculture please specify 139 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Which of the following investments in forestry conservation and natural resource management were actively promoted by the landscape initiative Was not actively Was not actively R promoted but it occurred promoted and did not Was actively promoted N A or Don t know simultaneously in the occurred in the landscape landscape New protected areas established C C New management plans for existing O C protected areas Other new reserves or community based conservation areas including areas that allow sustainable harvest and use of natural resources Other community based natural resource management activities Improved forestry management Extension or capacity building programs to support
97. ive processes such as bank erosion landslides or even other types of erosion such as wind erosion are not considered Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 This is particularly true in the Cachi drainage area where there is a greater frequency of 110 landslides within the basin Ram rez et al 2008 Yet this source of sediment is not directly related to land use decisions afforestation is unlikely to stop land sliding and should be considered background variability A potential larger unquantified land use impact is the construction of unpaved roads G mez Delgado et al 2011 We calculated the sediment delivery ratio the proportion of the gross sediment exported per each pixel that actually reaches the reservoirs to assess the accuracy of the USLE estimations The delivery ratio was estimated as the ratio between the measured sediment yield in each reservoir Table 4 and the gross sediment for each dam s drainage area Bhattarai amp Dutta 2006 Our estimated average sediment per hectare was calculated as the total gross sediment exported per pixels divided by the drainage area multiplied by the sediment delivery ratio 3 4 Targeting strategies Defining priority areas to target efforts can be based using different criteria For this reason we tested the effectiveness of implementing cropping systems using three targeting strategies RIOS default optimization named RIOS RIOS constrained to areas in conflict with current legislatio
98. les etc nacionales Exportaci n Prod1 155 Prod2 Prod3 Prod4 Prods Cu l es el tipo de tenencia de la tierra m s com n en el paisaje HECHOS SOLO A 3 Nota entrevistador La meta es entender los principales tipos de propiedad y tenencia de la tierra en el paisaje Ejemplos de las categor as de tenencia Solo las m s importantes abarcan m s del 10 20 del paisaje a tierras p blicas o del estado b tierras comunales c propiedad privada manejada por los propietarios d propiedad privada manejada por compa as e propiedad privada aprovechada o manejada por arrendatarios Otro Otro C mo considera usted que el paisaje donde se encuentra la iniciativa es definido o delimitado geogr ficamente INTERPRETATIVA TODOS aclarar Nota entrevistador De pronto es necesario hacer la misma pregunta de diferentes maneras para garantizar que el entrevistado la entienda B sicamente queremos saber c mo el entrevistado ve la extensi n geogr fica del paisaje y c mo sta es delimitada La pregunta NO pretende preguntar sobre el proceso de delineaci n del paisaje Queremos saber si el entrevistado piensa que los l mites corresponden a Si No Jurisdicciones p e villas municipalidades cantones Limite legal p e areas protegidas y sus zonas de amortiguamiento Cuencas Rio lago divisoria de aguas u otro eleme
99. mbiente p e subsidios perversos a la agricultura La iniciativa result en alg n cambio importante en la pol tica o gobernanza en relaci n a uso tierra el manejo de los recursos naturales o la regulaci n de actividades econ micas Si fue as por favor describa seg n su percepci n los cambios m s importantes y explique como la iniciativa lo logr HECHOS TRIANGULACI N Nota entrevistador Similar a las preguntas 6 1 y 6 2 cu l es el contexto pol tico para el proceso del manejo integrado del paisaje ac se pregunta sobre el nivel en que la iniciativa incluy el cambio de pol ticas como una estrategia para alcanzar los paisajes integrales y multifuncionales Por lo tanto si la iniciativa result en nuevas leyes de protecci n ambiental subsidios o incentivos para la agricultura sostenible etc esos pueden ser mencionados Igualmente estamos interesados en aprender sobre nuevos sistemas de gobernanza o pol ticas por lo tanto cambios en la tierra o tenencia de la tierra procesos de toma de decisiones nuevas entidades de gobernanzas como mancomunidades etc Hay algunos cambios adicionales en las pol ticas o gobernanza que usted considera se deber an de crear o implementar para apoyar los objetivos de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TRIANGULACION SECCION 7 RESULTADOS Y EFECTIVIDAD DE LA INICIATIVA Al comienzo de la conversaci n usted identific tres O la cantidad que mencion en la pregunta 3 2 objetivos de la i
100. modified prior probabilities in large and complex landscapes International Journal of Remote Sensing 24 1 91 113 Pelacani S Marker M Rodolfi G 2008 Simulation of soil erosion and deposition in a changing land use A modeling approach to implement the support practice factor Geomorphology 99 329 340 Pimentel D Harvey C Resosudarmo P Sinclair K Kurz D McNair M Crist S Shpritz L Fitton L Saffouri R Blair R 1995 Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits Science 267 1117 23 94 R Core Team 2012 R A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria ISBN 3 900051 07 0 http www R project org Ranzi R Le T H Rulli M C 2012 A RUSLE approach to model suspended sediment load in the Lo river Vietnam Effects of reservoirs and land use changes Journal of Hydrology 422 423 17 29 Rapp J F 1994 Error assessment of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation using natural runoff plot data M S Thesis School of Renewable Natural Resources Univ of Arizona Tucson AZ Renard K G Ferreira V A 1993 RUSLE Model description and database sensitivity Journal of environmental quality 22 3 458 466 Renard K G Foster G R Weesies G A McCool D K Yoder D C 1997 Predicting soil erosion by water a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Eq
101. mplemented ideal cropping systems in each drainage area Angostura Cachi and Birris under three targeting strategies RIOS RIOS constrained to areas in conflict with legislation and RIOS constrained to areas with erosive crops on steep slopes and at different budget levels The percentage of the cover area corresponds to the total area of each one of the drainage area of each dam E RIOS 5 5 RIOS amp Leaislation RIOS amp C S o D S 40 J o F o o o o gt 20 o o o o o o 0 Ll 0 o o o 9 o o o o 15 r E li F ES rt igl ous A B E 0 q m Angostura Birris Cachi Angostura Birris Cachi Angostura Birris Cachi Budget millions 15 isio _ s14 9 15164 PMszo Figure 18 Covered area and retained soil in the upper and middle part of the Reventazon watershed by using three strategies to target ideal cropping systems RIOS RIOS constrained to areas in conflict with legislation and RIOS constrained to areas with erosive crops on steep slopes at different budget levels One hundred percent of the area refers to the 73 441ha in the watershed where ideal cropping systems can be implemented 20 100 15 4 i z 2 5S e S Le 60 7 5 10 gt 8 f 2 8 amp 40 A 39 20 0 p 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Budget millions Budget millions RIOS RIOS amp Legislation RIOS amp C S 115 Table 6 Dams lifespan extension and avoided cost if ideal cropping systems ICS are implemented using differ
102. n named RIOS amp Legislation and RIOS constrained to areas with erosive crops or crops on steep lands named RIOS amp C S RIOS optimization uses the pre determined critical factors Table 5 to find the most cost effective areas to implement ideal cropping systems as we discussed in section 2 3 However we also tested if enforcing current land use capability legislation is the most effective strategy or if using verifiable criteria s in field and key drivers of soil erosion is the most effective We determined the targeting strategy RIOS amp Legislation by overlapping the land use capability developed for the Reventazon management plan PREVDA 2008 with the land use from 1996 Pedroni 2003 Costa Rica established in 1994 the land use capability for the national territory according to local conditions such as soil nutrients soil depth relieve rockiness floodable Act N 111 23214 MAG MIRENEM 1994 The land use capability classifies the land into eight categories from null restrictions for productive activities i e class I to high restrictions i e class VIII We defined conflict areas as those areas that corresponds to 1 any productive activity occurring in areas that should be dedicated to forest protection i e classes VII VII 2 other agricultural activities than perennial crops in areas with severe limitations i e class VI and 3 other agricultural activities than semi perennial and perennial crops occurring in are
103. n about the user desired activities i e soil conservation practices the cost of implementing each activity the user s available budget and the critical factors determining potential effectiveness retaining soil such as the contributing area crop management Factor C riparian continuity restoration among others Table 5 Vogl et al 2013 The critical factors determining soil loss come from a detailed review of literature and hydrological experiments and models however the user can modify the goal and weight of each critical factor according to local conditions maximize or minimize exclude factors from the analysis or use the defaults values as we did Table 5 Vogl et al 2013 RIOS scores each pixel potential effectiveness for retaining soil as the weighted sum of each one of the critical factors values per activity 1 e Figure 16 then the cost of an activity is assigned to each pixel for all the included 108 activities This is done to allocate the budget yielding the biggest return on investment therefore the priority areas for an activity will potentially yield the greatest benefit at the lowest cost Vogl et al 2013 Table 5 Critical factors consider by RIOS to score each pixel s potential effectiveness retaining soil Category Factors Goal Weight Description Calculated from by who determine effectiveness Upslope Upslope Maximize 1 Estimates the contributing Flow accumulation pixels sediment Sour
104. n conjunto de iniciativas proyectos o programas que buscamos a trav s del internet En el caso del INICIATIVA contactamos al Sr Sra NOMBRE CONTACTO al cual le solicitamos su colaboraci n con el llenado de una encuesta Despu s de analizar las encuetas que fueron diligenciadas seleccionamos unas iniciativas las cuales estamos interesados en conocer m s detalladamente Para lograr esto queremos entrevistar a varios actores o l deres claves en el paisaje que han venido trabajando con la iniciativa INICIATIVA y tienen un buen conocimiento del paisaje Lo estamos contactando porque NOMBRE CONTACTO nos indic que usted nos podr a colaborar La entrevista La entrevista que le vamos a hacer dura aproximadamente una hora En esta entrevista le haremos preguntas sobre el paisaje donde se encuentra ubicada la iniciativa INICIATIVA sobre la Iniciativa misma la participaci n de diferentes actores o grupos en la iniciativa las instituciones y la gesti n de la iniciativa pol ticas y gobernanza y finalmente sobre las inversiones y los logros de la misma No dude en interrumpirme o preguntarme si alguna pregunta o concepto no es claro Algunas veces usamos terminolog a que es muy espec fica y que puede ser confusa as que por favor no dude en preguntarme De igual manera si no tiene conocimiento o informaci n para responder alguna pregunta no hay ning n problema y solo pasamos a la siguiente pregunta Antes de comenzar me gustar a ag
105. n sediment erosion in Three Gorges Dam Area China International Journal of Sediment Research 23 2 119 129 Chaowen L Shihua T Jingjing H amp Yibing C 2007 Effects of plant hedgerows on soil erosion and soil fertility on sloping farmland in the purple soil area Acta Ecologica Sinica 27 6 2191 2198 doi 10 1016 S 1872 2032 07 60050 X Dinh V Hilger T Macdonald L Clemens G Shiraishi E Duc T Cadisch G 2014 Field Crops Research Mitigation potential of soil conservation in maize cropping on steep slopes Field Crops Research 156 91 102 doi http dx doi org 10 1016 j fcr 2013 11 002 Donjadee S amp Chinnarasri C 2012 Effects of rainfall intensity and slope gradient on the application of vetiver grass mulch in soil and water conservation International Journal of Sediment Research 27 2 168 177 doi 10 1016 S 1001 6279 12 60025 0 D ring T F Brandt M He J Finckh M R amp Saucke H 2005 Effects of straw mulch on soil nitrate dynamics weeds yield and soil erosion in organically grown potatoes Field Crops Research 94 2 3 238 249 doi 10 1016 j fcr 2005 01 006 Edwards L amp Burney J 2005 Cover crops In D Hillel J Hatfield D S Powlson C Rosenzweig K M Scow M J Singer amp D L Sparks Eds Encyclopedia of soils in the environment 1st ed p 592 New York USA Elsevier Erenstein O 2003 Smallholder conservation farming in the t
106. nagement Territory 129 130 APPENDIX B Survey to assess Integrated Landscape Management for agriculture rural Livelihoods and ecosystem conservation in Latin America and The Caribbean 131 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 1 Welcome Dear colleague Thank you for responding to this survey By sharing your experiences you will be contributing to a global effort to document and share lessons learned from landscape scale initiatives to support food production ecosystem conservation and human wellbeing in rural landscapes ecoagriculture initiatives These results in turn will contribute to a strategic international action and advocacy program to expand the use of sustainable landscape management approaches around the world For more information on this program please visit http landscapes ecoagriculture org This questionnaire includes 7 pages and should take about 20 minutes to complete The survey asks questions about a landscape initiative in which you have been involved and about the landscape where this initiative is located A landscape initiative is defined as a multi stakeholder project program or community led effort to increase food production ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods through integrated planning decision making and management at a landscape scale Landscape initiatives can include community led efforts government projects or programs or initiatives supported by organizations
107. nial crops Forest cover has been constant through time the Reventazon watershed but pastures urban and sugarcane areas are increasing by replacing coffee and shrubland areas Brenes 2009 102 Figure 15 The left panel shows the location of the Upper Middle Reventazon watershed and the drainage area of the dams The right panel shows the distribution of the targeted areas and the level of agreement across the three targeting strategies 1 RIOS 2 RIOS amp Legislation and 3 RIOS amp C S The level of agreement indicates which areas were targeted or not by the strategies For example with a budget of 1 5 millions ninenty four percent of the area was excluded from all three targetting strategies to implement ideal croping systems and all the three strategies allocated the budget differently 3 3 0 of the agricultural land Caribbean Sea Costa Rica Re Upper Middle lt Reventaz n watershed Upper Middle Reventaz n watershed Angosfura Legend JBasins MDams Drainage Protected areas Budget 1 5 millions Agreement area 0 3 94 f13 4 E23 1 Ma 3 0 Budget 10 millions Agreement area 0 3 58 1 3 27 Budget 20 millions Agreement area _ o 3 40 1 3 27 M23 25 W23 9 3 2 Activities Ideal cropping systems coupled soil conservation practices Agroforestry is supported by the PES scheme to increase the number of trees within agricultural land FONAFI
108. niciativa de paisaje Ahora nos gustar a conocer su opini n sobre la efectividad de la Iniciativa en alcanzar cada objetivo Me gustar a preguntarle en una escala del 1 al 7 cual fue el nivel de efectividad de cada objetivo siendo Luego me gustar a conocer por que les dio esa calificaci n Indicadores y o resultado de la iniciaitva Vamos a comenzar con el primer objetivo mencionarlos INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Objetivo ver 3 2 Nivel efectividad 7 Por qu c mo les asign ese valor Us cuando se logr indicadores o percepci n trate de comprobar si totalmente el objetivo 4 los resultados son claramente atribuibles 162 cuando se logr propiamente a la iniciativa parcialmente y 1 cuando no hubo ning n progreso 4 Que tan efectiva ha sido la iniciativa reuniendo a los diferentes actores para incrementar la cooperaci n y resolver los conflictos para alcanzar los m ltiples objetivos en el paisaje INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Esta es una pregunta abierta Buscamos entender de igual manera la parte exitosa y no exitosa del proceso del manejo del paisaje con m ltiples actores Queremos conocer si la iniciativa ayud a incrementar la coordinaci n y colaboraci n entre sectores p e agricultura forestal agua salud y a diferentes escalas p e finca villas distritos cuenca regi n Me gustar a preguntarle sobre los beneficios e inconvenie
109. nt factors are verifiable on the field Using verifiable factors on the field to determine participation criteria in the PES scheme may add a sense of fairness to the program Vignola et al 2010 and decrease negative behavioral spillovers Alpizar et al 2013 such as reducing current voluntary implementation of conservation practices or reducing aversion to participate 121 We tested three targeting strategies using an empirically based approach USLE to quantify the provisioning of the soil retention ES Our modeling strategy offers a simple but robust and conservative first approximation to a methodology that can be adapted and modeled iteratively to assess the potential contribution that changes in agroecosystems management has on providing ES This first approximation also contributes to move beyond the assumption that spread trees will provide the demanded hydrological services by local consumers and contributes to improve spatial planning one of the weaknesses of the Costa Rican PES scheme Robalino amp Pfaff 2013 Also this modeling exercise offers an opportunity to quantify the approximate benefits of investing on provisioning ES and particularly private sector may get more engage with more clear and direct benefits Ruckelshaus et al 2012 Higher engagement of the private sector in conservation is currently an important challenge in agricultural landscape planning across Latin America and the Caribbean Estrada Carmona et al
110. ntes de trabajar a escala de paisaje De qu manera el enfoque de paisaje de la iniciativa ayud a los actores a entender y a abordar mejor diferentes tem ticas problemas y retos en el paisaje Pausa para la persona responder continuar con De qu manera el enfoque de paisaje dificult el logro de objetivos claves INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Estamos tratando de entender si el enfoque de manejo integral de paisajes p e reuniendo personas de diferentes sectores y en diferentes escalas ayuda a los actores a encontrar un sentido com n entre los diferentes intereses o reas de negociaci n de discordia o conflicto Igualmente queremos entender si el enfoque de paisaje pudo haber distra do la atenci n de puntos claves locales si este enfoque es considerado irrelevante por algunos actores que est n m s preocupados por asuntos sectoriales o locales o si el enfoque de paisaje cre problemas muy grandes o complejos de resolver Finalmente me gustar a preguntarle sobre el impacto de la iniciativa en algunos grupos comunitarios en el paisaje Me podr a decir si la iniciativa benefici no tuvo ning n efecto o perjudic a cada uno de los siguientes grupos Omitir los que no aplican para paisaje INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Grupos Benefici No tuvo Perjudi Z ning n efecto c Peque os productores y o ganaderos Medianos productores y o ganaderos Grandes productores y o ganaderos ben
111. nto geografico mayor Ecosistema p e un humedal grande Rango de una o m s especies de inter s para la conservaci n L mite cultural o grupo tnico Un problema que deb a ser resuelto Usaron otro criterio Cu l Otro Otro Los l mites originales del paisaje han cambiado C mo y por qu INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Hubo eventos naturales pol ticos sociales econ micos conflictos que afectaron el paisaje y generaron cambios importantes en los ltimos 25 a os Por favor mencionar los m s importantes 156 INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Esta debe ser una pregunta abierta Queremos saber si hay un entendimiento com n del paisaje y sus din micas La pregunta tambi n debe revelar algunos de los retos que la iniciativa pretende resolver Si el entrevistado necesita o quiere ayuda para entender la pregunta se pueden dar algunos ejemplos de cambios importantes como los cambios mayores en el uso de la tierra o las actividades econ micas p e deforestaci n nuevas plantaciones conflictos guerras e importantes designaciones de tierras como reas protegidas SECCION 3 INFORMACI N SOBRE LA INICIATIVA Cu les fueron los retos principales o problemas que motivaron la creaci n de la iniciativa de paisaje INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Hacer como pregunta abierta Esperamos que en algunos casos habr un reto o un problema principal mientras que en otros casos habr n m s Q
112. o de informaci n fueron ayudados para guiar o construir las datos o an lisis fueron decisiones sobre el manejo del paisaje qui n usados para hacer la estuvo involucrado en el procesos de toma de evaluaci n del paisaje decisiones y si el proceso fue m s tecnocr tico o participativo En el transcurso de la iniciativa se crearon nuevos grupos para liderar o facilitar las actividades del manejo integrado del paisaje o fueron grupos existentes que antes no cumpl an estas funciones pero que despu s de la iniciativa tomaron este papel Si fue as cu les fueron esos grupos y qu hacen HECHOS TRIANGULACI N Grupos creados aspectos t cnicos p e aspectos sobre el proceso p e c mo los grupos que tipo de informaci n fueron ayudados para guiar o construir las datos o an lisis fueron decisiones sobre el manejo del paisaje qui n usados para hacer la estuvo involucrado en el procesos de toma de evaluaci n del paisaje decisiones y si el proceso fue mas tecnocr tico o participativo Como son financiados los nuevos o existentes grupos El financiamiento tiene un tiempo limitado o es cont nuo HECHOS TRIANGULACION SECCION 6 POL TICAS Y GOBERNANZA Nota entrevistador Provea una breve transici n Ahora me gustar a preguntarle sobre el papel de las pol ticas apoyando o limitando el desarrollo de la iniciativa Hubo algunas pol ticas p blicas leyes
113. ocation comparison The Birris dam has smallest drainage area yet has the highest erosion rates Figure 15 This basin occupies only 3 of the upper and middle Reventazon still both targeting strategies RIOS amp C S and RIOS amp Legislation covered more area in this basin with ideal cropping systems yielding slightly higher soil retention rates particularly at the higher budget levels Figure 17 Cachi and Angostura s dams have the largest drainage area occupying 55 and percent 42 of the Reventazon watershed respectively In these two dams both targeting strategies RIOS and RIOS amp Legislation tended to cover the same proportion of area at the medium budgets yielding similar soil retention rates Modeling results show similar soil retention rates across targeting strategies with the lowest budget allocation 116 Figure 17 Finally RIOS amp C S yielded the highest soil retention rates across dams when medium and larger budgets were available Figure 17 and 18 The targeting strategy with RIOS and the maximum budget 34 5million yielded the maximum soil retention rate 14 However the targeting strategy RIOS amp C S yielded similar results 12 using half of the budget 16 4millions and covering half of the area Figure 18 The RIOS amp Legislation targeting strategy is only more effective than RIOS when larger budgets were available Figure 18 With low budgets 1 5millions all the different targeting strategies had low e
114. olvin 1981 b 0 030 to 0 070 for row crops Dickey et al 1983 b 0 024 0 032 for small grains b gt 0 05 small grains in northwestern wheat and range region Simanton et al 1984 b 0 039 for rangeland HB 703 HB 703 166 Ru surface roughness in in 1 9 0 25 From table 5 5 in HB 703 In Figure 4 3 it is indicated that a Ru 4 indicate more roughness than from most primarily tillage operations It is kept the value of 2 because Wischmeier and Smith 1978 affirms that the USLE equation estimate accuratel y soil loss for consistent cropping and management systems that have been represented in the erosion plot studies SR Surface roughness 1 0 9 SR exp 0 66 Ru 0 24 Rainfall runoff erosive factor R 100 foot tonf inch acre hour year R factor R gt 1 to j n E 130 130 in hr Erosive rain 3 00 0 50 The limit of 3in h is because median drop size does Intensity not continue to increase when intensities exceed this threshold Carter et al 1974 The limit for rain showers less than 0 5in and separated from other rain periods by more than 6 h are omitted because these light rains are usually too small for practical significance and that collectively they have little effect on the distribution of the annual El or erosion Also reduce time consuming processing El HB 703 E 100ft tonf acre in 10 81 6 80 E 1099 1 0 72 EXP 27 1 100 Kinematic Energy j Mo storm yr No events 50 00 5 00 HB 7
115. onsolidation factor Ru surface roughness H Canopy height ft Ru Surface roughness Fc Fraction of land surface covered by canopy Cur Impacts of the subsurface residues acre in Ib K Soil erodibility Soil profile reaction to s Soil Structure p Soil Permeability Romkens et hydrologic processes e g raindrop impact OM Organic matter M Silt al 1997 surface flow roughness topographic or Very fine sand 100 Clay induced and rain water infiltration K is affected by physical chemical and mineralogical soil properties and their interactions and is calculated as an average annual value ton ha h ha MJ mm LS Topography Slope length L which is O slope angle degrees A Slope length McCool et the horizontal distance from the starting ft al 1997 point of the overland flow until deposition or channel formation and slope steepness S the slope gradient effect on soil erosion 12 Factor description Independent parameters Source Dimensionless R rainfall runoff erosivity The effect of j No events per year Erosive rain Renard et al raindrop impact and rate of runoff Intensity in hr 1997 associated with rain of moderately sized storms with occasional large storms MJ mm ha h y P Support practice The runoff reduction Foster et al rate by implementing practices such as 1997 contouring strip cropping terracing and sub surface drainage Dimensionless
116. or effort Yes T No 1 do not know If so please provide the name of the previous effort 136 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Which of the following issues were the main motivations for the landscape initiative Indicate the level of importance of each issue that is trying to be improved with the landscape initiative Very important Important Moderate important No important Enhance food security O O Improve crop productivity Diversify food production Conserve biodiversity Conserve soil or increase soil fertility Stop or reverse natural resource degradation Enhance sustainable land management Reduce conflict among different resource users in the landscape Increase farmer incomes Improve livestock productivity Improve health or nutrition Conserve or increase water quality or water flow Reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture Mitigate climate change or obtain carbon credits Reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events There were other issues that motivated the establishment of the initiative Indicate the level of importance What percentage of the landscape has been directly affected by the initiative s activities programs or policies Yes O What percentage 0 100 E 137 Continental Review Survey LPFN English How many people has the initiative sought to benefit please provide either the number of people benefited or the percent
117. os normativa 124 Declerck F A J Fanzo J Palm C amp Remans R 2011 Ecological approaches to human nutrition Food and Nutrition Bulletin 32 1 S41 S50 Desmet P and G Govers 1996 A GIS procedure for automatically calculating the USLE LS factor on topographically complex landscape units Journal of Soil and Water Conservation vol 51 no S pp 427 433 Dogliotti S Garc a M C Peluffo S Dieste J P Pedemonte A J Bacigalupe G F Rossing W a H 2013 Co innovation of family farm systems A systems approach to sustainable agriculture Agricultural Systems doi 10 1016 j agsy 2013 02 009 Echeverr a S enz S Mena F Pinnock M Ruepert C Solano K Cruz E de la Barata C 2012 Environmental hazards of pesticides from pineapple crop production in the R o Jim nez watershed Caribbean Coast Costa Rica Science of the Total Environment 440 106 114 Estrada Carmona N Harper H Declerck F A J amp Fremier A In review Global sensitivity analysis of RUSLE illustrates importance of cover management across environments in predicting soil erosion rates Geomorphology Estrada Carmona N Hart A K DeClerck F A J Harvey C A amp Milder J C 2014 Integrated landscape management for agriculture rural livelihoods and ecosystem conservation An assessment of experience from Latin America and the Caribbean Landscape and Urban Planning 129 1
118. osion assessment at a military training site Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63 1 1 10 Gardiner E P Meyer J L 2001 Sensitivity of RUSLE to data resolution modeling sediment delivery in the upper little Tennessee river basin In Hatcher K J Ed Water Resources Conference Institute of Ecology University of Georgia Georgia pp 561 565 G mez Delgado F 2002 Evaluaci n de la erosi n potencial y producci n de sedimentos en tres cuencas de Costa Rica Assessment of the potential erosion and sediment production in three Costa Rican watersheds Engineer Degree Costa Rican University Costa Rica Gyssels G Poesen J Bochet E Li Y 2005 Impact of plant roots on the resistance of soils to erosion by water a review Progress in Physical Geography 29 2 189 217 Harper E B Stella J C Fremier A K 2011 Global sensitivity analysis for complex ecological models A case study of riparian cottonwood population dynamics Ecological Applications 21 4 1225 1240 Hoyos N 2005 Spatial modeling of soil erosion potential in a tropical watershed of the Colombian Andes Catena 63 85 108 Lal R 2001 Soil degradation by erosion Land Degradation amp Development 12 6 519 539 Linse S J Mergen D E Smith J L Trlica M J 2001 Upland Erosion under a Simulated Most Damaging Storm Journal of Range Management 54 4 356 Lu D Li G Valladares G S Batistella M 2004 Mapping soil
119. pe classification at a scale of 1 200 000 FAO 1989 The R factor was estimated using the total storm energy E and a maximum 30 minute intensity 130 for each erosive storm i e storms with total accumulated rainfall greater than 13 mm and separated by at least six hours for 148 station years of measurements in 54 meteorological stations of the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity ICE G mez Delgado 2002 InVEST estimates the L and S factors using Desmet and Govers 1996 methodology for the watershed s digital elevation model with a 28 5 m resolution Imbach 2006 Land uses were defined by a 1996 LandSat image classification Pedroni 2003 the most accurate land use classification with the best spatial and thematic resolutions for our analysis to our knowledge The C factor and the crop soil retention values for each the current land use were obtained from RIOS s extensive literature review Vogl et al 2013 The P factor was assumed to be 1 0 for current conditions since no detailed information about the support practices in the watersheds exists But we incorporated the effectiveness of the ideal cropping systems retaining soil by modifying the practices factor P factor The P factor was estimated as one minus the soil retention efficacy for each cropping system The USLE is better at estimating long term average erosion and it only estimates erosion by water sheet and rill Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 Therefore other eros
120. r Fc Fraction of land surface covered by canopy H distance that rain drops fall after striking the canopy ft SC Surface cover b empirical coefficient indicate the effectiveness of surface cover in reducing soil loss Sp Percentage of land area covered by surface cover crop residue rocks cryotogams and other no erodible material that is in direct contact with the soil surface Max Min 1 0 1 0 1 0 05 1 750 345 1 700 0 0 5 0 951 0 00398 0 00199 0 000832 0 00042 1 0 1 0 05 33 0 5 0 07 0 024 100 0 1 C PLU CC SCeS PLU Cf CbeEXP CureBur Cus Bus Cf Cuf The value of Cf for freshly tilled conditions is 1 If the soil is left undisturbed this value decays exponentially to 0 45 over 7 yr or over some other length of time specified by the user HB 703 Based on the RUSLE2 CROP dataset and HB 703 tables Based on the RUSLE2 CROP dataset and HB 703 tables Describe the relative effectiveness of subsurface biomass in reducing erosion The values were calibrated using information from Van Liew and Saxton 1983 values from table 5 and 5d in Agricultural Handbook 537 Wischmeier and Smith 1978 and an extensive data set collected from a broad series of no till experiments hb 703 CC 1 Fc exp 0 1 H HB 703 Data based on the listed crops on the HB 703 SC exp b Sp 0 24 Ru 0 08 Extreme values from the different b values reported by several authors Laflen et al 1980 and Laflen and C
121. r 2012 Node impurity values for each factor were normalized by the sum of the total node impurity and estimated the relative importance of each factor Table 3 R package randomForest 4 6 2 was used to estimate both factor importance metrics Breiman amp Cutler 2012 To 82 visualize the higher order interactions between factors we applied a CART analysis on each dataset With CART we were able to identify the specific factor combinations that generated lower and greater estimates of soil loss R package rpart 3 1 50 Therneau amp Atkinson 2010 Table 3 Description of model efficiency measures and factor parameter importance metrics for both global and local sensitivities analysis Metric LSA GSA Model efficiency ES n M E ean MSR n E M G l n n M M Y R 1 1 _x 10 yal i wg Var M Lor 2 factors parameters _ gt n LLM i Mavg M measured value 1 Perfect model Pang et al 2006 oF thi ej R 0 model results are not ane GLAR oe better than the mean observation E bo a i sated valne ior R 1 model predictions worse the i observation than using the mean Risse et al M yg measured 1993 average value Lost efficiency Estimates the difference between Estimates each tree mean squared error metric the original model efficiency R MSE between the OOB data and 70 of data and a new model efficiency the left after randomly permutating each fac
122. radecerle de antemano por su tiempo y colaboraci n y tambi n me gustar a saber si tiene alguna duda o comentario Presentaci n contacto del TIER 1 De antemano le agradezco por su colaboraci n y participaci n en d as anteriores estuvimos revisando y analizando las diferentes encuestas que fueron llenadas por las diferentes iniciativas en Am rica Latina y seleccionamos la iniciativa XXXX para conocerla m s detalladamente En esta segunda etapa de nuestra b squeda de iniciativas ecoagr colas nos gustar a poder entrevistar a varios actores o l deres del paisaje que tiene buen conocimiento sobre la iniciativa y que ha estado involucrado con la iniciativa durante un buen tiempo Lo ideal ser a si me puede brindar los nombres y tel fonos de otras 5 o 6 personas que usted considera pueden participar en la entrevista y que han estado trabajando en los diferentes componentes como el agropecuario conservaci n calidad de vida de las comunidades gobernanza educaci n etc y o que hace parte de organizaciones locales gobiernos ONG universidades etc ANOTAR CONTACTOS La entrevista La entrevista durar aproximadamente una hora y cubriremos temas similares a la encuesta que ya diligenci pero en m s detalle No dude en interrumpirme o preguntarme si alguna pregunta o concepto no es claro Algunas veces usamos terminolog a que es muy espec fica y que puede ser confusa as que por favor no dude en preguntarme De igual manera
123. ream reservoirs Estrada Carmona and DeClerck 2011 The consistency across databases on most of the soil loss coming from a small portion of the landscape 90 reinforces the need to implement targeted soil conservation interventions where the location and the rate of soil control can be assessed to improve ecosystem service based interventions Fremier et al 2013 Finally the creation of a theoretical dataset might help to provide information about the most important factor interactions and even information at the parameter level particularly in those areas with poor or no site specific data This will help to provide insights on the most important parameters to guide management changes For example our results from the theoretical dataset indicate that the mass density of live and dead roots found in the upper centimeters of soil and the percentage of land area with surface cover as the most important parameters in determining soil loss Multiple studies report similar findings where an increase of the root density and surface cover were demonstrated to be particularly efficient in controlling soil loss Linse et al 2001 Gyssels et al 2005 De Baets et al 2006 7 Conclusion We assessed RUSLE behavior and factor contributions to model uncertainty under different environmental conditions and compared global and local sensitivity analyses The GSA approach is an informative procedure for identifying sources of model uncertainty m
124. relations on GSA results and assess the validity of the results from the theoretical dataset we disaggregated cross correlations in the US and CR datasets by randomly selecting with replacement new estimates from the original datasets Unstructured datasets had the same sample size as their corresponding structured datasets but the factor estimate combinations were different We compared GSA outcomes from the structured and unstructured datasets 4 Methods We conducted three statistical analyses First we tested if there were significant differences in factor distribution and factor mean values across datasets Second we performed a GSA on the US CR and theoretical dataset to assess factor importance and factor interactions determining soil loss We also performed the GSA on the unstructured US and CR datasets to assess the effect of potential cross correlation among factors and validate the results from the Theoretical dataset And finally we performed a LSA on the US dataset to compare the LSA and GSA statistical methods 81 4 1 Statistical Analyses Analysis of variance and mean value comparisons among datasets We tested differences between factor estimates and estimated soil loss across the three datasets We tested factor estimate distributions using an ANOVA using a significance value of p lt 0 001 We tested factor mean value differences using Fisher s Least Significant Difference LSD All analyses were performed in the R
125. res Different numbers of asterisk mean significant differences between mean values Fisher LSD test p value lt 0 05 The estimated US CR and T and Measured USm soil loss A across datasets at the bottom 1 00 10 2500 T E 5 2 0 75 08 z 2000 2 gt a 1500 5 0 50 a 05 e 1000 2 0 25 a 03 2 o 500 x 0 00 lt 0 0 0 7 16 1 00 g 6 A A 2 12 0 75 5 5 5 5 N uN E 4 S 8 S 0 50 E F 3 3 Ta A Y A a 0 25 0 0 00 US CR T 2000 o S 1500 w 1000 xt 500 o 0 0 USmUS CR T USmUS CR T 77 The annual measurements of both soil loss and RUSLE factor estimates were averaged per plot to perform the GSA We used averaged values since the RUSLE is better at predicting long term average values than annual values or isolated events Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 Renard et al 1997 We tested differences in the annual and averaged values to assess the effect that sampling variability among plots sites and within plots of both soil loss and RUSLE factors have on the sensitivity analysis results from the GSA and LSA 3 2 Costa Rica dataset The purpose of this dataset is to understand how RUSLE behaves when applied to conditions outside the data range of the original dataset We estimated RUSLE factors for a set of watersheds in Costa Rica CR using a widely applied methodology for estimating potential soil loss at a watershed scale Yang et al 2003 Hoyos 2005 We performed our
126. rginado le permitimos al entrevistado interpretar la pregunta basado en los grupos que l piensa son marginado dentro del paisaje Si el entrevistado no entiende el concepto o se desv a dar ejemplos Grupos marginados puede incluir minor as tnicas campesinos sin tierra y mujeres Se involucraron a los peque os productores o las asociaciones de productores nota entrevistador incluir si aplica a los gestores forestales de peque a escala del paisaje en la implementaci n de la Iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALIO EN LA PREGUNTA 4 2 Se involucraron a los grandes productores o agronegocios nota entrevistador incluir si aplica a los gestores forestales de gran escala del paisaje en la implementaci n de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALIO EN LA PREGUNTA 4 2 Considera que se debi incluir alg n grupo de actores en la implementaci n de la iniciativa y que no fue incluido Cu les grupos INTERPRETATIVA TODOS 160 SECCION 5 INSTITUCIONES Y GESTION DE LA INICIATIVA Al comienzo de la iniciativa exist an grupos en el paisaje que estaban liderando o facilitando actividades para apoyar el manejo integrado del paisaje p e evaluaciones de paisaje planeaci n procesos multi actores etc Si fue as cu les fueron esos grupos y qu estaban haciendo HECHOS TRIANGULACI N Grupos que exist an aspectos t cnicos p e aspectos sobre el proceso p e c mo los grupos que tip
127. ropics and sub tropics a guide to the development and dissemination of mulching with crop residues and cover crops Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 100 1 17 37 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 03 00150 6 Heineman A Otieno H J Mengich E amp Amadalo B 1997 Growth and yield of eight agroforestry tree species in line plantings in Western Kenya and their effect on maize yields and 170 soil properties Forest Ecology and Management 91 1 103 135 doi 10 1016 S0378 1127 96 03885 6 Kinama J M Stigter C J Ong C K Ng ang a J K amp Gichuki F N 2007 Contour Hedgerows and Grass Strips in Erosion and Runoff Control on Sloping Land in Semi Arid Kenya Arid Land Research and Management 21 1 1 19 doi 10 1080 15324980601074545 Lin C Tu S Huang J amp Chen Y 2009 The effect of plant hedgerows on the spatial distribution of soil erosion and soil fertility on sloping farmland in the purple soil area of China Soil and Tillage Research 105 2 307 312 doi 10 1016 still 2009 01 001 Neupane R P amp Thapa G B 2001 Impact of agroforestry intervention on soil fertility and farm income under the subsistence farming system of the middle hills Nepal Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 84 2 157 167 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 00 00203 6 Niemeyer R J Fremier A K Heinse R Ch vez W amp Declerck F A J 2013 Woody Vegetation Increases Saturated Hydraulic Condu
128. s among others Pagiola et al 2008 Blackman amp Woodward 2010 These consumers may demand a higher provision of ES at this local scale such as water quality Improving water quality will require the provision of ES not only from the forested areas or spread trees but also from a proper agroecosystem management and planning ICE previous efforts in the upper middle Reventazon watershed such as raising awareness trainings nurseries to foment agroforestry and technological transfer i e vermicomposting or biodigestors improved in agricultural lands the management of natural resources Sims amp Sinclair 2008 Still the benefits of those efforts in terms of the reduction of sediment loads and pollution in the reservoirs are marginal PREVEDA 2008 Marginal benefits on reducing sediment yield may be due to a poor monitoring strategy of the on site and off site effects of the efforts to a spatiotemporal lag e g Fremier et al 2013 or to a low budget allocation Low budget allocation 1 5 million in our 120 analysis indicates low rate of ES provisioning less than 2 increase on soil reduction regardless the targeting strategy Yet these investments might be profitable by the hydropower company as they not only reduce soil transport into the reservoir but also for public relations When considering higher investments the amount of soil retained by investments in ideal cropping systems using the RIOS amp C S method might be enoug
129. sat Thematic Mapper data using modified prior probabilities in large and complex landscapes International Journal of Remote Sensing 24 1 91 113 doi 10 1080 01431160110115005 Perfecto I Vandermeer J amp Paradigm A N C 2008 Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems a new conservation paradigm Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134 173 200 doi 10 1196 annals 1439 011 Pfaff A amp Robalino J 2012 Protecting forests biodiversity and the climate predicting policy impact to improve policy choice Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28 1 164 179 doi 10 1093 oxrep grs012 PREVDA 2008 Plan de cuenca del R o Reventaz n Parismina p 196 San Jose Costa Rica ProDUS 2011 Base te rica para la construcci n de planes reguladores en la cuenca alta y media del R o Reventaz n No Tomo II p 312 San Jos Costa Rica Ram rez L Alvarado A Pujol R amp Brenes L G 2008 Caracterizaci n f sica de la cuenca media del r o Reventado Cartago Costa Rica Agronom a Costarricense 32 2 73 92 Raudes M amp Sagastume N 2009 Manual de Conservaci n de Suelos Programa para la Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas de Am rica Central p 75 El Zamorano Honduras Robalino J amp Pfaff A 2013 Ecopayments and Deforestation in Costa Rica A Nationwide Analysis of PSA s Initial Years Land Economics 89 3 432 448 Robalino J Pfaff A S nchez
130. ted Valuation of Environmental Services InVEST We used the Tradeoffs and the Resources Investment Optimization System RIOS to test our three targeting strategies 1 RIOS default optimization 2 RIOS constrained to current land uses in conflict with soil legislation and 3 RIOS constrained to erosive crops and crops on steep slopes The tested budget included the lowest budget allocated in the watershed for soil conservation programs in the past up to the maximum amount it will be requiered to implement ideal cropping systems across all the agricultural land Our results indicate that targeting efforts on erosive crops or crops on steep slopes will likely provide the highest cost effectiveness investment scenario or in other words the highest soil retention per dollar spent Under this particular targeting strategy investments in ideal cropping systems may be more cost effective than dredging sediment from the downstream 97 reservoirs given our modeling assumptions Our modeling strategy offers a conservative and simple but robust first approximation to a methodology that can be adapted and modeled iteratively to assess ES provisioning due to changes in agroecosystems management 2 Introduction Agroecosystems production and sustainability along with forest conservation should be top priorities for Costa Rica Hall et al 2000 Approximately 35 of Costa Rica land for food production has poor management practices Vignola et al 20
131. ted stakeholders Please check all that apply Active participation designing the Active participation implementing landscape initiative the landscape initiative N A Local farmers or producers association E O Womens association Indigenous group Group representing rural landless people Local government leaders village leaders mayors chiefs etc Government extension officers Other local or district government offices or staff State or provincial government offices or staff National ministries or national level government staff Local non governmental organization NGO Sub national or national NGO International NGO Local or national university or research center Foreign or international university or research center In country agribusiness e g large plantation or ranch owners agricultural land investors etc Foreign agribusiness e g large plantation or ranch owners agricultural land investors etc Logging forest products industry Mining oil gas or other industry Bi lateral or multi lateral donor s International organization focused on agriculture 143 Continental Review Survey LPFN English International organization focused on conservation Other please specify the name and if the organization is local national or international Which sectors have been directly involved in the initiative Direct involvement could include for example providing funding or sta
132. ther factor or parameter estimation influences model sensitivity The results of this study provide a description of model sensitivity within and amongst factor estimates across different environmental conditions and can be used to focus parameterization efforts for future applications of RUSLE The results are particularly important in data poor areas where parameterization of physically based models is limited 3 Data preparation and description In order to understand RUSLE sensitivity to parameterization we conducted a GSA on two datasets parameterized at different scales plot versus watershed using different methods ground collected data versus geographic systems proxies GIS and covering different environmental conditions agriculture in level versus mountainous regions We also created a synthetic dataset with the widest range of factor and parameter estimates We performed a GSA of RUSLE on three datasets with different factor estimates to 1 rank factor importance in predicting soil loss 2 identify specific factor interactions predicting greater and lower soil losses and 3 compare differences between LSA and GSA in assessing factor importance These datasets represent the original data used to calibrate the model and environmental conditions where RUSLE is actively being applied 3 1 US dataset The purpose of the US dataset is to understand how RUSLE behaves when applied at the plot level where the model was originally calibrat
133. timation for both models is relatively straightforward at different scales and includes topography L and S factor soil erodibility K factor cover management C factor support practices P factor and rainfall runoff erosivity R factor Renard et al 1997 Bryan 2000 Table 2 Two main limitations of empirical models are 1 soil loss is a stochastic process with greater variability for soil losses of lower magnitudes Nearing et al 1999 Nearing 2000 and 2 processes that drive soil loss vary with spatial scale plot and watershed and location Lal 2001 Table 2 RUSLE factor description units and reference Each factor parameters used to construct the theoretical dataset Factor description Independent parameters Source Long term average soil loss A tha yr Renard et al A C K L S R P 1997 C cover management Crop type and Sp Percentage of land area covered by Yoder et al management practices such as the impacts surface cover Bur Mass density of live 1997 of previous cropping and management the and dead roots found in the upper inch of protection offered to the soil surface by soil Ib acre in b effectiveness of vegetative canopy erosion reduction due to surface cover Bus mass density of surface cover and surface roughness incorporated surface residue in the upper Dimensionless but less erosive crops or inch of soil lb acre in Cf surface soil land cover have smaller values c
134. tor estimated after replacing a factor value at a time MSEs are averaged over all values by its mean value trees and normalized by the standard deviation of the differences Breiman amp Cuttler 2012 Node impurity NA Is the decrease on the residual sum of squared metric errors RSS after splitting on a factor RSS values are averaged over all tress Each factor s relative importance was standardized by dividing it by the total RSS Comparison of LSA and GSA For the LSA we used the methodology proposed by Risse et al 1993 LSA consists of estimating the Nash and Sutcliffe 1970 statistic We compared both model efficiencies pseudo R estimated from the RF and LSA Table 3 The LSA assesses the approximate contribution of each factor to the model predictability by estimating the loss of model efficiency The loss of model efficiency value is estimated as the difference between the Nash Sutcliffe statistic using all original factor values and the estimated Nash Sutcliffe statistic after one factor s values are replaced by the factor s mean value this process is repeated for each factor Risse et al 1993 We compared the loss of model efficiency values from LSA and RF The US dataset is the only dataset 83 with predicted and measured soil loss and therefore is the only dataset that provided information about model efficiency and the loss of efficiency metric 5 Results Global sensitivity analyses across all
135. uation RUSLE U S Department of Agriculture Agriculture Handbook No 703 Washington D C pp 404 Risse L M Nearing M A Nicks A D Laflen J M 1993 Error assessment in the Universal Soil Loss Equation Soil Science Society of America Journal 57 3 825 833 Saltelli A Tarantola S Chan K 1999 A Quantitative Model Independent Method for Global Model Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output Technometrics 41 1 39 56 Schuler J Sattler C 2010 The estimation of agricultural policy effects on soil erosion An application for the bio economic model MODAM Land Use Policy 27 61 69 Schwilch G Hessel R amp Verzandvoort S Eds 2012 Desire for Greener Land Options for sustainable land management in drylands Bern Switzerland adn Wageningen The Netherlands SRIC World Soil Information and CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation Retrieved from https www wocat net fileadmin user_upload documents Books DESIRE_BOOK_ low_resolution pdf Shi Z H Ai L Fang N F Zhu H D 2012 Modeling the impacts of integrated small watershed management on soil erosion and sediment delivery A case study in the Three Gorges Area China Journal of Hydrology 438 439 156 167 Sobol I 2001 Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 55 271 280 Therneau T M Atkinson B 2011 Package
136. uentra el origen de la referencia We performed an analysis of variance ANOVA to test differences in soil retention efficacy between practices across slope ranges The ANOVA indicated that agroforestry and agroforestry combined with hedgerow have significantly lower soil retention efficacy 36 and 43 respectively p value 0 042 There were no significant differences between the other practices and at the different slopes categories We use a conservative method to estimate the soil retention efficacy of each soil conservation practices and ideal cropping systems due to the high variability among experiments and the lack of clear trends We used the minimum reported value across the 105 observations for each practice Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia We assumed that the interaction and retention efficacy among soil conservation practices in the ideal cropping system was additive and therefore we estimated the total soil retention efficacy of each ideal system as the sum of the minimum reported soil retention for each soil conservation practice Figure 16 Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia In this study we only assessed soil retention as an ES however vegetative practices can also improve water regulation nutrient cycling and biological control among other ES at the plot scale Comerford et al 2013 At larger scales increase forest cover can improve habitat connectivity Mart nez Salinas 1
137. ueremos que el entrevistado identifique los retos problemas m s importantes no una lista inservible Si se ve que el entrevistado se esta desviando hacerlo que mencione m ximo tres o cuatro de los retos claves 1 2 3 4 Cu les cree usted son los objetivos m s importantes de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador De nuevo puede haber solo un objetivo o varios Si el entrevistado piensa que hubo varios objetivos d jelo listarlos y an telos Pero aseg rese al final que tiene claro los tres o cuatro objetivos m s importantes ya que se preguntar m s adelante sobre la efectividad de la iniciativa en relaci n a esos objetivos 1 2 3 4 Cu les fueron las 3 o 4 actividades o inversiones principales de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Queremos obtener dos cosas de esta pregunta La primera es entender qu hizo la iniciativa y si esto incluy un conjunto de actividades balanceadas para alcanzar los m ltiples objetivos de la iniciativa Por lo tanto la pregunta debe ser abierta para dejar que la persona mencione las 3 o 4 principales actividades inversiones o intervenciones a pesar del sector u objetivo en la que esta caiga Lo Segundo es entender si la iniciativa realmente incluy actividades relacionadas a la agricultura cultivos ganado conservaci n medios de vidas rurales y fortalecimiento institucional inclusive si el entrevistado no identific
138. ugh excluded from our analysis all the transaction costs associated with implementation we focused on establishment and maintenance cost of the soil conservation practices 3 Methodology 3 1 Study area The upper and middle part of the Reventazon watershed has an area of 139 644 ha and generates approximately 38 of the national energy 25 of the consumed water in San Jos and 11 of the agricultural products for exportation ProDUS 2011 Our analysis covers the drainage area of three of the most important dams within the Reventazon Cachi Angostura and Birris Table 4 Figure 15 In 2000 the government created legislation Law N 8023 2000 to regulate and promote the sustainable management of the watershed due to its importance to the national economy The upper and middle part of the watershed developed a management plan to improve local capacity risk management environmental education and soil conservation particularly on highly erosive basins PREVEDA 2008 These efforts to reduce soil loss have had only marginal impacts and the watershed still has high level of erosion and pollution PREVEDA 2008 101 Table 4 Characteristics of the assessed dams in the Reventazon watershed Assessment accuracy based on the comparison between the reported sediment yield to each reservoirs and the estimated exported sediment with InVEST Starting Current Capacity Removal Sediment yield InVEST Accuracy Assessment production cost Exported
139. untas basadas en HECHOS en relaci n a las cuales es posible que algunos as entrevistados as no tengan la informaci n completa o precisa y entonces nos podr an proveer una respuesta enga osa La entrevistadora debe empezar haciendo la pregunta al primer entrevistado a que se considere conocedor del asunto Si hay duda respecto a la confiabilidad de la respuesta la entrevistadora debe continuar haciendo la pregunta a entrevistados as adicionales hasta que ella est satisfecha y con informaci n consistente y precisa PREGUNTE A TODOS AS esas son generalmente preguntas INTERPRETATIVAS cuyo objetivo es comprender c mo distintos actores perciben la iniciativa y sus resultados Tales cuestiones deben ser hechas a todos as los as entrevistados as Objetivo cerca de 15 preguntas no m s que 20 Tama o de la muestra de paisajes seleccionar 12 14 paisajes de alta prioridad que estamos seguros de incluir adem s de 6 8 adicionales que intentaremos incluir si tenemos tiempo Intensidad de la muestra de entrevistados por paisaje m nimo de 4 m ximo de 6 Entrevistados as deben representar distintos sectores niveles y perspectivas Debe haber al menos alguna representaci n del sector de conservaci n y del sector de agricultura Entrevistados as deben incluir al menos una organizaci n local una representaci n rural o de comunidades y cuando aplique un actor externo donante organizaci n nacional o internacional etc para
140. ured and estimated sediment loads for the remaining six basins was R 0 4 Importantly however given that our analysis focused on model sensitivity and not accuracy we consider this level of correlation between predicted and observed sufficient to continue the analysis 79 Figure 11 Comparison of the average sediment load estimated and measured at the outlet in eight basins of the Pacuare and Reventaz n watersheds in Costa Rica Underestimated sediment loads in basins represented with a triangle are due to other erosive processes not captured by RUSLE i e gravel mining landslides Line of perfect fit N Ww o o o Estimated t ha y de o 0 10 20 30 40 Measured tha y1 3 3 Theoretical dataset The purpose of the theoretical dataset is to evaluate model uncertainty given the large possible range of factor and parameter estimates We used the reported maximum and minimum values for each parameter and estimated each RUSLE factor according to the equations from the Agriculture Handbooks 537 and 703 Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 Renard et al 1997 respectively APPENDIX D The ranges of the parameters in this dataset are based on maximum and minimum values corresponding to a physical process or plot measurements Supplementary material I This is the only dataset that provided us with information at the parameter level Table 2 APPENDIX D Here parameters were used to estimate each one of the six factors of the

chapter 3: global sensitivity analysis of rusle illustrates importance of

Contents

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents