Conversion of arable land to grasslands
Measure ID
ID to be confirmed
Primary
Addressed
Pressure Soil erosion/Diffuse Nitrogen Pollution/ Diffuse Phosphorus Pollution/ Diffuse
Pesticide Pollution
Secondary
Addressed
Pressure 
Description
Loss of biodiversity

Could contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation

Flood risk
Arable conversion to grassland can be used at a small field scale to take high
risk areas prone to erosion and loss of nutrients/pesticides out of production
and turn them into permanent or non-permanent grassland. Ideally, such a land
use change includes a reduction of nutrient and pesticide inputs. Within the
scheme of agri-environmental measures, this type of land conversion is nonpermanent as it is only valid for a given period (from 5-9 years) after which time
the area can again be used as arable land.
Converted areas include steep slopes with light soils and fields prone to
flooding as well as those with fracturated soils or soils which are not very deep
(i.e. only 15-30cm) and are therefore at high risk of leaching. Areas near water
courses but which are not flooded are also relevant for this measure,
particularly because they are often drained. This type of land use change can
involve various techniques, such as spontaneous succession, sowing seed
mixtures, transfer of plant material, topsoil removal and/or transfer and
techniques to improve species richness (including planting hay from
surrounding areas, grazing by large herbivores and mowing (Mann and Tischew,
2010; Török et al, 2011).
Type of Measure
Technical measure
Water / Soil category/
 Coastal waters
 Transitional waters
 Lakes
 Rivers
 Lowland rivers
 Highland rivers
 Alpine rivers
 Groundwater
type
Environmental
 Hydrological effects
effectiveness related to
Targeted grassland restoration has the potential to mitigate threats from floods
ecological
status
or
by restoring a drainage basin’s hydrological cycle and restoring the balance
potential of water
between rainfall and evapotranspiration (Gerla, 2007). Such conversions result
in a pronounced reduction of the surface water runoff response of the
1
watershed in question as well as an increase in subsurface storage (Kovar and
Vassova, 2010). Wet grasslands in particular can serve as a buffer zone for
agricultural runoff (Manchester, 1999).
Measures in Niedersachsen (DE) and Umbria (IT) have had positive impacts on
soil quality and erosion, particularly the use of arable set-aside and reversion of
arable land to grassland.

Physicochemical effects
In converting arable land to permanent or non-permanent grassland, the loads
of nutrients, pesticides, sediments and organic substances can be lowered (e.g.
Fezzi et al, 2008; Newell Price et al, 2011). This occurs, for example, as a result
of the decreased inputs of N and reduced or eliminated pesticide use as well as
N uptake by the continuous vegetative cover and immobilisation into
accumulating soil organic matter (Cuttle et al., 2007). Converting cropland into
permanent grassland also avoids the frequent cultivations responsible for
stimulating the mineralisation of ogranic matter and increasing the level of NO3
available for leaching (Newell Price et al, 2011). Permanent grasslands are
moreover recognized as a measure to mitigate added atmospheric CO2 as soil
organic-carbon stocks (Don et al., 2009).
Furthermore, the permanent vegetative cover of grasslands will reduce soil
erosion (Newell Price et al, 2011). By taking small areas prone to erosion out of
production, losses of sediment and associated P can also be reduced (Cuttle et
al., 2007).
Effects on WFD quality
elements
Based on literature and
case studies
Biological Quality Elements
Certainty of Effects
 Fishes
 Benthic macroinvertebrates
 Macroalgae
 Phytoplankton
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
unknown
Physico-chemical quality elements
Certainty of effects
 Pesticides
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
 others (e.g.organic biodegradable,
temperature)
high
high
high
unknown
Hydro-morphological quality elements
Certainty of effects
2
Quantitative
improvement
hydrological regime
 flow capacity and dynamics
 connection to groundwater
unknown
unknown
continuity – nutrients, sediment, species
 upstream continuity
 downstream continuity
 river-floodplain connection
unknown
unknown
unknown
morphology - bed, banks and riparian zone
 composition and diversity of substrate
 width/depth variation
 diversity of structure
unknown
unknown
unknown
Estimations of the effect of cropland to grassland conversion suggest that given
a five and 25 year 24-hour rainfall recurrence, the average reduction in peak
run-off will range from 50 to 55% and 40 to 45%, respectively, for the basin in
question; however, accurate predictions require site-specific analyses for
specific watersheds (Gerla, 2007).
Using a model, the effects on the local water balance from converting 10% of
arable land into permanent grassland were simulated for a catchment in the
Czech Republic; the results are shown below:
Scenario simulation of water balance of the Němčický Stream catchment (in mm)
Water balance component
(mm)
Actual land use
Scenario land use
2001
2001
2003
2001
2002
2003
Precipitation (SP)
Total runoff (STF)
Surface runoff (from STF)
(SOF)
Base flow (BF)
Actual evapotranspiration
(SAE)
Change in unsaturated zone
storage (ASM)
Change in groundwater
storage (GWS)
457.8
87.3
38.2
521.6
63.9
58.3
325.8
72.4
28.5
457.8
82.6
31.8
521.6
58.5
43.0
325.8
69.8
26.5
49.1
382.7
5.6
358.7
43.9
366.0
50.8
382.9
15.5
359.4
43.3
366.0
-116.6
-52.3
-127.7
-53.8
125.4
104.7
152.6
15.4
119.1
111.4
169.0
17.7
Change
in
storage (DW)
-11.8
100.3
-112.3
-7.7
103.7
-110.0
subsurface
Source: Kovar and Vassova (2010)
In converting arable land to grassland, N loads in the relevant catchment were
found to decrease by 22% and N concentrations by 21% (Fezzi et al., 2008). An
additional study indicates that converting to ungrazed grassland would reduce
NO3 losses by around 90%; annual losses on converted land would typically be
<5 kg N/ha. The findings of Cuttle et al. (2007) were consisting with these
3
results, estimating the reduction in nitrate losses to be >95% and annual losses
to be about 2 kg N/ha of converted land; however, if extensive grazing takes
place on the converted land, losses can reach 20 kg N/ha/year. Additionally,
ammonium and nitrite losses to water would be reduced and direct and indirect
N2O and NH3 emissions would decrease by around 90% (Newell Price et al,
2011). With regards to P, converting arable land without grazing corresponded
to a 50% reduction in the loss of P, and adding extensive grazing resulted in a
42% reduction (Cuttle et al., 2007).
Additional effects were found for energy use and carbon storage as well as soil
erosion. More specifically, energy use would be reduced and carbon storage in
the grassland soils would be increased, initially in the range of 1.9 to 7.0
tCO2e/ha/year; these increases would however not likely be sustained over the
longer-term (>50 years) as a new soil carbon equilibrium level would be
reached (Newell Price et al, 2011). Finally, in Umbria (IT), organic farming
techniques have been found to reduce soil erosion on average by 6,8 ton/ha/a.
Conversion of arable to grassland is estimated to have resulted in a reduction of
30/ton/ha/a.
Certainty of effectiveness
High
Negative side effects of Regarding the objective of conservation and considering the economic aims of
measure
converting to grassland, high levels of biodiversity are ususally confined to less
productive areas generally having a low carrying capacity for livestock and
therefore low marginal returns. This means that the “management of
grasslands to maintain high biodiversity is generally incompatible with
management for maximum economic profit” (European Commission, 2011: 16).
Research gaps related to Given the complex interactions of factors during grassland succession,
effectiveness
additional research is necessary on the functional attributes of “seminatural
grasslands, as well as the methods required to restore localised types, novel
nutrient depletion techniques, the ‘phased’ introduction of desirable but poorperforming species and the performance of different genotypes during
grassland restoration,” (Walker et al, 2004: 1).
Environmental effects not Converting cropland into permanent grassland is widely acknowledged as a
related to water
measure to mitigate added atmospheric CO2 as soil organic-carbon (SOC)
stocks. In fact, SOC stocks can increase by 19% by converting arable land to
grassland (e.g. Ostle et al, 2009), thereby sequestering an average of 332 kg C
ha–1 y–1 for a limited time period of a few decades (Don et al, 2009). In France,
the average difference between the two land types was estimated to be 25 t C
ha–1 for 0–30 cm soil depth, with higher stocks in grasslands (Don et al, 2009).
Soil carbon stocks in grasslands can be increased by several measures, including
reducing grazing intensity, increasing grassland productivity, managing species
for enhanced carbon storage, and reducing lime and N fertilizer additions (Ostle
et al, 2009).
4
A significant reduction in soil C/N ration was identified over a course of 8 years
in grass-arable rotations, regardless of sward type and the proportion of
grassland in the rotation (Eriksen, 2008). In another study, trajectories between
30-60 years were used for conversion to grassland from arable land in
Germany. Here, C/N ratios between 11-12 and an increase of soil C from 53 to
64 t ha−1 and soil N from 4.8 to 5.5 t ha−1 were calculated; younger grassland
showed even higher C and N soil contents of around 60 t ha−1 for soil C and 6 t
ha−1 for soil N, respectively (Breuer et al, 2006).
Regarding the vegetation level, the ecological effects of conversion are highly
dependent on the intensity of the former arable land management (e.g. the
nutrient balance and seed bank) as well as on the initial conditions of the
grassland succession (e.g. seed mixture) (Perner and Malt, 2003). That being
said, using grazing with large herbivores on former arable land enables the
successive development of species-rich grasslands and can enhance the
colonization of native species (Mann and Tischew, 2010). In a Slovakian
demonstration trial, restoration of grasslands via the transfer of seed and plant
material as dry and green hay to the receptor site resulted in a transfer of
22/26 target species – an 84.6% successful transmission rate (Martincová et al,
2011).
Grasslands additionally offer recreational benefits to humans as they allow
increased access that is not necessarily offered by agricultural land uses
(Martincová et al, 2011).
Time Scale to become While extensive cutting and grazing management facilitate diversification and
effective
re-colonisation on former arable soils, the rates of re-assembly of plant
communities with an affinity for existing semi-natural grasslands are generally
slow (Walker et al, 2004). However, ‘‘nutrient stripping’’ and sowing on such exarable land areas with diverse seed mixtures has been shown to result in a
rapid development of species-rich swards (Walker et al, 2004).
In most cases, converting arable to permanent grassland also has rapid effects
on losses of NO3 in drainage waters due to the removal of cultivations that
frequently take place under arable cropping (Newell Price et al, 2011). In terms
of phosphorous, however, areas which were previously intensively fertilized are
not likely to have significant reductions in the leaching of soluble P until at least
10 years have passed because there are effectively no nutrient offtakes in
grazed grass/livestock products; a more immediate effect is the reduction of P
losses in surface run-off (Cuttle et al, 2007; Newell Price et al, 2011).
Regarding pH, the level tends to decrease with increases in a grassland’s age
due to the lingering influences of former agricultural practices on cropland,
such as liming (Breuer et al, 2006).
Estimated Operation Costs
The sustainability of this nitrate reduction measure creates a high level of costeffectiveness (Fezzi et al, 2008). According to one report, the cost effectiveness
5
(given by the ratio of catchment aggregate economic impact to the reduction in
N mean concentration at the catchment outlet) for conversion to grassland was
-4.8 £/mg [-5.9 €/mg] (Fezzi et al, 2008).
Estimated total costs
Newell Price et al (2011) estimate the total costs for various farming systems as
follows; the costs are based on a reduction in cropped area (assumed to be 10%
of all arable land) and loss of gross margin (as fixed costs stay the same):
Total cost for farm Dairy
system (£/farm)
Annual
200
Source: Newell Price et al (2011)
Grazing
low
200
Mixed
2,200
Comb
crops
7,500
Comb/
roots
35,000
Hort
9,500
According to Hoving (2005), grassland renovation is a relatively expensive
activity; however, completing a cost/benefit analysis is difficult given that
financial benefits are more complicated to appraise. Nevertheless, the extent of
measures needed to ensure the desired water levels will be a major influencing
factor on overall costs incurred (Manchester, 1999).
Funding options
Funding for the measure is available in Rural Development Plans.
The average payment rate for the conversion of arable land to grassland as an
environmental land use change is currently €313 per ha with the minimum rate
of €101 per ha in Hungary and a maximum of €733 per ha in the UK (European
Commission, 2011).
Social
aspects
implementation
constraints
and An evaluation conducted by the European Commission on measures applied to
agriculture showed low farmer interest. This might be explained by the fact that
many of the measures designed to save water call for substantial changes in
farming practices. For instance, in Umbria (Italy), there was very little uptake of
measures involving conversion of arable to grassland (European Commission,
2005).
Case studies/ best practice Arable Reversion to Grassland Support Scheme, Scotland
examples
Driving force
The quality of Scotland's water environment is generally good, but many of
Scotland's river water bodies are at risk of not meeting the Water Framework
Directive (WFD) objectives due to diffuse water pollution, principally from
agriculture and forestry.
Impact
The project will provide benefits to water, and potentially to soil quality and
biodiversity.
Project description
6
The aim of this option is to convert problem areas within arable fields that are
prone to flooding, run-off and/or erosion to permanent grassland. The grass
sward must be established by sowing a suitable mix of grass seed, which may
include one or more species of nectar-feeding plant, such as red clover, into a
sterile seedbed. A normal medium to long term grass ley mixture would be
suitable provided that it has a component of seeds of flowering plants. Once
the sward is established, it must be maintaind for 5 years without applying lime,
fertilisers or pesticides or being cultivated.
Project effects
Arable reversion to grassland will reduce nitrate leaching, soil erosion risk and
the transport of sediment and associated phosphate to watercourses as well as
have associated biodiversity benefits. The permanent vegetation cover
minimises the erosion of soil particles and thus the loss of P in surface run-off.
Country, river
Scotland
Costs
Types of costs include: (1) fences, gates and gate removal; (2) capital works
required for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Natura features; and
(3) renewable energy powered pumps for water troughs.
For 5 years, £240.74 [€295] per hectare is paid for the conversion of grassland
and £207 [€253] is paid per hectare for management.
Source:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/RuralPriorities/Options
/Arablereversiongrassland
Use of protection zones to restore contaminated groundwater, Denmark
Driving force
Given that over 99% of Denmark's drinking water supply derives from the
nation's naturally pure groundwater, protection of the groundwater resource
from agricultural and industrial contamination is a top priority. Agricultural use
of nitrate fertilizers have the potential to deteriorate the quality of the
groundwater, as is the case in Aarhus County. Here, more than 100 of the 600
waterworks have been closed due to nitrate contamination. In the 1980s, the
nitrate content of the drinking water increased so much that action was needed
to ensure compliance with the EU contamination standards for groundwater.
Impact
Protection zones can function to restore contaminated groundwater and
ensure pure groundwater. Additionally, permanent grassland can be used as a
7
tool to reduce nitrate leaching rapidly and effectively.
Project description
This sustainable water supply project is the first in Danish history to use
protection zones to safeguard groundwater from the effects of agricultural
production. In 1989, an inner protection zone with permanent grassland was
established around the abstraction wells in which the application of nitrogen
fertilizer was prohibited; an additional outer protection zone extending out to a
radius of 300 metres was also created in which the use of nitrogen fertilizer was
strictly regulated at low levels.
Project effects
After 1 year, the nitrate concentration in the new groundwater formed under
the grassland remained around 1 mg/l. After 5 years, the pure groundwater
reached the water table and, after ten years, the upper meters of the
groundwater underneath the inner protection zone became completely pure.
Country, river
Denmark
Costs
Solution (1986 prices)
Protection zones
Monitoring
Water treatment
Import of water by tanker
Import of water by pipeline
Establishment
EUR 27,000
EUR 53,000
EUR 270,000
EUR 9,000
EUR 480,000
Annual running cost
EUR 300
EUR 11,000
EUR 27,000
EUR 35,000
EUR 53,000
Source: Thomsen and Thorling (2003); Thomsen (ND)
8
Reference/ Literature
Cuttle, S.P., Macleod, C.J.A., Chadwick, D.R., Scholefield, D., Haygarth, P.M.,
Newell-Price, P., Harris, D., Shepherd, M.A., Chambers, B.J., Humphrey, R.
(2007). An inventory of methods to control diffuse water pollution from
agriculture (DWPA): User Manual. Prepared as part of Defra Project ES0203.
Breuer, L., Huisman, J.A., Keller, T., Frede, H.G. (2006). Impact of a conversion
from cropland to grassland on C and N storage and related soil properties:
Analysis of a 60-year chronosequence. Goederma 133: 6-18.
Don, A., Scholten, T., Schulze, E.D. (2009). Conversion of cropland into
grassland: Implications for soil organic-carbon stocks in two soils with different
texture. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172: 53-62.
Eriksen, J., Askegaard, M., Soegaard, K. (2008). Residual effect and nitrate
leaching in grass-arable rotations: effect of grassland proportion, sward type
and fertilizer history. Soil Use and Management 24: 373-382.
European Commission (2011). SEC(2011) 1153 Final/2. Commission Staff
Working Paper – Impact Assessment Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020
Annex 2C. Brussels, 20.10.2011.
European Commission (2005). Agri-environment Measures – Overview on
General Principles, Types of Measures and Application, DG for Agriculture and
Rural
Development,
Unit
G-4.
Available
online:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/agrienv/rep_en.pdf
Fezzi, C. Hutchins, M. Rigby, D., Bateman, I.J., Posen, P., Hadley, D., DeflandreVlandas, A. (2008). Integrated assessment of WFD nitrate reduction measures.
CSERGE Working Paper ECM 08-02.
Gerla, P. (2007). Estimating the effect of cropland to prairie conversion on peak
storm run-off. Restoration Ecology 15 (4): 720-730.
Hoving, I.E. (2005). Economy of grassland renovation: a model approach. In:
Land use systems in grassland dominated regions, Proceedings of the 20th
General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Lüzern, Swiss, 21-24
June 2004. - Grassland Science in Europe 9 (2005). - p. 544 - 546. Zürich:
Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Förderung des Futterganes (AGFF), 2005 - ISBN
3728129402.
Kovar, P., Vassova, D. (2010). Impact of arable land to grassland conversion on
the vegetation-period water balance of a small agricultural catchment
(Nemcicky Stream). Soil and Water Res 5 (4): 128-138.
Manchester, S.J., McNally, S., Treweek, J.R., Sparks, T.H., Mountford, J.O.
(1999). The cost and practicality of techniques for the reversion of arable land
9
to lowland wet grassland – an experimental study and review. Journal of
Environmental Management 55: 91-109.
Mann, S., Tischew, S. (2010). Restoration of species-rich grasslands on former
arable land by spontaneous colonization, hay transfer, and with megaherbivore
grazing. Proceedings 7th European Conference on Ecological Restoration.
Avignon, France, 23-27.08.2010.
Martincová J., Kizeková M., Čunderlík J., Ondrášek Ľ., Pollák Š. (2011).
Establishment of species-rich grasslands on arable land. Grassland Science in
Europe, Vol. 16.
Newell Price, JP; Harris, D; Taylor, M; Williams, JR; Anthony, SG; Duethmann, D;
Gooday, RD; Lord, EI; Chambers, BJ; Chadwick, DR; Misselbrook, TH (2011). An
inventory of mitigation methods and guide to their effects on diffuse water
pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and ammonia emissions from agriculture.
Prepared as part of Defra Project WQ0106.
Ostle, N.G., Levy, P.E., Evans, C.D., Smith, P. (2009). Review: UK land use and
soil carbon sequestration. Land Use Policy 265: 5274-5283.
Perner, J., Malt, S. (2003). Assessment of changing agricultural land use:
response of vegetation, ground-dwelling spiders and beetles to the conversion
of arable land into grassland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98: 169181.
Thomsen, R (ND). Protection zones and land management to restore
contaminated groundwater on the island of Tuno. Danish Ministry of the
Environment: Danish Action Plan for promotion of eco-efficient technologies.
Available at: www.ecoinnovation.dk/english.
Thomsen, R. and L. Thorling (2003), Use of protection zones and land
management restore contaminated groundwater in Denmark, Eos Trans. AGU,
84(7), 63, doi:10.1029/2003EO070005.
Török. P: Vida, E; Deak, B; Lengyel, S; Tothmeresz, B (2011). Grassland
restoration on former croplands in Europe: an assessment of applicability of
techniques and costs. Biodivers Conserv 20: 2311-2332.
Walker, K.J., Stevens, P.A., Stevens, D.P., Mountford, J.O., Manchester, S.J.,
Pywell, R.F. (2004). The restoration and re-creation of species-rich lowland
grassland on land formerly managed for intensive agriculture in the UK.
Biological Conservation 119: 1-18.
10