El olivar andaluz y sus transformaciones recientes

Abstract

INTRODUCCIÓNCon anterioridad al crecimiento económico y tecnológico que se precipita en la segunda mitad del siglo XX, la agricultura española era reconocible por su diversidad productiva, el carácter extensivo de los aprovechamientos, la importancia de las cosechas cerealistas en secano o la distribución de los bienes a cortas distancias. En ese contexto, la olivicultura tradicional se basaba en principios de economía orgánica y se aplicaban estrategias como las siguientes: trabajo humano intensivo; empleo del ganado como pieza básica en tanto que fuerza de trabajo y producción de estiércol; utilización de variedades adecuadas a las condiciones ecológicas locales y manejo inteligente de los reducidos e irregulares aportes pluviométricos (disminución de escorrentías, limitación de la evaporación por capilaridad, eliminación de competencia vegetal, uso de amplios marcos de plantación, etc.). Era habitual y acusada, en todo caso, la alternancia de buenas y malas cosechas (por ser el olivo planta vecera), asumida como tributo inevitable de un sistema sostenido en el tiempo pero limitado desde el punto de vista productivo (Naredo Pérez, 1983). El sistema fue rentable hasta que los costes de recolección, el mayor gasto que afrontaban las

Estimation of Soil Loss Tolerance in Olive Groves as an Indicator of Sustainability: The Case of the Estepa Region (Andalusia, Spain)

“…The PDO of Estepa, where Soil Loss Tolerance Index postulated for olive groves (SLTIog) was applied, presented two types of olive grove management. The most widespread is integrated management, with a predominantly rainfed regime and a limited number of plots (olive groves) with localized and deficit irrigation [24][25][26]. Under integrated management, the use of chemical fertilizers is allowed and regulated by the Technical Control Agencies [24].…”

“…According to BOJA [58], it is generically stipulated for each PDO that soil losses of up to 60 t ha −1 year −1 would correspond to a low erosion, losses of between 61 to 125 t ha −1 year −1 to an intermediate level, and losses greater than 130 t ha −1 year −1 to a high erosion. In this way, PDOs SCA and AN showed low-intermediate values of SLTI, with olive-growing areas having a relatively medium-high erosion risk (134.2 and 67.8 t ha −1 year −1 , respectively), but only with 7-7.5% of its surface managed under irrigation [25,58]. Although both PDOs presented admissible soil losses of around 72.…”

“…Although both PDOs presented admissible soil losses of around 72. On the other hand, BA PDO, a region with an intermediate erosion risk oscillating around 78.5 t ha −1 year −1 , and with only 5% of the area irrigated [25,58], presented SLTI values of 108.75-106.80 t ha −1 year −1 for olive groves with minimum erosion set on limestone soils. However, these values were 135.96-134.01 t ha −1 year −1 for crops on compact loams.…”

“…MA PDO, the only region with olives on acidic soils and a granitic substratum [27], presented a high risk of erosion (values of up to 400.9 t ha −1 year −1 ), with only 5% of its olives under irrigation [25,58]. Thus, minimum values of SLTI (i.e., poorly developed and shallow soils) were obtained at the beginning of the simulation at 12.06-10.11 t ha −1 year −1 , and maximum values of SLTI about 120.96-119.01 t ha −1 year −1 were estimated on well-developed soils.…”

Whither collective action? Upscaling collective actions, politics and basin management in the process of ‘legitimizing’ an informal groundwater economy

“…Factors such as drought events, inherent to Mediterranean climate variability, together with the EU's common agricultural policy, which subsidized olive production (Graaff, de, & Eppink, 1999;Sánchez Martínez, Gallego, & Araque, 2011), meant that farmers had the combined incentive to irrigate due to the increased productivity brought about by irrigation. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, farmers benefitted from higher EU subsidies based on production per hectare.…”