**3. Ecological, economic, and socio-economic values of traditional meadow irrigation**

In our research project, the potential value of the traditional meadow irrigation in the Queich valley for species conservation and biodiversity, for the farmers' income, and for the recreational and touristic value were studied. The ecological value was mainly studied by comparing irrigated and nonirrigated meadows. All studied meadows were selected along a fertilization gradient from 0 to 80 kg N/ha per year. The following parameters were measured:

meadows was higher (marginally significant) than of nonirrigated meadows, while fertilization had a significantly negative effect on the water retention (**Figure 4**). The same pattern (positive irrigation effects and negative fertilization effects) is found regarding the water content after field sampling determined gravimetrically several weeks after spring irrigation (**Figure 4**). A linear model including irrigation as a fixed factor and amount of N fertilization in kg N/ha as a covariate gives the following results: water retention capacity [% vol.] (irrigation p = 0.063; N fertilization p = 0.046) and water content of the field samples in late spring (irrigation p < 0.001; N fertilization p = 0.093). The capacity to store water from precipitation in times without irrigation is therefore higher. As humidity in soils (not stagnant conditions) lead to high microbial activity and activity of other soil organisms [18], this may explain a continuous supply with nutrients on the water meadows in contrast to the other meadows which temporarily suffer from drought. Measured nutrients showed no significant pattern as the diversity of soil conditions overlaid the pattern we expect to be induced by the management. Fertilization did show a negative effect on soil fauna activity in spring but not during autumn sampling [18]. Nutrient supply of nitrogen and phosphorus with the irrigation water is probably insignificant, as analyses of the water suggest low nutrient input with the irrigation water (**Table 1**). While nitrate, nitrite, ammonium, and phosphate inputs are very low, the input of some minerals especially boron, magnesium, and chloride are high. They seem to have their origin in the sewage water from several treatment plants along the river as analyses of the outflow of two treatment plants in the area suggest (**Table 1**, bottom lines). As a consequence, soils of irrigated meadows had significantly elevated values of magnesium (positive irrigation effect p = 0.013) and boron (positive irrigation effect p = 0.019; negative fertilization effects 0.053; **Figure 5**). Chloride in the soils was not measured. Irrigation water pH was high (**Table 1**) and may contributed to decrease acidification processes. Soil pH, however, was not significantly increased under irrigation but stabilized. Variance of soil pH between nonirrigated meadows was clearly

Traditional Water Meadows: A Sustainable Management Type for the Future?

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79429

165

higher in contrast to irrigated meadows.

**Figure 4.** Water retention capacity and water content after field sampling in the month of May.


**Vegetation composition** as well as plant diversity is clearly influenced by irrigation [16, 17]. The effect varies from year to year, but there seems to be rather an increase in plant species diversity than a decrease [16]. Mineral nitrogen fertilization, in contrast, turned out to be clearly negative on species richness though the nitrogen input of the studied meadows was low to moderate with up to 80 kg N/ha per year. This is especially relevant, as **biomass production** increased on average by about one-third under irrigation, while only half of this effect was measured for the influence of fertilization [18]. This demonstrates that an increase in biomass production does not necessarily lead to plant species loss. This well-known effect of fertilization induced biomass increase [4] does not necessarily occur if biomass is increased due to traditional meadow irrigation. Species composition is changing under irrigation allowing more space for herbs growing in low zones near the ground. Especially, semi-rosette and rosette plants increased under irrigation as did legumes [17]. The impact of the ratio of the cover of grasses to herbs is not consistent between the datasets. While in earlier datasets, grasses seemed to be reduced under irrigation [17], later analyses showed the contrary trend. However, the effect to increase grasscover in contrast to herbs is in both datasets higher under fertilization than under irrigation.

It is difficult to explain the positive effect on productivity as probably a large number of effects sum up and interact. Interestingly, the water retention capacity of soils of irrigated meadows was higher (marginally significant) than of nonirrigated meadows, while fertilization had a significantly negative effect on the water retention (**Figure 4**). The same pattern (positive irrigation effects and negative fertilization effects) is found regarding the water content after field sampling determined gravimetrically several weeks after spring irrigation (**Figure 4**). A linear model including irrigation as a fixed factor and amount of N fertilization in kg N/ha as a covariate gives the following results: water retention capacity [% vol.] (irrigation p = 0.063; N fertilization p = 0.046) and water content of the field samples in late spring (irrigation p < 0.001; N fertilization p = 0.093). The capacity to store water from precipitation in times without irrigation is therefore higher. As humidity in soils (not stagnant conditions) lead to high microbial activity and activity of other soil organisms [18], this may explain a continuous supply with nutrients on the water meadows in contrast to the other meadows which temporarily suffer from drought. Measured nutrients showed no significant pattern as the diversity of soil conditions overlaid the pattern we expect to be induced by the management. Fertilization did show a negative effect on soil fauna activity in spring but not during autumn sampling [18]. Nutrient supply of nitrogen and phosphorus with the irrigation water is probably insignificant, as analyses of the water suggest low nutrient input with the irrigation water (**Table 1**). While nitrate, nitrite, ammonium, and phosphate inputs are very low, the input of some minerals especially boron, magnesium, and chloride are high. They seem to have their origin in the sewage water from several treatment plants along the river as analyses of the outflow of two treatment plants in the area suggest (**Table 1**, bottom lines). As a consequence, soils of irrigated meadows had significantly elevated values of magnesium (positive irrigation effect p = 0.013) and boron (positive irrigation effect p = 0.019; negative fertilization effects 0.053; **Figure 5**). Chloride in the soils was not measured. Irrigation water pH was high (**Table 1**) and may contributed to decrease acidification processes. Soil pH, however, was not significantly increased under irrigation but stabilized. Variance of soil pH between nonirrigated meadows was clearly higher in contrast to irrigated meadows.

**3. Ecological, economic, and socio-economic values of traditional** 

In our research project, the potential value of the traditional meadow irrigation in the Queich valley for species conservation and biodiversity, for the farmers' income, and for the recreational and touristic value were studied. The ecological value was mainly studied by comparing irrigated and nonirrigated meadows. All studied meadows were selected along a fertilization gradient from 0 to 80 kg N/ha per year. The following parameters were measured:

• Diversity and species composition of several animal groups (butterflies, carabids, grass-

• Vegetation composition in ditches compared to other edge structures and the quality of

**Vegetation composition** as well as plant diversity is clearly influenced by irrigation [16, 17]. The effect varies from year to year, but there seems to be rather an increase in plant species diversity than a decrease [16]. Mineral nitrogen fertilization, in contrast, turned out to be clearly negative on species richness though the nitrogen input of the studied meadows was low to moderate with up to 80 kg N/ha per year. This is especially relevant, as **biomass production** increased on average by about one-third under irrigation, while only half of this effect was measured for the influence of fertilization [18]. This demonstrates that an increase in biomass production does not necessarily lead to plant species loss. This well-known effect of fertilization induced biomass increase [4] does not necessarily occur if biomass is increased due to traditional meadow irrigation. Species composition is changing under irrigation allowing more space for herbs growing in low zones near the ground. Especially, semi-rosette and rosette plants increased under irrigation as did legumes [17]. The impact of the ratio of the cover of grasses to herbs is not consistent between the datasets. While in earlier datasets, grasses seemed to be reduced under irrigation [17], later analyses showed the contrary trend. However, the effect to increase grasscover in contrast to herbs is in both datasets higher under

It is difficult to explain the positive effect on productivity as probably a large number of effects sum up and interact. Interestingly, the water retention capacity of soils of irrigated

• Soil nutrient status, organic substance, and water retention capacity

• The biomass (hay) production from two cuts over a period of 2 years

• Additional income of the farmers based on the traditional meadow irrigation.

• The quality and nutrient supply with the irrigation water

**meadow irrigation**

164 Irrigation in Agroecosystems

• Plant diversity and vegetation composition

differently managed forms of ditches • The attractiveness for visitors of the area

fertilization than under irrigation.

hoppers, snails, and woodlice)

• The activity of soil fauna

• Hay quality

**Figure 4.** Water retention capacity and water content after field sampling in the month of May.


**Table 1.** Water chemical characteristics measured in irrigation ditches during irrigation in different areas during spring irrigation in 2017. Legend: EC (electric conductivity in μs/cm), T (temperature in °C), most nutrients are presented in mg/l irrigation water. Al, B, cu, Fe, Mn, Pb, and Zn are presented in μg/l. Nitrite was below detection limit and is not shown. The last lines show mean values measured in the outflows of two local sewage treatment plants in the area at four different points of time in spring 2017.

Nutrient input—especially of the micro-nutrient boron—may also contribute to the vegeta

**Figure 5.** Boron concentration in soils in relation to irrigation and fertilization impact.

types within the same species tend to react differently to low or elevated boron values [20

[16, 17].

the management itself [18].

tion shift of irrigated meadows and to the conservation of species richness though biomass production is clearly enhanced [19]. For the micro-nutrient boron, there exists only a narrow window between deficiency and toxicity and different plant species groups and even geno

Traditional Water Meadows: A Sustainable Management Type for the Future?

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79429

Grasses tend to suffer from boron toxicity at lower concentrations as compared to several herbal species, especially legumes [20, 22], which could explain the observed vegetation shift

**Hay quality** does not differ significantly between irrigated and nonirrigated meadows [18]. The energy content of the hay produced on any of the meadows (irrigated and/or fertilized) would not be sufficient to serve as basic food for modern high productivity cattle. However, the food is perfect quality hay for horses or extensively raised cattle of older breeds. The qual

ity mainly reflects the development phase of the vegetation when cut and is little affected by

The elevated productivity lead to significant higher **income of the farmers** under traditional irrigation compared to farmers producing hay on nonirrigated meadows [18]. Astonishingly, the use of mineral fertilizers did not increase the income in a significant way. Nonirrigated and nonfertilized meadows did not draw any profits and their profitable management depended on governmental subsidies within agri-environmental schemes. Irrigation helped to improve the profit in most cases to reach a positive balance without the necessity to receive subsidies [18].


167



, 21].

**Day** 18-Apr 18-Apr 20-Apr 28-Apr

2-May 4-May 4-May 5-May 5-May 5-May

**Mean**

**sd** Sewage plant 1

Sewage plant 2

1104

7.2

15

151

2.3

0.0

49

90

3.0

22

70

15.4

8.5

260

1.3

50

33

0.8

31

754

7.5

14

65

4.2

0.8

77

51

1.6

12

42

7.0

5.4

54

1.2

11

83

1.1

13

75

0.2

2.6

9.3

1.5

0.5

13.3

429

7.9

12.6

30.2

4.6

0.3

36.3

BH3

551

7.7

16.5

26.5

3.3

1.0

41.4

BH 2

496

7.8

15.5

21.3

3.2

1.0

35.4

BH 1

500

7.8

15.5

43.8

5.7

1.0

60.4

KH 2

443

7.8

12.9

42.0

5.6

0.0

44.1

KH 1

445

7.7

12.5

40.5

5.4

0.0

46.8

OH 2

442

7.8

12.2

30.9

2.7

0.0

32.1

OH 1

400

8.1

11.4

31.8

7.2

0.0

41.8

OB 3

358

8.2

8.8

18.9

3.6

0.0

21.0

OB 2

330

8.0

9.7

19.8

3.7

0.0

17.3

OB 1

328

8.0

10.8

26.9

5.1

0.0

23.1

**Site**

**EC**

**pH**

**T**

**Cl**

**NO3**

**PO4**

**SO4**

**Day** 18-Apr 18-Apr 20-Apr 28-Apr

2-May 4-May 4-May 5-May 5-May 5-May

**Mean**

**sd** Sewage plant 1

Sewage plant 2

**Table 1.**

1104

7.2

15

151

2.3

0.0

49

90

3.0 Water chemical characteristics measured in irrigation ditches during irrigation in different areas during spring irrigation in 2017. Legend: EC (electric conductivity

in μs/cm), T (temperature in °C), most nutrients are presented in mg/l irrigation water. Al, B, cu, Fe, Mn, Pb, and Zn are presented in μg/l. Nitrite was below detection limit

and is not shown. The last lines show mean values measured in the outflows of two local sewage treatment plants in the area at four different points of time in spring 2017.

22

70

15.4

8.5

260

1.3

50

33

0.8

31

754

7.5

14

65

4.2

0.8

77

51

1.6

12

42

7.0

5.4

54

1.2

11

83

1.1

13

75

0.2

2.6

9.3

1.5

0.5

13.3

13.0

0.5

5.0

7.8

2.2

1.1

13.6

0.4

4.2

13.9

0.6

2.3

429

7.9

12.6

30.2

4.6

0.3

36.3

28.1

0.4

7.6

33.4

7.7

4.4

57.2

1.4

8.7

21.6

0.5

5.4

BH3

551

7.7

16.5

26.5

3.3

1.0

41.4

50.2

0.9

17.0

46.7

10.7

7.2

63.7

1.8

17.5

10.9

0.3

10.4

BH 2

496

7.8

15.5

21.3

3.2

1.0

35.4

21.8

0.0

4.0

26.9

3.6

4.3

56.3

1.6

9.7

4.4

0.0

5.3

BH 1

500

7.8

15.5

43.8

5.7

1.0

60.4

45.2

0.9

13.5

31.3

9.2

4.3

73.8

1.6

11.2

37.6

0.0

4.3

KH 2

443

7.8

12.9

42.0

5.6

0.0

44.1

36.5

0.9

11.8

40.6

9.5

4.6

77.5

1.6

9.2

16.5

0.3

7.1

KH 1

445

7.7

12.5

40.5

5.4

0.0

46.8

34.5

0.9

8.5

43.1

9.8

4.9

72.0

0.9

9.3

7.8

0.0

7.1

OH 2

442

7.8

12.2

30.9

2.7

0.0

32.1

23.4

0.0

6.2

25.5

6.0

4.1

50.9

1.5

11.6

6.9

0.5

5.0

OH 1

400

8.1

11.4

31.8

7.2

0.0

41.8

26.3

0.0

5.8

36.0

7.6

3.7

43.0

1.2

3.7

36.3

0.0

4.4

OB 3

358

8.2

8.8

18.9

3.6

0.0

21.0

13.4

0.0

2.7

28.1

6.3

3.6

45.5

0.8

5.5

25.3

1.7

3.2

OB 2

330

8.0

9.7

19.8

3.7

0.0

17.3

12.4

0.0

2.7

24.9

6.1

4.0

41.5

2.1

4.8

30.3

1.3

3.1

166 Irrigation in Agroecosystems

OB 1

328

8.0

10.8

26.9

5.1

0.0

23.1

17.7

0.0

3.7

30.9

7.7

3.6

47.9

1.2

4.5

40.0

0.5

3.6

**Site**

**EC**

**pH**

**T**

**Cl**

**NO3**

**PO4**

**SO4**

**Na**

**NH4**

**K**

**Ca**

**Mg**

**Al**

**B**

**Cu**

**Fe**

**Mn**

**Pb**

**Zn**

Nutrient input—especially of the micro-nutrient boron—may also contribute to the vegetation shift of irrigated meadows and to the conservation of species richness though biomass production is clearly enhanced [19]. For the micro-nutrient boron, there exists only a narrow window between deficiency and toxicity and different plant species groups and even genotypes within the same species tend to react differently to low or elevated boron values [20, 21]. Grasses tend to suffer from boron toxicity at lower concentrations as compared to several herbal species, especially legumes [20, 22], which could explain the observed vegetation shift [16, 17].

**Hay quality** does not differ significantly between irrigated and nonirrigated meadows [18]. The energy content of the hay produced on any of the meadows (irrigated and/or fertilized) would not be sufficient to serve as basic food for modern high productivity cattle. However, the food is perfect quality hay for horses or extensively raised cattle of older breeds. The quality mainly reflects the development phase of the vegetation when cut and is little affected by the management itself [18].

The elevated productivity lead to significant higher **income of the farmers** under traditional irrigation compared to farmers producing hay on nonirrigated meadows [18]. Astonishingly, the use of mineral fertilizers did not increase the income in a significant way. Nonirrigated and nonfertilized meadows did not draw any profits and their profitable management depended on governmental subsidies within agri-environmental schemes. Irrigation helped to improve the profit in most cases to reach a positive balance without the necessity to receive subsidies [18].

**Figure 5.** Boron concentration in soils in relation to irrigation and fertilization impact.

The hay in the region is primarily produced for horses which are very abundant in the rich outskirt of larger industrial areas. The economic analysis comprised a quantitative survey with farmers assessing their land-use practices as well as associated costs and revenues.

area of meadow irrigation emigrate to other regions in previous years, which shows that the donor effects [25]. Other bird species might decrease as their nesting sites are flooded. However, as there are several areas and patches that are not irrigated, the diversity is obvi-

Traditional Water Meadows: A Sustainable Management Type for the Future?

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79429

169

Similar to the snails, the vegetation composition along **ditches** was heterogeneous and species rich [26]. Overall plant diversity in the ditches contributed one-third of the total species pool. This means that about one-third of all the species found in the sampled quadrats were found in ditches only. Many species of herbs typically found in extensively used grasslands seemed to use the rims of the ditches as refuges from the semi-intensively used meadows and were common here, while sometimes only sparsely found in the meadows themselves (**Figure 6**) [26]. Locally, species preferring wet habitat increase overall richness (**Figure 7**). The quality of the ditches for plant diversity varied according to ditch size, sedimentation, and successional stage. The larger and deep trapezoid well maintained ditches had highest richness in contrast to smaller and strongly overgrown and silted up ditches [26]. However, the large variety of differently maintained ditches finally made up the very high overall diversity found in the landscape. This is the result of the diverse management techniques and frequencies used by the different communities concerned. Commonly, the ditches are mown or mulched once a year (usually in late winter) and maintained with excavators once every two to more than

The **touristic and recreational value** was assessed by conducting a travel cost analysis with visitors of the meadows in the Queich valley. The touristic and recreational value was estimated to be between 0.38€ and 2.54€ per visit depending on whether the opportunity costs of time were taken into account or not. Since most of the visitors were from the direct vicinity of

**Figure 6.** Drainage ditch with the defined area for a vegetation analyses (blue line). Ditches play an important role in overall biodiversity as they provide various different niches and serve as refuge for sensible plants and animals which escape from more intensive meadow management techniques. The corresponding data is published in [26] (photo:

Melanie Meier).

ously not decreasing as bird observations in the area demonstrate [15].

every 10 years depending on the community and ditch location [26].

The **composition and diversity of the fauna** also responds to irrigation. Irrigation clearly changed invertebrate species assemblages of carabids, grasshoppers, and spiders toward more moisture-dependent species and probably increased overall diversity at the landscape scale [23]. Although irrigated meadows have a higher biomass than nonirrigated ones, effects of traditional meadow irrigation on species richness of invertebrates were generally weak and taxon-dependent. Irrigation had no significant effect on species richness of butterflies, carabids, spiders, and woodlice in lowland meadows [23, 24]. Effects on grasshoppers are not clear and differed among years and were either neutral [23] or slightly negative [24]. However, irrigation turned out to be important for species of conservation concern. The number of endangered carabid species and individuals was two to three times higher in irrigated meadows than in nonirrigated ones. Moreover, irrigation increased flower richness of the meadows [18], which in turn favored the occurrence of endangered butterfly species [18]. Thus, irrigation can have indirect positive effects on invertebrates via the provision of important resources. In contrast to irrigation, only weak effects of fertilization were found on invertebrate diversity [23]. However, functional diversity of grasshoppers was strongly negatively affected by fertilization [24]. Thereby, even relatively moderate fertilizer inputs (in our study system up to 80 kg N/ha per year) reduced functional diversity of grasshoppers, while this effect was not obvious when solely considering species richness. Moreover, increasing fertilizer applications reduced the number of specialized butterflies, while generalists were not affected [18]. To conclude, traditional meadow irrigation is compatible with invertebrate biodiversity conservation in European grasslands.

Next to measures at the single meadow or patch scale, traditional meadow irrigation should also be evaluated concerning its effect on the landscape scale as **species diversity of the landscape** is mainly influenced by the heterogeneity of different habitats in the area and not just by the richness of a single meadow. This became obvious observing species of snails in ditches and on the meadows themselves. While the species richness and composition at the meadows is low with about 7 species per m2 , the species and individual numbers increased to on average over 15 species in ditches with maximum values of over 20. Here, the snails profited from the high heterogeneity of site conditions in the ditches with dry and sunny as well as humid or even wet sites in the ditches and similar heterogeneity of organic debris and nutrients that were clearly higher in irrigation ditches as compared to drainage ditches. Even two red list aquatic snail species could be regularly found in the irrigation ditches. They survive in local puddles that remain wet most of the year [18].

Several organisms are mobile and cannot be studied at single meadows. This is the case with white storks. Their population development since the reactivation of major parts of the meadows is very well documented [25]. The white storks profit from the irrigation, as they find plenty of food during spring, when the juveniles need plenty of food close to their nests (**Figure 3**), and in late summer, when storks prepare to fly south. Many storks raised in the area of meadow irrigation emigrate to other regions in previous years, which shows that the donor effects [25]. Other bird species might decrease as their nesting sites are flooded. However, as there are several areas and patches that are not irrigated, the diversity is obviously not decreasing as bird observations in the area demonstrate [15].

The hay in the region is primarily produced for horses which are very abundant in the rich outskirt of larger industrial areas. The economic analysis comprised a quantitative survey with farmers assessing their land-use practices as well as associated costs and revenues.

The **composition and diversity of the fauna** also responds to irrigation. Irrigation clearly changed invertebrate species assemblages of carabids, grasshoppers, and spiders toward more moisture-dependent species and probably increased overall diversity at the landscape scale [23]. Although irrigated meadows have a higher biomass than nonirrigated ones, effects of traditional meadow irrigation on species richness of invertebrates were generally weak and taxon-dependent. Irrigation had no significant effect on species richness of butterflies, carabids, spiders, and woodlice in lowland meadows [23, 24]. Effects on grasshoppers are not clear and differed among years and were either neutral [23] or slightly negative [24]. However, irrigation turned out to be important for species of conservation concern. The number of endangered carabid species and individuals was two to three times higher in irrigated meadows than in nonirrigated ones. Moreover, irrigation increased flower richness of the meadows [18], which in turn favored the occurrence of endangered butterfly species [18]. Thus, irrigation can have indirect positive effects on invertebrates via the provision of important resources. In contrast to irrigation, only weak effects of fertilization were found on invertebrate diversity [23]. However, functional diversity of grasshoppers was strongly negatively affected by fertilization [24]. Thereby, even relatively moderate fertilizer inputs (in our study system up to 80 kg N/ha per year) reduced functional diversity of grasshoppers, while this effect was not obvious when solely considering species richness. Moreover, increasing fertilizer applications reduced the number of specialized butterflies, while generalists were not affected [18]. To conclude, traditional meadow irrigation is compatible with invertebrate

Next to measures at the single meadow or patch scale, traditional meadow irrigation should also be evaluated concerning its effect on the landscape scale as **species diversity of the landscape** is mainly influenced by the heterogeneity of different habitats in the area and not just by the richness of a single meadow. This became obvious observing species of snails in ditches and on the meadows themselves. While the species richness and composition at the meadows

age over 15 species in ditches with maximum values of over 20. Here, the snails profited from the high heterogeneity of site conditions in the ditches with dry and sunny as well as humid or even wet sites in the ditches and similar heterogeneity of organic debris and nutrients that were clearly higher in irrigation ditches as compared to drainage ditches. Even two red list aquatic snail species could be regularly found in the irrigation ditches. They survive in local

Several organisms are mobile and cannot be studied at single meadows. This is the case with white storks. Their population development since the reactivation of major parts of the meadows is very well documented [25]. The white storks profit from the irrigation, as they find plenty of food during spring, when the juveniles need plenty of food close to their nests (**Figure 3**), and in late summer, when storks prepare to fly south. Many storks raised in the

, the species and individual numbers increased to on aver-

biodiversity conservation in European grasslands.

puddles that remain wet most of the year [18].

is low with about 7 species per m2

168 Irrigation in Agroecosystems

Similar to the snails, the vegetation composition along **ditches** was heterogeneous and species rich [26]. Overall plant diversity in the ditches contributed one-third of the total species pool. This means that about one-third of all the species found in the sampled quadrats were found in ditches only. Many species of herbs typically found in extensively used grasslands seemed to use the rims of the ditches as refuges from the semi-intensively used meadows and were common here, while sometimes only sparsely found in the meadows themselves (**Figure 6**) [26]. Locally, species preferring wet habitat increase overall richness (**Figure 7**). The quality of the ditches for plant diversity varied according to ditch size, sedimentation, and successional stage. The larger and deep trapezoid well maintained ditches had highest richness in contrast to smaller and strongly overgrown and silted up ditches [26]. However, the large variety of differently maintained ditches finally made up the very high overall diversity found in the landscape. This is the result of the diverse management techniques and frequencies used by the different communities concerned. Commonly, the ditches are mown or mulched once a year (usually in late winter) and maintained with excavators once every two to more than every 10 years depending on the community and ditch location [26].

The **touristic and recreational value** was assessed by conducting a travel cost analysis with visitors of the meadows in the Queich valley. The touristic and recreational value was estimated to be between 0.38€ and 2.54€ per visit depending on whether the opportunity costs of time were taken into account or not. Since most of the visitors were from the direct vicinity of

**Figure 6.** Drainage ditch with the defined area for a vegetation analyses (blue line). Ditches play an important role in overall biodiversity as they provide various different niches and serve as refuge for sensible plants and animals which escape from more intensive meadow management techniques. The corresponding data is published in [26] (photo: Melanie Meier).

described the role and the extension of meadow irrigation in Europe. On the European level, a group of actors from Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, Great Britain, and France is currently working on an application of irrigated meadows as UNESCO world heritage sites. This shows the importance of those irrigated meadows still have in some regions. Obviously, meadow irrigation systems are popular and bear witness to a century long innovation and tradition. On the other hand, the once widely spread meadow irrigation systems are now found only very locally. In the area of the Queich valley, the local interest group Queichwiesen comprised of a very diverse group of actors like representatives of local administration, environmental NGOs, and farmers jointly pursues the acknowledge-

**Figure 8.** Beautiful landscape with high recreational and touristic value. The high numbers of storks also attract visitors.

Traditional Water Meadows: A Sustainable Management Type for the Future?

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79429

171

The active traditional irrigation system also contributes to our cultural heritage (photo: Martin Alt).

Traditional meadow irrigation proved to increase productivity in a very effective and more sustainable way than mineral fertilization did. Summarizing our manifold data on flora, fauna, and soil characteristics, the management method creates multifunctional habitats and production sites. They offer multiple ecosystem services of all four categories defined in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report by the UN: supporting, provisioning, regulation as well as cultural services [27]. We explain this by the positive effect of this management practice on soil carbon or humus [28] and the related positive effect on soil organisms [29]. Next to the multiple services for productivity and biodiversity found at the single meadows, there are larger scale services provided at the landscape scale. The heterogeneity of the irrigation, the variety of habitats that are created by the ditches (irrigation and drainage), and the mixture with other habitats in the region provide a beautiful landscape for animal life and human

ment of the irrigation meadows in the world heritage list.

**4. Conclusions**

well-being (recreation and tourism).

**Figure 7.** Irrigation ditch after first cut in June. Remaining standing water from the last irrigation in may serves as a habitat and food source for a large variety of organisms. It clearly contributes to the heterogeneity of the landscape (photo: Melanie Meier).

the meadows, most people did not incur real financial costs to visit the meadows. About 20% of the visitors use the meadows more than 100 times per year for recreational purposes. The main activities in the meadows are cycling, walking, watching nature, and excursions with children. More than 60% of the visitors state that they would have stayed at home if they had not had the chance to go to the meadows on the day they were interviewed. This shows the substantial value of the meadows for the local population. However, more than 40% of the visitors traveled more than 20 minutes, 15% even more than 1 h to visit the meadows. About 3% of the visitors stayed overnight in the area and came to visit the meadows mainly to watch the gathering of the white stork population in spring and early autumn. Next to the storks, the beauty of the semi-open landscape as such, the diversity and the traditional irrigation infrastructure are mentioned to attract the visitors (**Figure 8**).

Apart from these mentioned socio-economic values, the value of the **cultural heritage** can be considered to be substantial. In a two-volume book, Leibundgut and Vonderstrass [9]

**Figure 8.** Beautiful landscape with high recreational and touristic value. The high numbers of storks also attract visitors. The active traditional irrigation system also contributes to our cultural heritage (photo: Martin Alt).

described the role and the extension of meadow irrigation in Europe. On the European level, a group of actors from Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, Great Britain, and France is currently working on an application of irrigated meadows as UNESCO world heritage sites. This shows the importance of those irrigated meadows still have in some regions. Obviously, meadow irrigation systems are popular and bear witness to a century long innovation and tradition. On the other hand, the once widely spread meadow irrigation systems are now found only very locally. In the area of the Queich valley, the local interest group Queichwiesen comprised of a very diverse group of actors like representatives of local administration, environmental NGOs, and farmers jointly pursues the acknowledgement of the irrigation meadows in the world heritage list.
