Asset — Nogam, walnut · Portugal

Re-presented in the V2 template · illustrative shape for co-design

Asset · Nogam (Portugal) System · Walnut, 4 varieties Round · R-2025-06 Samples · n = 36 · 12 parcels Protocol · v0.4-draft Pipeline · v2.1 Report build · #a83e1f-draft Generated · 2026-05-22

Asset pressure index

61 ± 4

0 — 100 · higher = more pressure

Pressure level is at the 74th percentile of comparable Iberian walnut assets in the Soilytix corpus (n = 38). Variation across the asset is driven primarily by the Lara variety estate, which sits ~22 points above the asset mean. Confidence band reflects sampling density and pipeline variance, not biological certainty.

Parcel-level pressure

Sara · Lara · Chandler · Howard

S-0134

L-0176

C-0152

H-0147

S-0238

L-0282

C-0254

H-0244

S-0342

L-0378

C-0351

H-0346

Low

High

Soil pathogen breakdown

Top contributors to the asset pressure index · DNA-detected, relative

Phytophthora root rot P. cinnamomi

Crop pathogen

Verticillium wilt V. dahliae

Crop pathogen

Fusarium spp. F. oxysporum cplx.

Crop pathogen

Pythium spp.

Opportunistic

Armillaria mellea

Crop pathogen

Cylindrocladium spp.

Background

Driver decomposition

Variables correlated with elevated pressure on this asset

Variable	Dir.	Note
Soil OC (low)	↑	−18% vs benchmark mean
Available P (high)	↑	+44% vs benchmark mean
Variety: Lara	↑	Co-locates with low microbial biodiversity
Microbial biodiversity	↓	Lara estate: −31% Shannon vs Sara/Chandler
Irrigation depth (estimated)	↑	Operator-reported · awaiting verification

Benchmark frame

Asset position vs comparable Iberian walnut (n = 38)

Cohort: Iberian walnut · permanent · low-OC soils · last refresh 2026-03

Airborne pathogen panel

Airborne sampling not yet part of this report. Spore-trap protocol proposed for Q3 2026 sampling round. Co-design opportunity: assay form, cadence, and how Joao wants the airborne layer integrated into the asset index versus reported separately.

Recommendations

Framed as falsifiable hypotheses · mapped to parcels · confidence-tagged

1

Intensify next-round sampling on the Lara estate (L-01, L-02, L-03).

Higher density (10 → 18 samples/ha) to resolve within-estate variation and confirm Phytophthora hot-spots before any intervention decision.

High evidence

2

Test cover-crop + OC-building intervention on L-01 and L-03 only, against L-02 as control.

If pressure index drops >15 points at L-01/L-03 vs L-02 over 18 months, the OC-driver hypothesis is supported.

Medium evidence

3

Flag the asset as Phytophthora-sensitive in the fund's monitoring rhythm; revisit before any replanting decision.

No immediate action on Sara, Chandler, Howard — pressure within expected range for comparable assets.

High evidence

Samples · NG-2025-001 → NG-2025-036 Protocol · SLX-PROT-v0.4-draft Pipeline · SLX-PL-v2.1 Model · SLX-PP-v0.2-draft Report build · #a83e1f-draft Generated · 2026-05-22T11:04Z

Asset — Nogam, walnut · operator view

Same underlying data and version as the IC view · different presentation layer · for Pedro / on-farm decisions

Asset · Nogam (Portugal) Round · R-2025-06 Pipeline · v2.1 View · Operator-grade Same data as IC view · build #a83e1f-draft

Across the four varieties on the estate, Lara parcels carry the most soil-pathogen pressure, especially Phytophthora root rot. Sara, Chandler and Howard sit within the range we'd expect for walnut in this region. The likely contributors on Lara are lower soil organic carbon and low microbial biodiversity, both of which the platform can track year-on-year. Nothing here calls for immediate intervention — the most useful next step is denser sampling on Lara to confirm where the hot-spots sit before any change in management.

Parcel summary

Parcel	Variety	Pressure	What to monitor	What could shift it
L-01 · L-02 · L-03	Lara	High · 76-82	Phytophthora, root health, OC trend	Cover-crop rotation, OC-building inputs, irrigation review
C-01 · C-02 · C-03	Chandler	Medium · 51-54	Verticillium, P trend	P-fertiliser review
H-01 · H-02 · H-03	Howard	Low · 44-47	Baseline only	No change recommended
S-01 · S-02 · S-03	Sara	Low · 34-42	Baseline only	No change recommended

Next steps · this season

1

Denser sampling on Lara before any management change.

10 → 18 samples/ha · plan with Soilytix in next sampling round (R-2026-09).

Do

2

Set L-01 + L-03 as cover-crop trial parcels; keep L-02 unchanged.

Outcome readout in 18 months · success criterion defined in IC report.

Try

3

No action on Sara, Chandler, Howard.

These parcels are within expected range. Continue normal management.

Hold

What we'll watch year-on-year

Pressure index per parcel — flagged if it moves more than 8 points between rounds.
Soil OC on Lara — target trajectory and check after cover-crop intervention.
Microbial biodiversity (Shannon) on Lara — gap vs Sara/Chandler should narrow if OC builds.
Phytophthora-specific markers, if cover-crop trial proceeds.

What this view does not include

Microbiome composition charts, taxonomic detail tables, and statistical diagnostics live in the IC view and the appendix. Available on request — not surfaced here to keep the on-farm decision clear.

Same data as IC view · build #a83e1f-draft Last updated · 2026-05-22 Next sampling · R-2026-09 (proposed)

SLM Iberia — fund portfolio rollup

Cross-asset pressure view · prospective + active holdings · for Joao + IC

Fund · SLM Iberia I Holdings · 3 active + 1 prospective Last refresh · 2026-05 View · Fund rollup (Prototype 1 extension)

Active assets

3

Almond · walnut · forestry

Avg. asset pressure

48

Range 31 — 61

Soft-spot assets

1

Nogam, walnut

Baselines pending

1

Val del Pino · pre-planting

Assets by pressure index

NogamWalnut · Portugal · 2025 baseline

61

MigdaloAlmond · Portugal · 2025 baseline

52

Coillte SMAForestry · Ireland · baseline 2026

31

Val del PinoSHD olive · Aragón · pre-planting (prospective)

—

Soft-spot callouts

Nogam · Lara estate. Pressure 74th-percentile vs comparable Iberian walnut. Phytophthora-led. Concentrated in 3 of 12 parcels. See IC view for decision detail.

Migdalo · phosphate-yield interaction. Pressure within expected range; yield model is the more useful frame for this asset. See analytical template view.

Pre-acquisition candidate

Val del Pino · SHD olive · Aragón (200 ha). Operator: CrowdFarming. Proposed pre-planting baseline scan: pathogen pressure + nutrient profile + chemistry. Sets the year-zero record for the asset and enters the V2 spine as a reproducible baseline.
Open: sampling depth, parcel partition, what gets locked into the protocol vs left to round-by-round refinement.

Where the next fund (2027 close) embeds

Same rollup shape, populated from pre-acquisition baselines on every candidate asset before purchase. Sampling protocol and evidence-package schema co-designed during fund design (2026).

Rollup spine · Prototype 1 + portfolio extension Benchmark cohorts · per-crop, per-region Last refresh · 2026-05-22

Analytical template — Migdalo (almond), generalised

The output shape that worked at Migdalo, lifted into the V2 standard template · same engine, response variable swaps

Anchor case · Migdalo almond, Portugal Response variable · Yield Also drives · Pathogen pressure, risk index, soil health Same spine as IC view

Variance explained

54%

Yield model · 12-parcel asset

Top driver

Variety

Bellona > Solita > Vairo

Density optimum

357

Trees / ha

Reproducibility

Versioned

Pipeline + model hash

Ranked drivers (Migdalo · yield)

Variable	Dir.	Effect
Variety (Bellona vs Vairo)	↑
Planting density (optimum)	↑
Soil phosphate	↓
Plant-parasitic nematode	↓
Soil organic carbon	↑

Chemistry & biology overlay

Layer	Status	Note
Cu, Zn	Low	Watch micronutrient stress
S, Mg	High	No action; flag for trend
OC	Slightly low	Building OC supports yield drivers above
pH	Slightly low	In-range for almond
Microbial biodiversity	In-range	No co-located weakness

Same engine, different response variable. The template above is the V2 standard analytical output: response variable on top, ranked drivers, overlay, benchmark, recommendations. Set the response variable to yield and you get the Migdalo case. Set it to pathogen pressure and you get the Nogam IC view in the first tab. Set it to microbiome × nutrient interaction and you get Joao's #4-5 priority. Set it to variety × environment and you get the KWS trial-intelligence shape.
One engine; productised; reproducible; not a per-project bespoke.

Template · SLX-Analytical-v0.3-draft Pipeline · v2.1 Anchor cases · Migdalo (yield), Nogam (pressure)

V2 spine & co-design

What sits underneath every view above · and the open questions we want SLM to shape

Spine — built once, amortised across surfaces

Sample planParcel partition, sampling design, treatment metadata

Sample lineageProvenance from field to library to pipeline output

Execution runVersioned protocol, pipeline, model — reproducible

Evidence setMeasurements, derived metrics, interpretations, separable

Report buildIC, operator, fund rollup — same data, different render

Every tile in this mock — the asset IC view, the operator-grade variant, the fund rollup, the Migdalo template — is a different surface on the same spine. The shape we choose with SLM doesn't change the substrate; it shapes the surfaces.

Where SLM fits in the V2 picture

Prototype 1 · Soil monitoring

Per-asset soil/condition/biodiversity profile. Foundation surface. Every SLM asset sits here, including pre-acquisition baselines.

Portfolio rollup (extension)

Cross-asset view on top of Prototype 1 — fund-level rather than its own track. Collapses what was sketched as Prototype 5.

Pathogen-pressure module

Narrow Prototype-4-shaped analytical output pulled forward — applied to asset risk rather than ag-input efficacy. Lands Joao's #1–3 priority.

What we want SLM to shape

1

Pathogen unit of aggregation. Named taxa, functional guilds, or both? IC-grade vs operator-grade may need different units.

2

Airborne integration. Assay form (spore trap, qPCR, eDNA from air), cadence, and how it folds into the asset index — single combined number, or separate soil + airborne indices.

3

Audience layering. Two presentation layers (IC, operator) — is that the right split, or do LP / certifier / regulator views need their own render?

4

Pre-acquisition baseline scope. Val del Pino: minimum viable scan, what locks into the protocol, what stays flexible. Sets the template for the 2027 fund.

5

Evidence-package schema. IC, LP, Verra, certifier — what fields, what cadence, what level of provenance exposed. Defines the EvidenceSet shape, not just the report layout.

6

Recommendation intensity. Falsifiable hypotheses (as in this mock) vs prescriptive actions. Joao influences operators; the right intensity is the one that lands without bypassing them.

7

Sampling and monitoring cadence. Per-asset baseline + annual round + event-driven re-sampling — does this shape match how SLM decides interventions, or is the rhythm different?

8

Commercial shape. Per-asset baseline price + monitoring annuity + per-evidence-package fee — does this fit how SLM books and approves work, fund by fund?

Reading guide for the room

Nothing in this mock is a commitment. Numbers, taxa, parcels, and labels are placeholders to make the shape legible. The asks are the questions on this page. The aim is to walk out with a sharper version of the IC view, the operator view, and the fund rollup — co-designed, not pitched.

Mock build · 2026-05-22-draft For · SLM Partners co-design Prepared by · Soilytix Not for distribution