OP27: Contrasting Benchmark Sites on Bio-physical and Socio-economic Characteristics and Implications for Conservation and Sustainable Management of BGBD

  • 332 views
Uploaded on

A presentation by Dr. Jeroen Huising

A presentation by Dr. Jeroen Huising

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
332
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 5/27/2010 Contrasting Benchmark Sites on  Objectives  Bio‐physical and Socio‐economic Characteristics and Implications for  Conservation and Sustainable Management of  To characterize the bio‐physical, socio‐economic and  BGBD political environment of the benchmark areas to  determine constraints for adoption of conservation  and management of below‐ground biodiversity  Jeroen Huising, Steve Ichami, Willemien  Jeroen Huising Steve Ichami Willemien Brooijmans, Peter Okoth, Perrine Deja,  options and to assess possible project impact Moses Isabirye, Bustanul Arifin, Elaine  Fidalgo, Mauricio R. Coelho, Jose Antonio  Garcia, Chinnappa Reddy, R.K. Maikhuri,  To provide background information for the  Muya Edward, Bernard Mutsotso, Pascal  interpretation of the results emanating from the  Angui, Jonas G. Ibo, Mugonola Basil inventory of BGBD and for demonstration and  experimentation of options for the conservation and  sustainable management of BGBD CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2009 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference Root and proximate causes of loss of below‐ground  biodiversity Location of the CSM‐BGBD project Benchmark Sites Nandi Devi BR, India Los Tuxtlas (3), Mexico Nilgiri BR, Karnataka, India Nilgiri BR, Kerala, India g , , Oumé, Ivory Coast Mabira Forest, Uganda Jambi, Indonesia Benjamin Constant, AM, Brazil Taï, Ivory Coast Embu, Kenya Taita, Kenya Lampung, Indonesia 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference Data sources Data collection: Data matrix – benchmark sites (15) Bio‐physical characteristics Soil sample analyses, land use description at sampling  Climate Topography points Soils Vegetation Socio‐economic and land use surveys (reports issued  Land use and land cover Forest, protected area and land use history by the project) y p j ) Agricultural orientation and land use intensity Agronomy Existing literature and internet sources Farm size Cultural practices (irrigation, tillage) Brazil Management practices (inputs) and market linkages Questionnaires submitted to project members  Socio‐economic Income from farming relative to total income Access to land Poverty and economic development  Demographic data Policy and institutions Institutional environment and farmer organisation Agricultural policy Nandi Devi 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 1
  • 2. 5/27/2010 KAP Survey of various stakeholder groups Comparing benchmark areas: Soil and land constraints Knowledge, attitude and perception of farmers Site Soil Quality Plot of Rainfall (mm) against Hypsometry Perception of production constraints Brazil BC Rel. poor General (economic, land tenure etc.) 3500 Jambi Soil constraints (fertility, physical, erosion) 3000 Lampung Brazil Quanabara Rel. poor Agronomic (e.g. pest & diseases) Kerala Brazil NA Rel. poor Rainfa (mm) 2500 Brazil Mexico Farmers’ solutions and practice Mabira Karantaka CDI Oumé Poor 2000 all Knowledge related to Knowledge related to 1500 Nanda Devi India Kerala Intermediate BGBD and ecosystem function‐ soil processes 1000 India Nandi Devi Intermediate Management practices to manage BGBD (or that affect BGBD and soil processes) Oume 500 Taita KAP of NGO and extensions services Taita India Karnataka Intermediate 0 D i Involvement in the project 0 2 4 6 8 Indo  ‐ Lampung Rel. poor Knowledge element Hypsometry Indo ‐ Jambi Rel. poor Practice (whether relevant elements are included in recommendations) Kenya ‐ Embu Poor Policy makers Kenya ‐ Taita   (Very) poor Involvement Mexico – L.Mateos Intermediate Knowledge and attitude elements  Mexico – V. Caranza Rel. poor Mexico – S. Fernando Rel. good Uganda Good 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 India CSM-BGBD Closing Conference General characteristics of the benchmark areas: soils and  Comparison between benchmark areas – soil fertility  climate constraints (SOC and pH) 6 Brazil Los Tuxtlas General characteristics  Mexico India_Kerala 5 Benchmark areas in Soil C%  8.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 4 Embu Jambi and pH 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 SOM SOC SOC Lampung 4.0 4.0 4.0 3500 3.0 3.0 3.0 C% 3 2.0 2.0 2.0 Taita 1.0 1.0 1.0 Jambi 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 2 3000 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 Brazil 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 Oumé Lampung Soil pH Soil pH Soil pH Kerala Brazil 1 Nanda Devi 2500 Cote d'Ivore Kenya Embu India Himalaya Mabira 0 Los Tuxtlas  y = 118,17x - 871,81 Rainfall 2 R = 0,4897 8.0 8.0 8.0 3,5 4 4,5 5 20005,5 6 6,5 7 7.0 7.0 Ph 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Embu 5.0 SOC SOC SOC 1500 Oumé 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Taita 2.0 2.0 2.0 Climate: annual  1000 Nanda 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 temperature and  2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 Soil pH Soil pH Soil pH rainfall 500 10 15 20 25 30 Temperature 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference Characterisation of benchmark sites in terms of soil  Soil fertility constraints – Soil pH (acidity) and soil organic  constraints carbon (SOC) are good indicators of soil fertility d=2 Brazil India_Kerala Brazil ‐ Benjamin Constant Land use influences soil  8.0 8.0 chemical characteristics 7.0 7.0 Eigenvalues F2=17.97% d=2 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 SOM SOC 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 78 80 2.0 2.0 77 1.0 10 1.0 10 83 pH  Fe  Croplands 0.0 0.0 Grasslands  5 15 25 35 45 55 65 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 72 74 81 TBS Prem  52 14 39 67 71 73 68 70 Forests Clay Clay 64 54 Zn62 3 56 44 19 59 49 53 79 Bsat 41 4847 61 69 29 17 75 82 F1=37.70% Kenya Embu Mexico 63 60 24 32 37 8 15 43 10 66 40 57 38 Cu  65 6 76 9 55 8.0 8.0 Mn 2616 P  42 S  58 5 12 7 7.0 7.0 45 22 13 51 Al_S 18 1 Ca  OM  20 50 4 28 6.0 6.0 21 46 2 36 5.0 5.0 23 SB  K  B  11 SOC SOC 4.0 4.0 27 31 3.0 3.0 Mg  30 TN 25 33 2.0 2.0 Al  34 Monte Carlo significance test 35 1.0 1.0 H_Al 0.0 0.0 (a) Brazil P values =0.001 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 CECe Clay Clay explained Inertia 0.1921 CECp 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 2
  • 3. 5/27/2010 Soil fertility gradients in Jambi and Lampung benchmark  Soil physical characteristics and constraints ‐ (texture , bulk  areas; relation with land use density/porosity) correlated with land use d=2 d= 1 Eigenvalues Indonesia – Jambi and Lampung Indonesia Combined data set FALL  Silt  Indonesia – P  Lampung F2=19.99% d=2 61 Texture and bulk density are  TBS  WP  pH  39 45 62 Na  N Forest  F Croplands  Croplands relevant indicators of soil quality q y FC  FC TBS  TBS Grasslands  AW  65 FOR  42 Eigenvalues PC2 =  21.21 d=2 PD  60 14 70 63 57 55 86 43 21 Silt  12 3746 64 19 d=2 81 2 15 16 17 20 CROP  4979 51 53 44 38 35 22 WP  21 52 41 84 69 82 50 56 77 4 5 Bsat 2827 Clay  54 47 58 10 24 FC BD  68 75 59 6740 Sand  Mg  F1=40.52% 3 32 36 1 13 85 72 31 25 2 7673 K  AW  4880 71 83 18 Sca 16 20 12 28 6 FALL  P205  34 Ca  34 17 23 78 87 6 26 23 P  26 7 4 1 27 3 PD  Monte Carlo Significant test 74 13 9 22 PC1 =  35.50 66 11 10 24 8 P‐value= 0.001 29 11 18 BD  TBS  33 9 25 Observations 0.2979 FOR  29 Eigevalues Clay  32 30 Monte Carlo test 30 CROP  CEC  P‐value=0.001 31 35 19 15 14 5 33 N  explained variance= 0.16297  OM  Sand  17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference Soil physical characteristics and constraints ‐ (texture , bulk  Soil physical and chemical characteristics influence below‐ density/porosity) effect of land use ground biodiversity Eigenvalues d=1 FC  Termite species richness decreases  WP  AW  with increase in soil bulk density  FALL  (below, Giller et al.) Kenya ‐ Embu Clay  P  TBS  d=2 Silt  Diversity of rhizobial  Eigenvalues PAS  PAS BD  BD 5 strains decreases with  i d ih FOR  Ks  CROP  increasing soil acidity Sand  d=2 46 1 9 7 34 302 Sand  25 BD  43 28 27 3 36 38 FALL  4533 35 TBS  49 31 32 8 40 19 PAS  Silt  24 17 12 18 10 44 6 FOR  4 20 53 52 Ks  48 50 21 29 41 3739 CROP  23 22 51 14 13 Clay  42 26 P  5554 59 58 60 47 56 57 11 15 AW  16 WP  FC  17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference No significant difference in functional group composition  Land use influences BGBD and functional composition between land use in shifting cultivation system Nematode functional group distribution in relation to land use;  Brazil – Benjamin Constant comparison across benchmark sites d=2 Monte Carlo test: Kenya d=1 Indonesia d=1 p value=0.074 Observation=0.06281 TBS Fallow Cropland Grassland Cropland Forest Forest TBS Fallow Cropland Grassland Forest Grassland TBS Land use intensity gradient p value=0.001 p value=0.001 Observation=0.2938 Observation=0.1577 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 3
  • 4. 5/27/2010 Farmers consider economic production constraints more  Land use characteristics of the various benchmark sites important than soil related constraints  Boxplot of land use intensification index across benchmark site Constraints according to farmers scores 4 and 5 20 scores 2 and 3 100 scores 0 and 1 18 90 80 ercentages 16 70 60 50 14 40 30 Pe 12 20 10 10 0 ge t sh a ll ec ti lity pe s o rket e ob l ge s il y p u re a s y ty ut low l e x u ts ive ke pr ria ul m al 8 ri t m iv m ci f s lo na m pla orta in ar ns i ty a te le le cu a ns p r a pa fa o u to o fe ra s h e r to r in ob tm ai m d pe bo xp e se ca irr o o ac nt m te rt dr il ar pr fo in t ho 6 pu t n nd s oil tp e er e e sh re in io ot rs o eg to l in -in s iz at nt nu id pr ca w ka ls ut ty te rm te 4 e ica tp la of al ali re is fa ou rtil m ck qu er la la fe at tio or 2 w oc ra po bi e ic pr 0 re la ng ka bi da i ta bu il o a s az nd nz ra eo vo am pu ta an Ta Em Br Ke na ra d'I at na am _J a_ Ug ar .M a_ a_ er ar te ny Constraints sia .C _L .F _L ny _K di Co Ke _V In _S ne Ke ico sia dia ico ico do ne ex In In ex ex M do M M In 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference Strong difference in number of practices implemented to address  perceived soil constraints between benchmark sites ‐ the role of  Fallowing and crop rotation are common low external input practices to  knowledge? address soil fertility; other practices are significantly less important T echnologies used to improve soil fertility scores 4 and 5 Technologies used scores 2 and 3 soil fertility 90 scores 0 and 1 4 soil structure 80 soil erosion 70 3.5 ges 60 3 Percentag 50 Average scores 2.5 40 2 30 1.5 20 10 1 0 0.5 r w er es n g e er st te ti o ur llo in 0 l iz iz po li t um ch an ta fa t il rti om ul g r ro m fe fe Oume Karnataka Lampung Kenya Mexico Uganda le m ic op n ic rm ee an cr Benchmark sites ve gr g or in 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference Differences in soil fertility measures taken between  Farmers’ knowledge on BGBD in relation to ecosystem  benchmark sites functions Farmers' knowledge of BGBD scores 4 and 5 scores 2 and 3 Soil fertility measures according to benchmark site 90 scores 0 and 1 Percentage of score across benchmark  80 site for the individual categories of  70 100 60 ecosystem functions scores 4 and 5 g 90 50 scores 2 and 3 40 80 scores 0 and 1 30 70 Percentages 20 Farmers' BGBD knowledge to benchmark site 60 10 scores 4 and 5 50 0 scores 2 and 3 90 soil fertility nutrient pest and soil water food scores 0 and 1 40 cycling disease structure balance 80 control 70 30 60 Percentages 20 50 10 40 0 30 Lampung Uganda Karnatka Mexico Ivory Coast Kenya Percentage of general score  20 Benchmark site across ecosystem function  10 0 per benchmark site Uganda Lampung Karnataka Ivory Coast Mexico Kenya 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 4
  • 5. 5/27/2010 Are extension officers considering BGBD in their advice to  Difference between benchmark site in status of economic  farmers? development Exte nsion office rs' adv ice on BGBD Relative state of development scores 4 and 5 90 scores 2 and 3 9 out of a score of max. 9 80 scores 0 and 1 8 70 7 6 60 es 5 Percentage e 50 4 40 3 30 2 1 20 0 10 ita ira bi II an n za i la do a ng s bu K a ant F e za 0 ev eo ak ra ra m Ta ab an pu Em n D t l ia Ja at Ke at ba S a ar r a ns food nutrient soil fertility soil structure water balance pest and M m da rn rn M Al na Co La C z a cycling disease ua pe ov in N no n Q Lo am N control ia st nj nu Be Fie ld of a dvice Ve 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference Strong difference between benchmark sites in access to  Difference between benchmark sites in off‐farm income  support services Importance of farming in the benchmark sites Farmers access to extension service and/or training 16 out of a max. score of 15 10 Out of a max. score of 10 14 9 12 8 10 7 8 6 s 5 6 4 4 3 2 2 0 1 0 ita Ke a Em i Al II la Ja i a M o da ka ng s bu N ab t Fe nza ev b n ir nz eo d ra a m rn ita Ta ua t a m a ab K i V e L a A a II M a d a la M vi do a a ng S a C ar o s bu an pu N ab nt rn a b ov a r D La bir z nz l ia at ak at Fe z e ra an er a m Q o ns Ta u a ta te an pu m Em n ra n rn D r rn M a n u o p e ll ia Ja at ar ov a Q o ns no a La Ka n an C C z a pe Ka n in C N no n Sa Lo am in N ia am st nj ia nu Be st nj Ve Be 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference Further analyses required to look at determining factors of land  degradation and soil biodiversity loss, what the status of land  degradation is and which intervention options are conceivable  (depending on the status)  Prioritization 1 AboveGround BioDiversity Natural forest Research?? Sensitisation  Training, training and B training  and facilitation Rehabili- tation? Initial loss Degradation 0 BelowGround BioDiversity1 17-21 May 2010 CSM-BGBD Closing Conference 5