Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Soil fertility in spatially variable soils in smallholder areas of southern Africa
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Soil fertility in spatially variable soils in smallholder areas of southern Africa

  • 808 views
Published

This study compared the effects of: …

This study compared the effects of:
i) Farmer resource endowment
ii) Field location in relation to homestead,
on soil fertility status in two smallholder areas located in contrasting agroecological regions

Published in Technology
  • 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
808
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
10
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. Soil fertility in spatially variablesoils in smallholder areas ofsouthern AfricaJustice NyamangaraDepartment of Soil Science & Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of ZimbabweBox MP167, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
  • 2. Presentation outline Introduction Objectives Hypotheses Methodology Results Discussion Conclusions
  • 3. Introduction
  • 4. Average nutrient application rates in 2002/3 (kg/ha arable land)SSA – 9Latin America-73South Asia – 100E & SE Asia- 135(FAO, 2004)Average Grain Yield Africa – 1 t/ha World – 3 t/ha(Africa Fertiliser Summit, 2006)
  • 5. Soil fertility and yield potential acrossresettlement types (Bindura, 2006/7)  Fertiliser response higher in new resettlements.  In old resettlements fertiliser response poorer than communal areas.  Control yield in new resettlement areas >1.5 t/ha
  • 6. Nitrogen  Nitrogen the most limiting nutrient in southern Africa (Sanchez et al., 1997; Nyamangara et al. 2000).  Major source of mineral N is Ammonium Nitrate and Urea.  Manufactured Zimbabwe, SA, some imported.  Expensive - In Zimbabwe, plant consumes 10-20% of electricity.
  • 7. Phosphorus  P second most limiting nutrient in southern Africa.  In Malawi, most common compound fertiliser – NP  In Zimbabwe – P mined locally – Low in Cd, important for horticulture industry
  • 8. Other nutrients K –rel. OK but cases of deficiency and crop response (maize) have been reported in high potential areas of central Malawi, Eastern Zambia and NE Zimbabwe. Micronutrient deficiencies (esp. Zn, B) and crop responses also in high rainfall areas (Zimbabwe, central Malawi, eastern Zambia) on sandy acidic soils (Mugwira & Nyamangara, 1998; Zingore et al., 2008; TSBF-CIAT, 2008).
  • 9. Zimbabwe smallholders areas Soil fertility decline is a major constraint to increasing crop productivity on smallholder farms. These are characterised by varying soil fertility between and within farms as well as across agro-ecological zones Farmers typically apply most nutrient resources to fields closest to homesteads -has led to gradients of decreasing soil fertility from the homestead in some cropping systems (Tittonell et al., 2005), large enough to affect crop response. However, cases soil fertility gradients increasing from homefields to outfields have also been reported in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia (Haileslassie, et al., 2007).
  • 10.  Soil fertility also varies considerably between farms, mainly driven by differing access to nutrient resources between farms of different wealth classes and use large amounts of fertilisers. Improved understanding of the spatial and dynamic variability in soil fertility, crop yields and nutrient use efficiencies is necessary. Although the occurrence of soil fertility gradients has been documented, this has been mainly in sub-humid conditions where there is a general shortage of arable land for expansion.
  • 11. ObjectivesThis study compared the effects of:i) Farmer resource endowmentii) Field location in relation to homestead,on soil fertility status in two smallholder areas located in contrasting agro- ecological regions.
  • 12. Hypotheses Farmer resource endowment is positively related to soil fertility status. Gradients of decreasing soil fertility from the homestead occur irrespective farmer resource-endowment.
  • 13. Methodology
  • 14. Rainfall:Study sites Murewa: 800- 1000 mm, Gokwe South: 450 – 650 mm Soils: Murewa: Granitic sands and Red clays, Gokwe S: Kalahari sands Farming syst.: Mixed - dominated by maize (+ cotton in Gokwe) Fields are individually owned and managed but are also communally grazed in winter.
  • 15.  34 & 23 farmers were selected in Murewa and Gokwe, respectively, and classified into 1) resource-constrained (RG1), intermediate (RG2) and resource-endowed (RG3) (Mtambanengwe and Mapfumo 2005; Zingore et al. 2007a). The farmers in the different wealth categories were asked to select the most productive and least productive maize fields. The distance of each field from the homestead and cattle pen was measured and the field nearest to the homestead was designated ‘homefield’ and the one furthest ‘outfield’. A structured questionnaire was used to collect soil fertility management practices used and main crops grown by the selected farmers on the home- and outfields. At silking stage (ca. 10-12 weeks after emergence) soil samples were taken to assess soil fertility status.
  • 16. Results
  • 17.  Cattle ownership in both study sites was low for Zimbabwe (5.4 and 5.6 cattle per household in 5 Murewa and Gokwe respectively) and hence the manure application rates at the farm level were low. 4  Wealthy farmers applied moreManure (t ha-1) 3 manure (3.5-9 t ha-1) to their fields in Murewa, compared to the 2 intermediate (up to 1.5 t ha-1) and resource-constrained (<1 t ha-1) 1 farmers. 0  RG3 farmers in Gokwe applied Resource-endowed Intermediate Resource-constrained significantly less mineral NPKS 350 fertiliser (<100 kg ha-1) compared Homefield Outfield to RG1 (>250 kg ha-1) and RG2 (up 300 to 150 kg ha-1) farmers.Mineral Fertiliser Input (kg ha -1) a b 250 200  Other nutrient resources used mostly in Murewa but on a limited 150 scale were compost, leaf litter and anthill soil, and these were 100 targeted to homefields. 50 0 Resource-endowed Intermediate Resource-constrained
  • 18.  Farmers in Murewa own small farms (1-3 ha) and continuously cultivated their fields, while in Gokwe South farmers owned larger farms (5-10 ha) and frequently fallowed their fields. Fields in Murewa had been under cultivation for longer periods (~30 years) compared with Gokwe (~15 years). Outfields were generally larger homefields (16.7% in Murewa; 31.9% in Gokwe South).
  • 19. Murewa 14 Homefield Outfield  There were differences 12 for total soil N and SOC 10 a b across resource- endowment classes and O.C (g kg-1) 8 6 field types in each wealth 4 category but the 2 differences were not 0 significant. 14 Gokwe 12 a b  However, total SOC and 10 N were higher inO.C (g kg-1) 8 homefields compared to 6 outfields in Murewa, and 4 the opposite trend was 2 observed in Gokwe 0 Resource-endowed Intermediate Resource-constrained South. Soil Organic Carbon
  • 20.  CEC and all Homefield clay 35 Outfield clay exchangeable bases Homefield sand were also higher in 30 Outfield sand homefields compared to outfields, and were 25 a b a b c largely similar for RG1 and RG2 farmers andCEC (cmolckg-1) 20 much lower for the RG3 farmers. 15  Soil pH was higher in 10 homefields compared to outfields in Murewa but 5 the difference was only significant for RG1 0 Murewa Gokwe farmers where soil pH was extremely acidic in outfields. Cation Exchange Capacity
  • 21. Homefield 30 Outfield Murewa 25 a b  Available P was particularly responsive toAvailable P (mg kg )-1 20 15 management and 10 decreased sharply from the RG1 group (>20 mg 5 kg-1) to < 5 mg kg-1 in the 0 30 Gokwe RG3 group in Murewa. a b 25 Available P (mg kg )-1 20  In Gokwe available P was 15 significantly higher in 10 fields of the RG1 farmers 5 than the RG2 and RG3 0 farmers. Resource-endowed Intermediate Resource-constrainedAvailable soil P content
  • 22. 1.2 Murewa Homefield 1.0 Outfield 0.8 The observed decreaseTotal N (g kg-1)  0.6 a b in SOC, total N and 0.4 available soil P with 0.2 decrease in resource- endowment in sub-humid 0.0 Gokwe conditions has been 1.2 a b reported elsewhere in 1.0 Zimbabwe 0.8 (Mtambanengwe and Total N (g kg-1) Mapfumo, 2005; Zingore, 0.6 et al., 2006). 0.4 0.2  Attributed to differences 0.0 in the nutrient resources Resource-endowed Intermediate Resource-constrained available to the different classes of farmers. Total Soil N
  • 23. Discussion The amount of manure produced and applied to fields has declined compared to previous years where up to 80 t ha-1 were applied (Mugwira and Murwira, 1997) due to decreasing cattle number (droughts, land pressure). Farmers in Gokwe applied manure to their fields once every 2 - 3 years, similar to findings of Ahmed et al. (1997) who reported that smallholder farmers in semi- arid areas of Zimbabwe applied manure once every 3 - 5 years to their maize crop. Farmers cited the manure scarcity due to low cattle ownership (~ 6 cattle per household in Gokwe) as the main reason behind the practice.
  • 24.  RG1 farmers often have access to livestock manure and resources to purchase mineral fertiliser. The higher soil fertility status in homefields in Murewa and outfields in Gokwe S. implied that the farmers in the contrasting agro- ecological zones used different management strategies. In Murewa, where land holdings are small and land for expansion unavailable, farmers concentrated their nutrient resources in homefields, a practice that has also been reported elsewhere (Tittonell, 2006; Zingore et al., 2007; Mtambanengwe and Mapfumo, 2006; Vanlauwe et al., 2006). However, in Gokwe where land holding is large and land for expansion available, farmers quickly move to another field, further way from the homestead once fertility has declined (Mapedza et al., 2001). Soil fertility will be higher in the relatively younger outfields compared to the older homefields which are continually cultivated.
  • 25. Conclusions Resource-endowed farmers have access to more soil nutrient resources resulting in higher soil fertility status in their fields compared to their poorer counterparts. Besides farmers’ access to resources and management strategies, land availability and farming system have an influence in the direction of soil fertility gradients within farms. Soil fertility gradients need to be considered in developing fertiliser recommendations and in targeting crops to be grown
  • 26. Acknowledgements AFRICARE-Zimbabwe, Regional Universities Forum (RUFORUM) and the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of CIAT (TSBF-CIAT) for providing funding for this work. Farmers in Gokwe S. and Murewa districts for their cooperation Department of Agricultural Technical and Extension Services (Agritex) for coordinating field activities.
  • 27. Thank you!!