Competition, land rehabilitation & research communication.

293 views
213 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
293
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Competition, land rehabilitation & research communication.

  1. 1. Competition, land rehabilitation & research communication. Gert Nyberg, Bekele Lemma, Zacharia Gnakambary, Jules Bayala, Edmundo Barrios, Henry Neufeldt, Bernard Vanlauwe, Hugues Bazie, Mats Öqvist, John Nyaga, Aida Bergues Tobella
  2. 2. Decrease in communal grazing land Decrease in inorganic fertilizer use. Increasing fertilizer price & no subside. Decrease in cattle number Decrease in manure increased removal of crop residue for fodder and fuel Decrease in soil fertility Decrease in forest cover
  3. 3. Trees Crops -Shade -Soil fertility animals - Shade around homestead - Fodder (leaves & pods) humans -Shade for resting and lunching -Farm equipments, fuel wood, construction material
  4. 4. Trees on farm lands • households - have trees on their farms • Common trees – acacia, croton and cordia – kela -acacia and croton – dorebafana • Distribution – scattered • Grown naturally- remnant or regenerated • Age –old and young trees • Management – pollarding and pruning (dominant) – To collect fuel wood, construction material, … – To reduce shade to acceptable level – Done once in a year or in two year or in three year • Benefits- crops cattle and humans
  5. 5. • Most households believe that on farm trees improve soil fertility – Very few think that trees are competitive with crops • Almost all recognize soil fertility differences under canopy and outside canopy – Evidences • soil color (darker), soil moisture, appearance of crops (vigor, taller, color of leaves …) – When applying fertilizers • 68 %, 52% (Kela, Dore) of households applied less fertilizer under canopy – Reason crops grow faster and collapse when applied on the same rate • 32 %, 48% (Kela, Dore) of the households claimed uniform application, but better crop performance under canopy
  6. 6. 0,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 0 1 2 3 4 resp rate/distance from trees Eucalytptus Markhamia Sesbania Sesbania in Napier 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Eucalyptus Markhamia Sesbania Sesbania in Napier -21 -20 -19 -18 -17 -16 -15 0 1 2 3 4 5 Eucalyptus Markhamia Sesbania Sesbania in Napier y = -0,4071x - 14,606 R² = 0,8195 -19,000 -18,000 -17,000 -16,000 -15,000 -14,000 -13,000 -12,000 -11,000 -10,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
  7. 7. y = 0,3392x - 19,974 R² = 0,9923 y = 0,3079x - 19,823 R² = 0,998 y = 0,3153x - 19,828 R² = 0,9964 y = 0,3067x - 19,221 R² = 0,9929 -19,000 -18,000 -17,000 -16,000 -15,000 -14,000 -13,000 -12,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 dist 1 dist 2 dist 3 dist 4 y = 0,3601x - 19,785 R² = 0,9966 y = 0,4047x - 19,848 R² = 0,9741 y = 0,3822x - 19,817 R² = 0,9887 -18,500 -18,000 -17,500 -17,000 -16,500 -16,000 -15,500 -15,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 dist 1 dist 2 dist 3
  8. 8. Gully rehab Gully reference
  9. 9. Woodlot at farmers field Control
  10. 10. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C C ratio 2011 N N ratio 2011 P 2009 ic 2009 ic 2011 Woodlots/reference ratio
  11. 11. 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 woodlots 2009 control 2009 woodlots 2011 control 2011 mm/h b a c b bars with the same letter are not statistically different at p<0.05 Infiltrability four & six years after planting
  12. 12. Infiltration rates in land rehab sites 2009 & 2011 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 T C 2009 2011

×