EXTRACTS FROM

ENABLE 12

 

NEWSLETTER OF THE ASSOCIATION

FOR BETTER LAND HUSBANDRY

 

 

EDITORIAL

 

WATER


 

Alongside our house runs a winter stream – the Winterbourne – which is dry in summer but a swift torrent during ‘February fill-dyke’, as old lore has it.   But this year it started in November, as the heavy rainfall rapidly saturated the chalk downs to the north of us, creating a growing base-flow that we watched with some trepidation.   Commentators on the floods all over Britain continually spoke of rivers ‘bursting their banks’, a well-worn cliché but an often-inaccurate description.   When our house flooded for a few days in mid-December it was groundwater which rose from beneath us, not river-water from the side (so we were saved from the residual mess and stink which that would have caused, and from which so many other people have suffered).   So we had to take our meals wearing  gumboots until the Winterbourne’s level fell sufficiently for the groundwater to be able to seep back into the watercourse again.   Experience of the floods this year has at least two points of relevance to land husbandry:

·        We were keenly exposed to the dynamics of the inter-related movements of groundwater and streamflow, which were clearly evident as we watched the flood rise - and then fall again some days later.   Seldom before have we taken such a frequent and intense interest in the changes of the relative levels of streamflow and groundwater, to the extent of measuring their rises or falls even in  millimetres.   At the same time we could detect the rapid effects on streamflow of short intense storms further up the catchment, superimposed on the more regular base-flow.   Our equipment included no more than eyes, gumboots and an office ruler, but we learnt a lot of hydrology at first-hand!

·        Farmers have been blamed for some of the flooding, but we should remember that some economic aspects of agricultural policies have forced a reduction of the number of people working the land and pressured farmers into substituting them by heavy machinery, whose compactive effects on the soil can destroy much of the soil’s porous architecture and provoke ever more severe and more widespread runoff (and erosion) than we have seen before now in UK.   Couple that with the occurrence of uncommonly-severe rainstorms of tropical intensities and rainfall-depths, and more-frequent serious floods are almost inevitable.   Would a return to farming practices which favour the maintenance of the soil’s porosity be able significantly to mitigate comparable  floods in at least some areas in the future?   I suspect so.   We know it can in large areas of several countries - in S. America for instance - where residue-based no-till systems are spreading over millions of hectares.

 


The Editor.

 

 

.oOo.

 

 

 

“We now have the technical capability to build enduring national and global nutrition security systems based on sound principles where the short- and long-term goals of development are in harmony with each other.   What we often lack is the requisite blend of political will, professional skill, and farmers’ participation.   We live in this world as guests of green plants and of the farmers who cultivate them.   If farmers are helped to produce more, agriculture will not go wrong.   If agriculture goes right, everything else will have a chance for success” .

Swaminathan, 1986, quoted in IBSRAM position paper, 1994.

 

 

 

“Without regular and dependable supplies of food, other agricultural products and water, our whole economic structure will collapse, and no amount of accounting, book-keeping, reckoning, buying or selling will sustain it”.

Cormack and Whitelaw, in: ‘Conservation for Teachers”, 1957.

 

 

.oOo.

 


ARTICLES

 

WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT - OR SHOULD IT BE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT?

Batchelor C1 , Rama Mohan Rao2, M.; Mukherjee K3.

(reproduced with permission)

 


Background and objectives

The Karnataka Watershed Development Project (KAWAD) is located in the northern districts of Karnataka State, India.  This is an area characterised by limited water resources for which there is increasing competition.  In addition to piloting different institutional approaches to watershed development, KAWAD aims to improve the livelihoods of the inhabitants of three selected watersheds (total area of around 45,000 ha). The water resources audit study reported here aimed  to assess the status of land and water resources in the project watersheds and to provide a framework for more productive, sustainable and/or equitable use of water resources.

Methodology

In India, large amounts of physical, institutional and socio-economic data have been and are being collected in rural areas.  Unfortunately, these data are not always easily accessible and their quality is usually quite variable.  A major feature of the study was the consolidation of data from a wide range of sources onto a GIS database.   Some groundtruthing was carried out during the collection process and further quality control checks were carried out once the database was set up.  Analysis focused on using water balance techniques to assess current patterns of water use by irrigated and rainfed agriculture at a range of scales and current and future demands for water by, in particular, the human and livestock populations of the watersheds.

 

Physical Characteristics of the Watersheds

Two of the project watersheds, namely Chinnahagari and Upparahalla, are located in a predominantly red soil (alfisol) area that is underlain by granites and gneisses.  The other watershed, Doddahalla, is located in a black soil (vertisol) area that is underlain by Deccan basalts.  Mean annual rainfall is approximately  472, 576 and 573 mm in the Chinnahagari, Upparahalla and Doddahalla respectively.  However, there is considerable inter- and intra-annual rainfall variability and droughts and years of relatively high rainfall are not uncommon.  The main land use in all three watersheds is rainfed arable cropping.  At 25%, Doddahalla has the largest percentage area under irrigated cropping.  In comparison, Chinnahagari and Upparahalla have only have 6% and 3% of the land area under irrigation. 

 

Main Findings

In all three watersheds, there has been a dramatic increase in groundwater extraction for irrigation during the last ten years.  This has been driven by the relatively higher profitability of irrigated agriculture when compared to rainfed agriculture,  grants or cheap loans for well construction and government policies such as free electricity for pumping groundwater.  Although there may be some small areas of unexploited aquifer in Chinnahagari and Upparahalla, all the evidence points to the conclusion that current levels of groundwater extraction are approximate to annual recharge.  Over large areas, wells are pumped for irrigation each year until they fail.

 

As a direct consequence of increased groundwater extraction, groundwater levels have fallen and, in Chinnahagari and Upparahalla, shallow wells have failed as borewells have been constructed and as extraction from the deep aquifer has become the norm.  Falling groundwater levels have led to changes in the surface hydrology of the project watersheds.  Springs and seepage zones have dried and now only flow or become saturated after exceptionally wet periods.  Flow in ephemeral streams is less prolonged after large rainfall events and, as a consequence, flows into tanks are reduced.  Even though local perception is that cutting down trees is the main cause of the reduction in tank inflows, it is clearly falling groundwater levels that have had the greatest impact along with, in some areas, the unregulated construction of check dams and diversion weirs in the tank catchment areas.

 

In the project area, river gauging data show that annual surface runoff at the large watershed scale is somewhat lower than is often reported or than accepted wisdom would suggest.  Although there is large inter-annual variation, average runoff as a percentage of rainfall is around 6% and 2% for the Doddahalla and Chinnahagari Rivers respectively.  Although runoff for individual or sequences of rainfall events is often higher (as is runoff at the plot and field scale), this finding shows that there are not large volumes of additional surface water that can be harvested in the project watersheds.  The low values of runoff are not surprising given the physical characteristics of the region, the groundwater depletion (and, hence, the greatly reduced base flow) and the large number of check dams, nala bunds and contour bunds constructed prior to the project.  It should be noted also that tanks in the area now only spill when the rainfall pattern is particularly conducive to the generation of runoff (approximately once in every 5-10 year period).

 

Doddahalla’s annual groundwater recharge and, hence, availability is estimated to be 21% of annual average rainfall.  It appears that one positive consequence of groundwater depletion in this watershed has been an increase in groundwater recharge.  This is because groundwater levels no longer approach the ground surface at the end of the rainy season and, therefore, rainfall infiltration is not rejected due to lack of available storage.  Average recharge estimates for Upparahalla and Chinnahagari are around 6% and 8% of annual rainfall.  Estimates of groundwater use on a village-by-village basis, show that extraction is far from uniform.  Levels of groundwater extraction in some villages are more than 2.5 times higher than average recharge values.  Although there is certain to be some real variability in recharge, in many cases, this situation is only sustainable if water is flowing into these village areas from neighbouring areas.  This finding has important implications for the implementation of the project.  If the project promotes soil and water conservation activities that reduce these flows, there will be winners in one village but only at the expense of losers in another.

 

Current extraction of groundwater for domestic and livestock purposes is estimated at around 3%, 10% and 12% of average annual recharge in Dodda Halla, Uppara Halla and Chinna Hagari respectively.   By 2030 these figures are likely to double and, for future demands to be met, there will have to be a reduction in groundwater use for irrigation at least in the areas around villages.  In some villages, there are already problems of water shortage in the summer season.  In these cases, it is the poor, particularly women and children, who suffer the most.  Even more worrying is the prospect of a major groundwater drought in the region.  Levels of groundwater extraction are such that, in many areas, there is no longer a groundwater “buffer” that can be used as a source of supply during periods of meteorological drought when no recharge will take place.

 

Conclusions Specific to the KAWAD Project

The results of the study show clearly that the focus of KAWAD should be on water resource management as opposed to water resource development.  Water resources in the watersheds are close to being fully developed and, in general, constructing check dams or new wells will only change the pattern of water abstraction and use (i.e. such activities will not make additional water resources available).  Although the study findings suggest a rather gloomy state of affairs, one positive conclusion is that there are a large number of water management options (over 40 were identified) that could be promoted by the project.  All these options have the potential to increase the productivity of water use and/or  to improve equitable access to water resources.  The fundamental need is to consider the tradeoffs associated with changing patterns of water use and to select options that maximise the social and economic value of water in any given setting at the watershed scale. In most cases, this means giving drinking supplies the highest priority and then allocating water to uses that have the next highest social and economic value.

 

General Conclusions

This study has shown that consolidating, groundtruthing and analysing existing information using GIS software provides important insights into the status of water resources in an area and the potential for making better use of these resources at a range of scales.  The study has also shown that such water resource auditing is a good starting point for identifying options that match the physical characteristics of an area.

 

Results from this study and analysis of information from watershed development projects in other dryland areas of India indicate that positive aspects of the ongoing watershed development programme include:

-                      Increases in net agricultural production on arable and non-arable lands;

-                      Development of village-level institutions;

-                      Substantial improvements in the livelihoods of some social groupings;

-                      Implementation of an approach that has widespread political and public support.

The less positive aspects of the programme in dryland areas include:

-                      Certain groups capture water resources often at the expense of the poor;

-                      New village-level institutions are usually outside government and, consequently, they often they have minimal political or legislative support for any actions or decisions that they might take;

-                      Protecting drinking water supplies is not seen as an integral part of watershed development;

-     Emphasis is on development of water resources (i.e. on increasing water supplies by constructing check dams, rehabilitating tanks etc.) and not on management of water resources (i.e. on managing demand and on maximising the social and economic value of water).

-                      As planning takes place at the village-level, a whole range of wider issues are ignored (e.g. upstream-downstream equity, inter-village equity, flood protection, drought preparedness, pollution of water courses, biodiversity and protection of rare habitats etc.)

-                      Watershed development publicity or propaganda (e.g. wall paintings, street plays etc.) is often misleading in that suggests that there are quick fixes to water-related problems in semi-arid areas.

 

General Recommendations

The watershed development programme in India has proved to be very successful on many counts, however, there is scope for improvement, particularly in dryland areas.  The modifications that are needed include:

-                      Planning and water resource management should take place at basin and watershed levels as well as at the village level.  Village-level ownership and decision-making are fundamentally important but

village-level decisions should be made within a wider planning framework;

-                      Emphasis should be on long-term management of resources at all levels even though this may not be attractive to bureaucrats and politicians who want a quick fix or another glittering initiative;

-                      Fundamental rights to drinking water need to be protected such that demand is met throughout the year and during years of good and bad rainfall;

-                      Watershed development guidelines and funding procedures need to be changed so that a much wider range of activities and interventions are promoted;  

-                      Incentives and disincentives are needed that encourage individuals and groups to make more equitable, efficient and productive use of water;

-                      Legislative support needs to be given to community action;

-                      Steps need to be taken to reduce the frequency and impact of corrupt practices on all resource management practices;

-                      Finally, resource audits should be used as a starting point for all watershed development and livelihood projects.   It is a tragedy that so much effort goes into collecting resource-related information that is not made available to potential users or even demanded by potential users and as a consequence, financial and human resources are often wasted.

 

Acknowledgements

Funding for the KAWAD Water Resources Audit came primarily from the UK’s Department for International Development.  The authors would also like to acknowledge the support, encouragement and assistance the large number of people that were involved work presented here.


 


1 Water Resources Management Ltd., Tavistock, Devon PL19 0NQ, UK (wrmltd@aol.com)

2 Soil Conservation Institute, Bellary, Karnataka, India (soilcons@blr.vsnl.net.in)

3 Karnataka Watershed Development Soc., Bangalore 560 038, India (kawad@bgl.vsnl.net.in)

 

This paper, kindly provided by Dr Batchelor,  is case Study 12 of the FAO  E-Workshop: ‘Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds’.  18 Sept - 27 Oct.2000.    http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/watershed/


 

 

.oOo.

 

 

GOOD LAND HUSBANDRY

T.F.Shaxson

 


The nature of land

Varied places are part of the land, each given character by the ongoing  differing interactions between its  components of geology, topography, hydrology, soils, flora and fauna, and climate.    People’s actions modify these interactions and thus affect the character of the land.   Thus though we give ourselves rights to modify and use it, we also have obligations to husband it so as to maintain its integrity, usefulness, productivity and capacities for self-regeneration (which reside in its organic materials and processes) beyond managing it for short-term profit alone.

 

Land husbandry

For all situations, good land husbandry is the process of implementing and managing preferred systems of land use in such ways that there will be increase – or, at worst, no loss – of productivity, of stability or of usefulness for the chosen purpose.   This definition is applicable to land under every sort of use, from wild reserves through agricultural, pasture and forested land to urban areas.

 

Land husbandry in agriculture

Farmers who are concerned to maintain their livelihoods on the land make day-to-day decisions about the combined management of their crops, livestock,  fields and pastures, and husband them to the best of their abilities. (see p.24).  Where husbandry of land has been inadequate in the past, it may have become damaged and less productive, requiring more effort and inputs to maintain the farms’ output, repair the damage and promote soil regeneration.   In the context of agriculture, land husbandry can be described more specifically as the care and management of land for productive purposes : only through good land husbandry can the land’s productive potentials be enhanced and sustained.

 

Agro-ecologic aspects of improving land husbandry

Improving land husbandry requires the promotion of  integrated and synergistic resource management systems, whose key components are:

-     Build-up of organic matter on and in the soil, to provide both protection to the surface and a substrate for soil organisms’ soil-building actions;

-     Integrated management of  plant-nutrition with locally-appropriate and cost-effective combinations of organic+inorganic, on- and off-farm sources of plant nutrients;

-     Better crop management in terms of improvements in seeds, crop establishment, weed control, residues management, and integrated pest management;

-     Better rainwater management to increase infiltration and soil moisture, minimise risk of rainsplash, runoff and erosion, and, where possible, benefit groundwater;

-     Better soil management to feed the organisms, maintain or increase effective rooting depth, avoid or break induced compacted layers at or below the surface, and optimise soil porosity for both root growth and maintaining availability of soil moisture through roots for transpiration and growth processes of plants.

-     Reclamation and restoration (if technically feasible and economically justified) of  land severely damaged in whatever way (physically, biologically, chemically)  and by whatever cause (e.g. erosion, waterlogging, pollution)  to bring it back to usefulness, productivity and sustainability.

 

Social and economic aspects of improved land husbandry

Because it is farm families who make  decisions about land husbandry, its improvement also needs the adoption of  people-centred learning approaches to enable farmers to learn about, and investigate for themselves, the benefits and costs of different methods of husbandry which are satisfying, productive and  simultaneously conservation-effective, and which they can sustain.

 

Similarly, community-based and participatory approaches to planning and technology development are important so that rural people can build their inherent skills, enthusiasms  and capabilities to formulate and implement their own development plans, and to develop and disseminate their own improved technologies for husbandry.

 

In addition, in most situations help with developing profitable market opportunities offer prospects for generating income, which provide strong spurs for innovation and improvement.   Sustainable improvement can derive from conservation-effective business decisions which provide early, substantial and tangible economic, social and environmental benefits which last.

 

Important shifts in advisers’ focus

Significant shifts in advisers’ commonly-held views on management of land and conservation of water, soil and productivity may be necessary before they may more-effectively advise and assist farmers to improve their husbandry of the land.   Examples of such shifts include:

-          From: considering many farmers to be ignorant and irrational,

-          towards: acknowledging the details of what farmers know of their own  social, economic and bio-physical environments, and the rationality of their decision-making in these contexts;

 

-          From:  people’s participation in outsiders’ plans,

-          towards: outside  advisers and agencies’ participation in and contribution to individuals’ and communities’ own plans;

 

-          From:  seeing land conservation, production and economics as primary concerns,

-          towards: the community, and development of its abilities to manage its own environment, as the more appropriate focus for development assistance;

 

-          From: catchments and the people who inhabit them as the ‘logical’ unit for planning of best use of natural resources,

-          towards: the community and the land it occupies as the optimum focus and integrator of technical disciplines, in the context of local catchments;

 

-          From:  preoccupation with the significance of soils’ solid particles in the erosion process,

-          towards: recognising the importance of the spaces between  and within aggregates of soil particles with respect to water retention and root growth;

 

-          From: physical conservation works alone on the surface against runoff,

-          towards: improvements above, on and in the soil to improve water infiltration.

 

Criteria of better land husbandry

Signs that people’s husbandry of land has improved include the following:

-     In the light of new insights, knowledge and understanding, people’s interest and skills have been keenly applied and resulted in improved productivity, stability and sustainability of their chosen land uses;

-     A higher plateau of potential and realised  productivity  attained, expressed as increase in mean yields of  plants without a recurrent need for increasing levels of external inputs;

-     Yields more stable than previously, in the face of climatic vagaries, especially those of rainfall;

-     Soil structure and porosity in better condition, due to improved surface protection against damaging rainfall, and less damage (frequency and severity) by compaction and tillage;

*     Depth of topsoil increasing (evidenced by organic matter perceptible to greater depth) due to optimum combinations of any loosening by tillage,  organic matter addition, better water relations, and more vigorous rooting;

*     From a time-sequence of rainstorms of a given intensity, significant decreases in erosion and runoff;

*     Less surface stormflow and increased volume and regularity of streamflow from natural catchments where large proportions of their surfaces have been affected by improved land husbandry.


 

 

 

.oOo.

 

 

 


ORGANIC AND INORGANIC COMPONENTS

FOR SUSTAINABLE SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

T.F.Shaxson.


 


The debate about ‘organic’ vs. ‘inorganic’ production has become too polarised.   People who want to eat food free of agro-chemicals have to pay a large premium.   Many castigate ‘conventional’ farmers for supposedly poisoning the soil.   Passions and polemics rise, and the middle way is ignored by many.

 

In the ‘western / advanced / industrialised’ nations soils often have relatively large reserves of plant nutrients because of prior applications of fertilisers for decades past, which, added to soil weathering products, can provide a bank of nutrients on which organic farming can capitalise.   This is seldom the case in tropical/subtropical areas of resource-poor small farmers where climates can rapidly oxidise organic matter and erosion depletes topsoils.

 

Almost all agricultural systems are open-ended with respect to plant nutrients, which leave the farm via the long drop and the market, and Peter is robbed to pay Paul more often than we like to admit to keep the offtakes and inputs in balance.   Examples were shown from the Ethiopian highlands and lowlands;  tea gardens in Kenya;  and in comparisons of nutrient contents of  commonly-applied crop residues, manures and leguminous covers vs. needs of a maize crop of 2 tons of grain and 3 tons of stover.

 

From crop-yield data over 10 or more years in e.g. UK (Rothamsted), India (Pantnagar), and Nigeria (Zaria), there is evidence of a more-than-additive /synergistic effect of using FYM together with inorganic fertilisers, likely relating to multiple effects of organic matter plus biological processes as they affect soils’ CEC, micronutrient supply, chelation capabilities, P-fixation, substrate for earthworms and other organisms, and top-down weathering.

 

Without adequate soil moisture plant nutrients from whatever source are not used efficiently.   Rainwater is an unregarded resource, even though it is a key component in soil productivity, and its management deserves closer attention both for minimising water stress in plants and for increasing and smoothing streamflows’ reliability.

 

‘Fertilisers poison the soil’ is a common misapprehension.   The supposed effects are most likely related, in fact, to farmers tending to abandon the active application of organic-matter to soils once fertilisers, as easier-to-use sources of nutrients, become available to them.   This results in degradation of soil architecture and associated hindrances to plants’ functioning.  It is better that the synergies noted above be aimed for during the search for sustainability

 

As poverty-stricken rural populations rise and average farm-size falls, making best use of available organic materials and rainwater together with what fertilisers can be afforded seems the only way rapidly to simulate bush-fallow benefits.   Broad-field systems are giving place to smaller round-the- house plots where production potential can be high;  work, rainwater, organic materials and processes, and fertiliser materials can be concentrated at individual planting positions.

 

The success of residue-based zero-tillage (as in S. America) appears to rely to a surprising extent on favouring and retaining earthworms’ uninterrupted macropores among  the range of voids that make up the soils’ porosity to depth.

 

In conclusion, the middle way should emphasise the individual and joint values of both inorganic and organic materials, plus the soil organisms and soil water that enable the functioning of the soil/root complex.   Increasing organic content and biological activity in soils re-forms them from the top down;  they are materials and processes that can diminish, by stealth, the man-induced ‘menace of erosion’. 

 

Inorganic fertilisers alone cannot supplant the organic roots of sustainability.   Organic materials alone cannot satisfy open-ended systems’ demands for plant nutrients at the rate at which we remove them from our land-use systems.

 

Summary of a talk at Tropical Agriculture Association (W.Region)

meeting on 8.11.00


 

.oOo.

 

 

 

“The correct approach is to find out how to use land productively without destroying it – not to decide first how we are going to use it and then call in the conservationist to devise a system of protective measures which will be imposed on this”.                                                                                       R.M.Cormack, 1952

 

.oOo.

 


REVIEWS

 

 

‘RECLAIMED LAND – EROSION CONTROL, SOILS AND ECOLOGY’

edited by Martin Haigh

 


The editor of this book, Martin Haigh, is WASWC Vice-President for Europe.   Martin is Professor of Physical Geography at Oxford Brookes University, U.K. and former Vice-President of the Association for Better Land Husbandry.   He has worked for nearly thirty years on the reconstruction of land damaged by surface mining in Wales, eastern Europe and the USA.

 

This book is about the reclamation of land damaged by coal-mining.   It is the first volume of a new series that aims to publicise the work done to restore and manage land that has been damaged by human activities.   It is intended that each volume will explore a particular land management problem from the perspective of the applied scientist and progressive practitioner.   Each will seek to make an overview of recent research findings and the experience of recent practice.   The intended level will lie between research literature and advanced text books.   All will be aimed at finding systems of self-sustainability.

 

The reclamation of mined land is a rather specialised field of soil and water conservation and, although a number of books have been written on the subject, to my knowledge this is the first to concentrate on the problem of sustaining the quality of the reclaimed land over the long term.   The book is made up of fourteen essays compiled by a team of experts from seven countries and covers a broad range of experiences, geographical areas and an array of key issues.   It points out that many past attempts to reclaim mined land have failed or have been of only limited effectiveness.   This has been due largely to a lack of understanding of the complexity of land reclamation and the reliance on engineering structures, which all require maintenance and have a limited life.   The case is strongly made that long-term, successful reclamation depends upon the use of ecological principles and a sound understanding of soils.   In the end, the success of a reclamation scheme depends upon the creation of a suitable rooting medium and the development of a living, self-sustaining and self-regulating soil system.   The key to this is the soil organic system.


 

Reviewed by David Sanders.

 

 

‘Land Reclamation – Erosion Control, Soils and Ecology’ has been published by A.A.Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, in 2000.   385 pp. ISSN 1389-2541 and ISBN 90-5410793 6.

 

Note from Martin Haigh: “This is the first volume of the new series ‘Land Reconstruction and Management’.  These will be joint ISBN+ISSN publications, 1or 2 per year – 300pp, peer-reviewed, international, green-tinged.   These works aim to bridge the gap between textbooks, practice and research, and to have a practical/applied orientation.   Vol. 2 will be about the ‘Ecological Impacts of Roads’.   Vol. 3 is expected to be on ‘Land Husbandry in Practice – Case Studies’.   I will be delighted to use this series to promote ABLH, officially, and Land Husbandry in general.”  

.oOo.

 

 

‘THE PROBLEM OF MAINTAINING SOIL FERTILITY IN EASTERN KENYA  A REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH’

J.R Simpson, J.R.Okalebo and G. Lubulwa.

 


 “Few land management studies have received as much attention recently as that of Tiffen and co-workers in the Machakos District of Kenya.   The idea that more people can lead to less erosion, at first glance, flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which has frequently implicated population pressure as a major cause of soil degradation.   But more than two decades ago, Boserup hypothesised that increasing population pressure increases the intensification of land use, and this can stimulate the introduction of innovations resulting in an increase in productivity.   So what are the realities?

The point of entry for the present review is that although better land management practices are being implemented in several eastern African districts, such as Machakos,  progress is slow.   Tiffen and co-workers previously emphasised the beneficial effects of contour banks and terraces in reducing soil loss by erosion.   They also recognised that soil fertility had continued to decline but did not advance any strategies for maintaining soil fertility.   The Simpson et al. review takes off from this point by considering the history and progress of previous research on soil fertility maintenance, particularly in the ‘medium potential’ areas of the ‘moist savannah’ of eastern Africa, along with information from areas in southern Africa.   It also incorporates the findings of ACIAR (Australian)-supported research in Machakos and Kitui Districts in eastern Kenya, conducted between 1984-1993, by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute.   Coming at a time when the maintenance and enhancement of soil fertility is regarded as a key contributor to sustainable land management, the present review is both timely and significant.

 

A major strength of the Simpson et al. review is that it combines quantitative information on soil fertility status and decline, and the need for both organic and inorganic nutrient inputs, with the economic aspects of maintaining soil fertility.   Farmer experience with soil fertility management is discussed along with the slow and uneven  adoption of promising technologies, the main reasons being the limited education of farmers regarding available options and poor assistance with selecting them.

 

A strong case is made for further on-farm research employing the farmer-back-to-farmer paradigm, with supporting modelling studies linked closely with a continuing extension effort.   In contrast to the rather simplistic view of Tiffen and co-workers that soil fertility maintenance problems in Machakos can be solved with little outside help, the review authors conclude that the problem of integrated nutrient management requires not only further on-farm

research but effective education and extension, and appropriate credit facilities.   Possible options and interactions for soil fertility management in a typical Machakos mixed-farming system are outlined and these could form the basis of a future research agenda.   Although integrated nutrient management is identified as a key area, it would have been useful to have had some more specific recommendations for further work.

 

Donors increasingly require that the findings of agricultural research be communicated to the scientific public, extensionists, and policy makers.   Whereas publications in scientific journals are likely to continue as a major tangible output from funded research, review reports which aim to integrate new research with previous work provide a potentially effective way of communicating research findings.   Such is the case with the present Review of Relevant Research.   The authors and ACIAR are to be commended for producing a comprehensible and very useful review of research relating to soil fertility maintenance, which is one of the key factors in preventing soil degradation in this important part of eastern Africa”.


 

Copy of a Review by Prof. J. Keith Syers, University of Newcastle, UK.

 

ACIAR Monograph No.41.  60 pp.  $Aust. 20.00

 

 

.oOo.

 

 

 

‘MANEJO ECOLOGICO DEL SUELO:

La Agricultura en Regiones Tropicales

(ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF SOIL:

Agriculture in Tropical Regions)

5th edition - ? 1986.  499pp.

Ana Primavesi

 


This book was originally published in Portuguese, and has been translated into Spanish.   As far as I know, it has not yet been translated into English, but it ought to be.   The author is a Professor at the University of Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, with broad and long-term experience of the characteristics and management needs of tropical soils, a great range of which are found throughout the desert-to-rainforest biomes of Brazil.

 

Although I have only acquired and read Chapters 7-10, what the author emphasises is enough to recommend the whole book to anyone concerned with the conservation-effective management of soils in the tropics.

 

The elements of management are covered in the first eight chapters:  1.Physiology of Plants in the Tropics;  2.The Root;  3.The Soil;  4.Organic Material;  5. Biology of the Soil;  6.Microbiology of the Soil.;  7. Bio-structure of the Soil;  8. Fertilizers and plant nutrition.   In the second part – ‘Ecological Management of Tropical Soils’ - the  two chapters are:  9. Management of the Soil;  10. Special Soils.

 

From my own perspective of improving land husbandry, Chapter 7 provides the core of the author’s approach:  that lasting fertility of soil depends on preserving and, where needed, regenerating water-stable aggregation in the soil, so that movements of air, water and roots are optimised, enabling plants to grow at full capacity.   This has to be achieved through care and management of the soil organisms whose dynamisms transform organic matter into humic materials  and gums which together with mineral particles make up soil crumbs.   Where this characteristic is lost, lesser porosity of the soil results in runoff and erosion – not the other way round!   Also, where there is inadequate