TSBF Institute of CIAT: Sustainable Land Management for Eco-efficient Agriculture in the Tropics

TSBF INSTITUTE of CIATTSBF INSTITUTE of CIAT

Program TS2: Program TS2: Sustainable Land ManagementSustainable Land Management

for Eco-efficient Agriculture in the for Eco-efficient Agriculture in the TropicsTropics

Objectives of the TS2 programTo enhance knowledge and understanding of

soil ecological functions that sustain a productive agriculture and maintains or improves biodiversity and ecosystem services

To utilize targeting of land use and soil management interventions to better reverse erosion of the soil resource base;

To enhance the production of ecosystem services through sustainable agricultural production and payments for ecosystem services.

GoalGoal RationaleRationale Outputs InstitutionalOutputs Institutional

Why is there a need for an area-wide approach?

Goal Goal Rationale Rationale Outputs InstitutionalOutputs Institutional

Various interventions at the sentinel site in southern Malawi, may not necessarily be well integrated

Functional landscapes?

Should CIAT invest in research in Conservation Agriculture in SA region? What are the expected benefits?

Need for better analyses and diagnosis to target interventions for sustainable agricultural production in multi-use landscapes

Conservation Agriculture field trials in Mozambique; Innovation platforms to link research to development.


Targeting production and land use systems; arguments for an area-wide approach

Atkinson & Wilkins (2004) and Entz et al. (2005) both suggested that an area-wide approach may be appropriate for improving nutrient management and forage supply. Atkinson & Wilkins (2004) proposed linkage between specialist farms with the contract transfer of, particularly, manure between farms specializing in intensive animal production and specialist crop producers.

Eco-efficiency can be increased by altering (i) the method of production of individual crops or animals and (ii) the land-use system.

An area-wide approach is clearly needed for preventing soil deterioration [and salinization] and for remediation when damage has already occurred, owingto the many factors operating over the whole catchment [which will influence water tables, the movement of solutes and effects on production].

Powell et al. (2004): the evolution of crop–livestock integration begins with separate crop and livestock production (in subsistence farming), followed in sequence by integration (mixed farming), specialization and finally integration on an area-wide basis.


Five key attributes:1. it uses resources efficiently and makes the maximum use of

renewable inputs, 2. it is neither locally polluting nor does it transfer pollution to

elsewhere3. it provides a predictable output, 4. It conserves functional biodiversity in relation to strengthening

ecological processes, reducing greenhouse gas emission and pollution generally and limiting soil erosion, and

5. it is capable of responding rapidly to changes in the social, economic and physical environment. (It is also crucial that eco-efficient farming satisfies economic criteria in relation to farm profitability).

Eco-efficient agriculture


What about non-responsive soils?

N+P

N+manure

Multiple seasons of application of manure (>10 t/ ha) required to restore productivity

Pathways to restoration of non-responsive fields

Time (years)

0 2 4 6

Mai

ze y

ield

(t

/ha)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

(Courtesy Zingore)

(Vanlauwe et al., accepted for publication)

Where do OM resources come from ?


Food and fibre

Water quality & supply

Pollutant attenuation & degradation

Non-agricultural pest & disease control

Biodiversity conservation

Erosion control

AGRICULTURAL GOODS

1. C transformations

3. Soil structure maintenance

4. Biological population regulation

AGGREGATEECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS

2. Nutrient cycling

Decomposers

• fungi• bacteria• microbivores• detritivores

Nutrient transformers

• decomposers• element transformers• N-fixers• mycorrhizae

Ecosystem engineers

• megafauna• macrofauna• fungi• bacteria

Bio-controllers

• predators• microbivores• hyperparasites

FUNCTIONAL ASSEMBLAGES

NON-AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Atmospheric composition & climate regulation

Nutrient capture & cycling

SOM dynamics

Soil structure maintenance

Biological population regulation


Decomposition

Nutrient cycling




Habitat provision

OM input decomposition

SOM dynamics

Nutrient cycling

SOIL-BASEDDELIVERY PROCESSES

SOIL-BASEDDELIVERY PROCESSES

Maize Legume

Role of soil biota in provision of soil-ecosystem goods and

services (concept of functional groups)


SLM Impact Zones

Figure 1: Impact zones for the ISFM Program. Information on total area and population and major cropping systems is included.


Hillsides

Savannas

Forest margins

Goal Goal RationaleRationale Outputs InstitutionalOutputs Institutional

4A – Promoting integrated land, water and forest management at landscape level

1. Develop analytical methods and tools for the management of multiple use landscapes with a focus on sustainable productivity enhancement

2. Enhance the management of landscapes through changing stakeholder awareness and capacity for socio-ecological planning at landscape and farm levels

4D - promoting sustainable agro-ecological intensification in low- and high-potential areas

1. To improve understanding of degradation threshold and irreversibility and the conditions necessary for success in low productivity areas

2. Identify domains of potential adoption and improvement of technologies for improving soil productivity, preventing degradation and for the rehabilitation of degraded lands

3. To improve soil quality to sustain increases in productivity , stability and environmental services through greater understanding of processes that govern soil quality and trends in soil quality in intensive systems

SustainableAgric. Production

Landscapes

Soil Resource

Base

Markets(PES)

Env. HealthSocial welfare

Policy

AdaptiveSRM

Incomegeneration

Consumption(food, water,

shelter) Human &Social cap.

Labour

InvestmentPhys. & finan

capital

National andWorld Trade

Policies

MarketOpportunity

Env. RegulationsSocial policies

Prod. Syst.Resources allocation

GoalGoal RationaleRationale Outputs InstitutionalOutputs Institutional

Framework for the strategy on Sustainable Land Management

OUTPUT DESCRIPTIONS

Output 1: Eco-efficient land and soil management practices evaluated for landscape levels

Output 2: Options for interventions to enhance and sustain agricultural production and ecosystem services, regenerate of ecosystem function and adaptation to climate change developed

GoalGoal RationaleRationale Outputs Outputs InstitutionalInstitutional

Decision support framework for evidence-based and spatially-explicit soil and land management recommendations

Intervention domain

(user context)

Problem domain

Application domaintechnologies/ mngt options

Case

Lar

ge s

cale

Sm

all s

cale

Spa

tial

Ext

ent

Regional scales

Intermediate scales

Local scales

Far

mer

sN

atio

nal

Com

mun

ity

&

Dis

tric

t lev

el

Reg

iona

l bod

ies&

G

over

nmen

t pol

icie

s

Scale of interventions

TARGETBENEFICIARIES

ID

PD ADCD

ID’

PD’ AD’CD’

ID”

PD” AD”CD”

Regional level

National/intermediate level

Local level

Problem domain/Application domain/Intervention domain

Problem domain/Application domain/Intervention domain

PD/AD/ID


Characterisation and Diagnosis: Soil Health problems


Tools and techniques for describing and characterisation of landscapes are available

Socio-economic Landscape and land use pattern Biodiversity (incl. soil biodiversity) Ecosystem services (soil quality)

C sequestration Hydrologic features Soil Fertility Soil borne pest and diseases

F1(54.2%)

F2(15.9%)

P<0.01

LM

SF

VC

-2.83.6-3 5F2(20.3%)

F1(34.1%)

LMSF

VC

-3.33.8-33.8

P<0.01

F1(42.3%)

F2(15.8%)

P<0.01

LM

SF

VC

-2.72.9-4.92.9

F1(17.3%)

F2(14.6%)

SF VC

-3.9

6.9-8.5 2.9

LM

P<0.01

BG

BD

Mex

ico

Be

nch

mar

k si

te “

Lo

s T

uxtla

s”

Soil Biological QIEarthworms

Soil Chemical QISoil Phys QI

Soil OM QI

(Velasquez et. al)Var

iati

on

in

so

il q

ual

ity

wit

h p

osi

tio

n

in t

he

lan

dsc

ape

(win

do

w)


F

AM

-3.44-3.24

P

P<0.01

F2(20.3%)

F1(34.1%)

Soil Phys QI

F

M

-3.54

-3.55.5

AP

F1(54.2%)

F2(15.9%)

P<0.02

Soil Chemical QI

BGBD Mexico “Los Tuxtlas”

F1(42.3%)

F2(15.8%)

M

-2.92.9

-4.92.9

P

F A

P<0.01

Soil OM QI

F1(17.3%)

F2(14.6%)

F M

-3.9

6.9-8.5 2.6

PA

P<0.01

Soil Biological QIEarthworms


Characterisation and diagnoses:

Variation inSoil Quality

per Land Use

(Velasquez et. al)

Characterization and diagnosis: Carbon deficits (SOC measured against local reference value),

Mali (Land Degradation project)

Low resolution-wider coverage High resolution-local coverage

(courtesy Tor Vagen, ICRAF)


Chemical Physical

Biological

Land degradation LUI &Agricintensification

Knowledge and information gaps

Population growthPoverty – lack of econ development

Policies(agric & land use)

Weak institutionsLack of R & D

Climate change

Factors driving soil degradation in agricultural systems, expressed in its chemical, physical and biological properties

Theme I: Effect of climate change, land use change on soil health; Interrelated processes of soil biological, physical, chemical and SOM degradation

Theme 2: Improved targeting of soil and land use management interventions

Soil


Effects of spatio-temporal variability in soil fertility on crop productivity

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40

Mafungautsi (3% clay) Masvingo (10% clay) Chikwaka (35% clay)

Period of cultivation (years)

So

il C

(%

re

ma

inin

g fro

m in

itia

l)

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 30 60 90 120Applied N (kg ha-1)

Gra

in y

ield

(t h

a-1

)

Clay

Sand

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 30 60 90 120

Applied N (kg ha-1)

Gra

in y

ield

(t h

a-1

)

Clay

Sand

A

C

Gra

in y

ield

(t

ha-1)

Applied N (kg ha-1)

Gra

in y

ield

(t

ha-1)

Applied N (kg ha-1)

B


(Courtesy Zingore)

Understanding landscape level social dynamics

Response to pressures State of natural and social system Phase in dynamic process Impact pathways

Pathways are important and rarely linear! Pathways are important and rarely linear! Different social groups likely experience different pressuresDifferent social groups likely experience different pressures

Land useLand useBiodiversityBiodiversity

LivelihoodsLivelihoodsEconomicEconomic(Push: investments) (Push: investments) (Pull: incentives)(Pull: incentives)

SocialSocial(perceptions,(perceptions,institutions)institutions)

Land useLand useBiodiversityBiodiversity

LivelihoodsLivelihoodsEconomicEconomic(Push: investments) (Push: investments) (Pull: incentives)(Pull: incentives)

SocialSocial(perceptions,(perceptions,institutions)institutions)

GoalGoal RationaleRationale OutputsOutputs

Mapping of social, economic, cultural, policy constraints


Intervention domains

Development domains: Uganda

(Ruecker et al, 2003, ZEF)

Population density

Elevation

Agricultural potential

Market access

20 0 20 Kilometers

N

Low (crotalaria & mucuna S2x); (lablab & tephrosia S2ax); (canavalia S2apx)

Low (crotalaria & mucuna S2c); (lablab & tephrosia S2ac); (canavalia S2acp)

Low (crotalaria & mucuna S1); (lablab & tephrosia S2a); (canavalia S2ap)

Medium (crotalaria & mucuna S2x); (lablab & tephrosia S2ax); (canavalia S2apx)

Medium (crotalaria & mucuna S2c); (lablab & tephrosia S2ac); (canavalia S2acp)

Medium (crotalaria & mucuna S1); (lablab & tephrosia S2a); (canavalia S2ap)

High (crotalaria & mucuna S2x); (lablab & tephrosia S2ax); (canavalia S2apx)

High (crotalaria & mucuna S1); (lablab & tephrosia S2a); (canavalia S2ap)

drainage channels (clays)drainage channels (sands)LakeWetlandDistrict boundary

Legend

Unclassified areas^^^S1 - higjly suitable &S2 - moderately suitable ecological conditions (a - altitude; c - pH; p - precipitation; x - soil type limiting ecological conditions)^^^values not provided in source climatic databaseScale: 1:400,000

Finger Millet intensive production areas & suitable legume species

0°30'15" 0°30'15"

1°00'30" 1°00'30"

33°30'15"

33°30'15"

34°00'30"

34°00'30"

34°30'45"

34°30'45"

municipalities (towns)

Scale of the intervention domains (targeting Legume Cover Crops)


(Delve et al., 2007)

Identification and Characterisation of Intervention Domains


Zona Atlantica, Costa Rica)

Fertility

Soil Biology

TSBF CBD 2001

Intervention Options for Sustainable intensification of low-medium external input agricultural systems through biological intervention and integrated soil fertility managementAgricultural IntensificationAgricultural Intensification

ShiftingCultivation

FallowRotation

Agroforestry IntercropsRotations Monoculture

Optimal BiologicalIntervention ?

Organic Inputs

Human Energy

Biodiversity

Petro-Chemical Energy

Purchased Inputs

50 kg/ha fertilizer


Evidence-based soil management recommendations

Soil OM amendments

Farmers’ field trials


Outcome 1Validated alternative

Technologies and Systems (alternative solutions)

Outcome 2Improved diagnoses

and problem identification(creates awareness of

Problems)

Outcome 3Improved

targeting and decision making

reduces risk and increased

returns on investment

(adoption, action preparedness)

Outcome 4Successful interventions

implementationOf

alt. technologies,informs policy development(enhanced capacities)

ImpactImproved

Landproductivity, Rehabilitated

land,Prevented land

Degradation(monitor)

Enabling environment: infrastructure/ partnerships / policies & institutions/ support functions

Impact pathways


Regional program

SSA_wide projects (AfSIS)

ISFM program

SLM program

SA regional officePlatform for TSBF

Malaw

i - Stakeho

lder platform

Zim

babw

e - Innovation platform

Mozam

bique - Inn

ovation platform



TSBF - SSATSBF - LAC

Individual country projects

GoalGoal RationaleRationale OutputsOutputs Institutional Institutional

Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility

Technology

TSBF Institute of CIAT: Sustainable Land Management for Eco-efficient Agriculture in the Tropics