Ambo University School of Graduate Studies, Department of Biology, Enviromental Science Program

AMBO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, ENVIROMENTAL SCIENCE PROGRAM

Assessing the role of Traditional Land Management Practices in Improving Cropland Productivity: the case of Diga Woreda, Oromia By: Tolera Megersa

A Thesis is submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Ambo University in partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science, in Environmental Science

May, 2011 Ambo

AMBO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE PROGRAM

Assessing the role of Traditional Land Management Practices in Improving Cropland Productivity: the case of Diga Woreda, Oromia

By Tolera Megersa

Approved by the Examining Board:

______

Chairman, Department’s Graduate Committee

______

Advisor

______

Advisor

______

Examiner

______

Examiner

Approval sheet

1. Submitted by:

______

(PG Candidate) (Signature) (Date)

2. Advisor

______

(Name) (Signature) (Date)

3. Co-advisor

______

(Name) (Signature) (Date)

4. College/Institute Dean

______

(Name) (Signature) (Date)

4. Director School of Graduate studies

______

(Name) (Signature) (Date)

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank almighty God for helping me to start and successfully complete this work. I convey my deepest thanks to my major advisor Dr. Makuria Argaw, Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa for giving me constructive advice and guidance in preparing the proposal, research guidance and finalizing the thesis. Without his encouragement, suggestion and support the completion of this research work would not have been possible. I am also thankful to my Co-advisor Prof.Dr.P. Natarajan, Ambo University for his comments, suggestion and guidance from the very beginning of my research wok. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Addis Ababa for financial support, evaluation of field work and technical support they rendered to my research work.

I would like to acknowledge the employers of East Wollega Agricultural Office for the materials, transport and computer support extended to me in my research work. Furthermore, particularly, I am thankful to Ato Temesgen Fita, Ato Mangistu Terefe, Ato Tekalengi Dhaba, W/r.Lensa Dhangiya and Miss. Genet Gebisa who have supported my research in many ways. I would like to acknowledge Diga Woreda Agricultural Office staffs who have given me necessary data and information needed for the research work during the study area survey. I would also like to acknowledge Ato Teshome Gemeda, Head of East Wollega Food Security, Disaster Presentations and Preparedness Office (FSDPP) for his support in providing me necessary transportation to transport materials and men during data collection and field survey.

I would also like to thank the Wollegga University, particularly Ato Teshome Takele, Ato Asfau Temesgen and Mulata Ayana who supported me in providing the internet services. I am indeed highly indebted to my friends Ato Mesfin Kinfu, Ato Solomon Bekalo, Tiruwork Aseffa, Kidane Yambo, Lebesu Bikila and Niguse Semaheng who gave support to my family when I was on regular visits to fields for my data collection as well as at Ambo University.

I am grateful to my beloved Almaz Aschalew and my son Abyi Tolera who have given me moral support, strength and encouragement in completing my thesis on time.

Table of contents

Acknowledgements ...... i

Lists of Tables ...... vi

Lists of Figures ...... vii

Lists of Appendices...... viii

Acronyms ...... ix

Abstract ...... x

1. Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Background and Justification ...... 1

1.2 Statement of the problem ...... 4

1.3 Objectives ...... 4

1.4 Scope of the study ...... 5

1.5 Significance of the study ...... 5

2. Literature Review ...... 7

2.1 Concept of soil erosion ...... 7

2.2 Approaches to soil conservation ...... 8

2.3 Soil and water conservation practices ...... 9

2.4 The concept of managing land resources towards sustainability ...... 12

2.5. Vegetative or Biological Soil-Conservation Measures ...... 13

2.5.1 Strip cropping...... 14 2.5.2 Crop rotation ...... 14 2.5.3. Intercropping ...... 15 2.6 Physical soil management Practices ...... 17

2.6.1 Conservation tillage ...... 18

2.6.1.1 Contour cultivation ...... 19

2.6.1.2 Mulching/crop residue management ...... 19

2.7 Population pressure and land degradation ...... 20

2.8 Farmers’ perception of soil erosion ...... 21

2.9 Soil Organic Matter ...... 23

2.10 Total Nitrogen ...... 24

2.11 Available phosphorus ...... 25

2.12 Soil pH...... 26

3. Materials and Methods ...... 28

3.1 Description of the study area ...... 28

3.1.1 Location ...... 28 3.1.2. Agro-ecology ...... 28 3.1.3. Topography ...... 29 3.1.4. Soils of the study area ...... 29 3.1.5. Land use ...... 29 3.1.6. Water resources ...... 30 3.1.7. Climate ...... 31 3.1.8. Vegetation ...... 31 3.1.9. Population ...... 32 3.2. Farming system and land management practices ...... 32

3.2.1. Farming system ...... 32 3.2.2. Land Management Practices ...... 33 3.2.2.1 Biological land management practices ...... 33

3.2.1.1. Crop rotation ...... 34

3.2.1.2. Intercropping ...... 34

3.2.1.3 Agro-forestry...... 34

3.2.1.4 Grass strip ...... 35

3.3.2 Physical land Management Practices ...... 35 3.3.2.1 Residue Management ...... 35

3.3.2.2 Contour farming ...... 36

3.3.2.3 Minimum Tillage ...... 37

3.4 Methods ...... 37

iii

3.4.1 Reconnaissance Survey ...... 37 3.4.2 Biophysical survey ...... 37 3.4.3 Study design and sampling strategy ...... 38 3.4.3.1 Design of the study ...... 38

3.4.3.2 Sampling Technique ...... 38

3.4.4. Type and Ssource of data ...... 39 3.4.5 Soil survey ...... 40 3.4.6 Soil analysis...... 40 3.4.7. Socio economic survey ...... 41 3.4.7.1 Household survey...... 41

3.4.8 Method of data collection ...... 42 3.4.9 Data Analysis ...... 43 3.4.9.1 Soil data Analysis ...... 43

3.4.9.2 Socio-economic data analysis ...... 43

4. Result and Discussions ...... 45

4.1. States of traditional Biological and physical land management practices ...... 45

4.1.1 Biological land management practices ...... 45 4.1.1.1 Crop rotation ...... 45

4.1.1.2 Intercropping ...... 45

4.1.1.3 Grass strip ...... 46

4.1.1.4 Agro-forestry...... 46

4.1.2. Physical land management practices ...... 47 4.1.2.1 Contour farming ...... 47

4.1.2.2 Residue Management ...... 48

4.1.2.3 Minimum tillage...... 49

4.1.3 The state of land management practices by HHs ...... 50 4.2 Traditional land management practices and soil quality ...... 51

4.2.1 Soil organic matter content ...... 51 4.2.2 Total nitrogen ...... 52 4.2.3 Available pphosphorus ...... 53 4.2.4 Available potassium(meq/100g) ...... 54

4.2.5 pH water ...... 54 4.2.6 .Cation Exchange Capacity ...... 55 4.2.7 Bulk density ...... 55 4.2.8 Land degradation indices% of soil quality of land without as compared to with traditional BPLM practices...... 56 4.3.Traditional land management practices and cropland productivity ...... 57

4.3.1 Plant fresh biomass weight ...... 57

4.3.2 Plant dry biomass weight ...... 58 4.3.3 Plant height ...... 59 4.3.4 Buck wheat yield ...... 59 4 .3.5 Summery of the role of traditional BPLMP and crop productivity ...... 60 4.3.6 Teff yield ...... 61 4.3.7 Maize yield...... 62 4.4 Effectiveness and suitability of the traditional land management practices ...... 64

4.4.1 Farmers’ responses on effectiveness of each traditional land management practices ...... 64 4.4.2 Effectivness of traditional land management practices onsoil quality ...... 64 4.4.3 Effectiveness of traditional land management practices for plant growth & yield . 66 5. Conclusions and recommendations...... 68

5.1 Conclusions ...... 68

5.2 Recommendations ...... 69

6. References ...... 70

Appendices ...... 74

Lists of Tables

Table 1. Rating of Organic Matter and its categories ...... 24

Table 2 classification of soil based on total nitrogen content (%) ...... 25

Table 3: Relationship between soil nutrient levels and soil chemical rating ...... 26

Table 4 : Soil PH value with associated soil reaction ...... 27

Table 5: Topographic of the Diga Woreda ...... 29

Table 6: Different land use type in the study area ...... 30

Table 7: Types water sources in Diga Woreda ...... 31

Table 8: Paired samples t-test for Soil Organic Matter content ...... 51

Table 9: Paired samples t-test for Total Nitrogen content ...... 52

Table 10: Paired samples t-test for available Phosphorus content ...... 53

Table 11: Paired samples t-test for available Potassium content ...... 54

Table 12: Paired samples t-test for Soil pH content ...... 54

Table 13: Paired samples t-test for Soil CEC ...... 55

Table 14: Paired samples t-test for Soil Bulk density ...... 56

Table 15: land degradation indices% of soil without as compared to soil with BPLM ... 56

Table 16: Paired samples t-test of wet biomass weight of crops ...... 57

Table 17: Paired samples t-test of dry biomass weight of crops ...... 58

Table 28: Paired samples t-test of plant height ...... 59

Table 29: Paired samples t-test of buck wheat yield ...... 59

Table 20: Summery of the role of BPLM practices and cropland productivity ...... 60

Table 21: Paired samples t-test of Teff yield data records ...... 61

Table 22: Paired samples t-test of Maize yield data records ...... 63

Table 23: Farmers responses on effectiveness of traditional BPLM practices ...... 64

Table 24: Summary of the role of traditional BPLM practices & cropland productivity . 67

Lists of Figures

Figure 1: Map of Diga Woreda ...... 28

Figure 2: Intercropping Practices ...... 34

Figure 3: Agro-forestry practice ...... 35

Figure 4: Grass strip practice on farmland ...... 35

Figure 5: crop residue recycling practices ...... 36

Figure 6: Burning of crop residue practices ...... 36

Figure 7: contour farming practice ...... 37

Figure 8: Furrow irrigation practice ...... 37

Figure 9: Traditional BLM practices by respondents ...... 47

Figure 10: State of Physical land management practices by the respondents ...... 50

Figure 11: Trends of ten years Teff yield data records ...... 62

Figure 12: Trends of ten years maize yield records ...... 63

Figure 13: Suitability evaluation of land management practices based on OM value ...... 65

Figure 14: Suitability of land management practices based on AVP ...... 65

Figure 15: Suitability of land management practices for Plant biomass ...... 66

Figure 16: Suitability of land management practices for crop yields ...... 67

vii

Lists of Appendices

Annex 1: laboratory results of soil sample taken from Diga Woreda ...... 74

Annex 2: Wet biomass weight of 50 plants in (gm) ...... 75

Annex 3: Dry biomass weight of 50 plants in(gm) ...... 75

Annex 4: Plant height in cm ...... 75

Annex 5: Ten years Teff yield records in quntal/hectar ...... 76

Annex 6:Ten years records of maize yield in quntal/hectar ...... 76

Annex 7: Buck wheat yield in kg /hectare ...... 77

Annex 8: Household Questionnaires ...... 77

Annex 9:Household and population size of the Woreda, 2010 ...... 90

Annex10:Population size of sample PAs ...... 90

Annex 11: Educational status of sampled HH heads ...... 91

Annex 12: Age category of the respondent ...... 91

viii

Acronyms

m.a.s.l Meter above sea level

AVP Available phosphorus

AVK Available potash

BPLM Biological and physical land management

BLM Biological land management

CSA Central statistics authority

CEC Cation exchange capacity

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FFW Food for work

FSDPP Food security, disaster prevention and preparedness

HHs Households

ISWC Indigenous soil &water conservation

MoARD Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development

NPK Nitrogen, phosphorus and potash

PAs Peasant associations

PLM Physical land management

TBPLMP Traditional biological &Physical land Management practice

SPSS Statistical package for social science

SWC Soil and water conservation

WAO Woreda Agricultural Office

Abstract

A Land management practice has many forms and the focus of this research is on traditional land management practices. The main objective of this study was to assess the role of traditional land management practices in improving cropland productivity in the study area. The study was mainly focused on describing the soil fertility status between lands with and without traditional land management practices.12 Soil sample was taken from farmland with four and above practices and another 12 soil sample from farmland without practices at the distance of less than 2km.The sample were compared for its soil quality, crop biomass weight and yield.. Multistage sampling technique was used to select peasant association, cultivated fields for soil sampling and households for questionnaire survey. Transects were used to collect soil samples and structured and semi-structured questionnaires to gather the necessary information from the sampled households, key informants and group discussions. The results of soil chemical property analysis revealed that, the status of soil organic matter, total nitrogen, available phosphorous, available potassium, cation exchange capacity and pH of the soil with traditional land management practices recorded the highest mean value ranging from 5 to 40 per cent than soil without traditional land management practices. Furthermore, dry biomass weight and crop yield in land with traditional practices has showed a greater mean value as compared to soil without practices. The traditional land management practices improved cropland productivity through addition of organic matter to the soil, adding nitrogen, maintaining organic matter and plant nutrients, and improving soil structures increasing water infiltration and reducing run off. The decline in fertility of the soil without the practices might was due to the removal of plant nutrient by erosion and crop harvest without replacement. The Majority of the farmers (68 to 95%) reported that combinations of practices are very effective in improving cropland productivity.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Justification

The majority of the population of Ethiopia consists of farmers and their families where reside in rural areas and whose life is almost entirely dependent on agriculture and agricultural products. Agriculture is the main stay of the major proportion of human population of the country, even though it is threatened by human induced degradation and climatic factors. Traditional mixed crop livestock production system under developed and dominated by subsistence farmers, focusing on household food security.

Lal (1990) points out that confusion often arises over the relationship between the terms; soil erosion, soil depletion and soil or land degradation. Soil erosion refers to a loss in soil productivity due to: physical loss of topsoil, reduction in rooting area, removal of plant nutrients, and loss of water. Soil erosion is a quick process. In contrast, soil depletion means loss or decline of soil fertility due to crop removal or removal of nutrients by water passing through the soil profile. The soil depletion process is less drastic and can be easily remedied through culture practices and by adding appropriate soil amendments. Similarly, land degradation is defined as the temporary or permanent lowering of the productivity of land.

Soil erosion is not a new phenomenon, it has been a problem ever since human beings started cultivating the land; in other words, soil erosion is as old as human history (De Roo, 1993). It has been and is a particular problem associated with exploitative types of agriculture on steep slopes and undulating landscapes. However, the critical problem in all cases is that processes of soil erosion usually undermine the soil resource and remain unobserved until the last stage. This is because erosion is noticed when crop production starts to decline and this usually happens at a very critical phase of soil erosion. Soil erosion has a great effect on the economies of developing countries to which Ethiopia is not an exception. Agriculture, which is the basis of Ethiopian economy is dominated by subsistence production and widespread poverty (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001)

The majority of the resource poor farmers are subsistence oriented, cultivating poor soils on sloping and marginal lands, which are highly susceptible to soil erosion, and other soil degrading forces. Since individuals’ land use decision-making are patterned by the structure of the society that they create through their interaction over time and space, social scientists have suggested the collaborative actions are easier to understand in the context of the role of institutions. Institutions are the social rules, conventions and other elements of the structural framework of social interactions. This framework is taken for granted in much of the mainstream economics, and often pushed so much into the background that many of its central propositions are sometimes stated with an idea of institutional neutrality (Bardhan, 1989)

Soil erosion causes a considerable, in most cases an irreversible soil fertility and productivity loss. The effect of erosion on soil productivity is especially severe in the southern, southeast and southwestern highlands, where Nitiosols are the predominant soil types, and most of the soil fertility is concentrated in the topsoil. To control soil fertility decline, and to have sustainable agricultural development, soil erosion has to be arrested or at least reduced to a tolerable level that is to a level below soil formation rate (Belay, 1992).

Hundreds of thousands of kilometers of structural types have been constructed over croplands in Ethiopia. However, reports indicate that these conservation structures have not been as successful as they could be, because the farmers were not enthusiastic enough in accepting and maintaining the technology (Wood, 1990). The failure of conservation programs partly emerge from the fact that planners and implementing agencies ignore or fail to consider socio-cultural factors as key determinants of the success or failure of conservation programs (Belay, 1992)

Tesfaye (2003) points out that our understanding of farmers' knowledge and their perception of factors that influence their land management practice is of paramount importance for promoting sustainable land management. It is also interesting to know if and when farmers practice what they know and perceive. Conservation agriculture achieves sustainable benefits through minimal soil disturbance (i.e., zero- or reduced- tillage farming; hereafter conservation tillage), permanent soil cover, and crop rotations.

The potential gains from conservation or reduced tillage lie not only in conserving but also in enhancing the natural resources (e.g., increasing soil organic matter) without sacrificing yields. This practice makes it possible for fields to act as a sink for carbon, increase the soils’ water retention capacities, and decrease soil erosion, and cuts production costs by reducing time and labor requirements, as well as mechanized farming costs, e.g., for fossil fuels (FAO 2008).

This ability to address a broad set of farming constraints makes conservation tillage a desirable and widely adopted component of sustainable farming (Lee, 2005). Moreover, the water-retention characteristics of conservation tillage (Twarog, 2006) make it especially appealing in water-deficient farming areas. In addition to reducing natural risks, conservation tillage enables poor farmers to avoid the financial risk of purchasing chemical fertilizer on credit and overcomes the prevailing problem of late delivery of chemical fertilizer. Consequently, since 1998, Ethiopia has included conservation tillage as part of its extension packages to help reverse extensive land degradation (Sasakawa Africa Association, 2008). Although encouraging adoption of conservation tillage is important, an equally if not more important aspect is whether or not it enhances productivity. How does conservation tillage compare to external inputs, such as chemical fertilizers, in terms of its impact on crop productivity? These are important questions that farmers presumably consider when deciding to adopt a given technology. If conservation tillage and chemical fertilizer increase yields, are their impacts on productivity influenced by agro ecology? Using chemical fertilizer in water stressed areas could, for example, entail production risks.

Diga woreda is found in East Wollega zone of Oromia Region and located at the western parts of Ethiopia where the reamaing natural forest relatively existed before 20 years ago, but currently the situation of these forests are under severe pressure of deforestation for the expansion extensive agriculture and majority of forestland converted to cropland.. The area having all these potential, currently due to the decaling of soil fertility, cropland productivity has been declined and as a result majority of the farmers are exposed to seasonal food shortage in the area. Therefore, it is better to conduct a research on the assessment of the role of biological and physical land management practices in improving

3 cropland productivity by assessing and analyzing crop yield and soil fertility status respectively in the study area.

1.2 Statement of the problem

The well-being of present and future generations depends on the fertility status of soil in agricultured countries like Ethiopia. The natural phenomena and interference of human activities are aggravating soil degradation that needs immediate remedies to sustain cropland livestock production and productivity. Soil is the only media, which supports the germination, growth and maturity of crops in association with other life supporting systems for better yield (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001).

However, due to high population pressure, continuous and steep slope cultivation, deforestation and with inadequate soil conservation practices, cropland productivity has been declining in the study area in which Teff yield in year 1997 were 8quntal/hec have been reduced to 6-7quntal in year 2002, even though few farmers practiced some traditional biological and physical land management practices.

Sustainable soil management technologies and practices, which have been supported by research finding, were not yet transferred to the farming communities in the study area. Thus, it is important to conduct a research to assess how cropland productivity has been improved through traditional biological and physical land management practices in the study area.

1.3 Objectives

General objectives

The overall purpose of the study was to assess and examine the role of traditional biological and physical land management practices in improving cropland productivity.

Specific objectives

¾ To identify and assess the states of traditional biological and physical land management practices undertaken by local farmers. ¾ To examine and document the existing types of traditional biological and physical land management practices. ¾ To examine the role of traditional land management practices in maintaining soil quality ¾ To investigate the role of traditional land management practices in improving crop land productivity ¾ To identify and select suitable traditional biological and physical land management practices in improving crop land productivity for up scaling.

1.4 Scope of the study

The study was conducted at Diga Woreda specifically by considering four representatives peasant association. The research mainly focused on two methods of land management practices, although land management can take many forms, only traditional biological and physical land management practices were considered.

1.5 Significance of the study

The most significant element in the process of economic development involves an appropriate land resource management. The economy of Ethiopia in general and a specific study area in particular primarily depends on agriculture and hence sustainable agricultural production depends on the appropriate soil fertility management. Over the study area, scondary data showed that some biological and physical land management practices were undertaking in order to improve cropland productivity. Land degradation in general and soil erosion in particular is the most serious environmental problems

5 threatening the study area. Since the well-being of our population is highly interrelated to land, particularly soils, soils have to be managed properly and economically.

Therefore, this study is so significant, which assessed and identified the role of traditional biological and physical land management practices in improving cropland productivity in the Woreda.It helps in identifying the suitable practices of soil for further up scaling through sampled household interview. Farmers' perceptions of land degradation problems and status and determinants of food security are of paramount importance. Hence, it was crucial to identify a suitable and sustained land management practices to increase production of food grain for economic growth and development. So, the results of the study have assumed to be significant for the land management practitioners, agricultural development agents, environmental analysts and researchers to make land resource management analysis.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Concept of soil erosion

Less than a quarter of the earth’s land area has the potential to be agriculturally productive and almost all of it is already under cultivation. Although the remaining land is of marginal quality for agriculture, it is increasingly under pressure in many parts of the world. Moreover, human population is increasing at a shockingly high rate and the productive capacity of soil resources necessary to sustain that population is increasingly decreasing because of soil degradation (Gete, 2000).

Soil is the basic natural resource for sustenance of life on the planet. The use of this resource should not cause its degradation or destruction because the existence of humankind depends on the continued productivity of the soil, but the problem is that an over exploitation of resources without due attention to the management aspects. According to Hurni (1993), over 90% of all human food and livestock feed is produced on land, on soils of varying quality and extent. Hence, our well-being is highly dependent on the potential of soils throughout the world and the way we manage them.

The laws of market demand and supply are simply applied to resource allocation without being fully conscious of the complexity of institutions on which contracts in actual markets crucially depend. Most studies on soil erosion analyze the impact of physical factors like topography, climate and soils, farming practices and population pressure on soil erosion. These analyses suggest interesting causal relationship that shed light on the impact of population pressure on resource degradation. When the population-land ratio increases, the processes of intensification takes place and threaten the sustainability and productivity of natural resources (Pender, 1998).

On the other hand, from a Boserupian, perspective the scarcity of land induced by population pressure would increase the drive to invest in land quality (Boserup, 1965). Population growth may induce farmers to make labor-intensive investments in land improvement and soil management, such as constructing terraces, composting or mulching (Tiffen et al., 1994). Population growth may also induce beneficial changes in

7 markets and institutions or investments in infrastructure (Pender, 1998). Therefore, far from being a purely technical problem of soil science or plant nutrition, the case of soil erosion as problem is economic, social and institutional. The perception of soil erosion as purely technical (physical, chemical and biological) problem needs to be reconsidered. An alternative and broad perception focusing on institutional, social and economic considerations is required to understand the principal causes of these problems, and to prescribe innovative policies to reverse soil erosion problem in these areas (Ayalneh, 2003).

2.2 Approaches to soil conservation

In the course of history of soil and water conservation, in various approaches have been followed. A study carried out for the World Bank has identified three main approaches towards dealing with difficulties of land degradation in developing countries, which are neither strictly sequential in their historical development nor mutually exclusive. These approaches include; the classic (technical), populist and neo-liberal approaches (Biot et al., 1995). The classic approach takes for granted that the extent of and solutions to the problems of land degradation are well known, but the problem is to get people to implement them. It identifies mismanagement of land by users, which are ignorant, irrational and traditional and their subsistence fundamentalism as the core problems in soil and water conservation (SWC) practice. Many SWC projects in developing countries failed to take into account the factors determining resource users’ land management decisions and collapsed shortly after special incentives and subsidies are no longer available. The typical to failures with this approach has been to find “escape hatches”, blaming unfavorable weather conditions, lack of cooperation by different governments, lack of political will and lack of cooperation from farmers (Million, 2001).

Contrary to the classic approach, the populist approach argues that the nature and extent of land degradation are imperfectly understood, that local people often reject conservation technologies for good reasons and in fact adopt their own individual resort to their own practices and adaptations. The idea of this approach call for site-specific participatory study and design using a multidisciplinary approach by teams of specially

8 trained and oriented natural and social scientists in combination with local farmers and resource users and organizations. Indigenous technical knowledge is being taken seriously and new forms of constructive dialogue between resource users and scientists, for example participatory rural appraisal (PRA) continued to be developed. However, the populist approach is not applied on a widely expanded basis and is unrealizable on a large scale (Ayalneh, 2003).

The neo-liberal approach shares some views with the classic with regard to soil and water conservation technology. While assuming problem definition unproblematic, this approach claims that incentive structures motivate farmers to adopt these technologies, through extension. These approaches have influenced a number of projects in several countries, including Ethiopia, by laying foundation for soil and water interventions (Tesfaye, 2003). Nowadays, rural development projects and soil and water conservation projects are mostly guided by the populist approach, with some elements of the neo- liberal approach appearing in the process.

2.3 Soil and water conservation practices

Soil and water conservation practices consist of biological, mechanical measures and institutional arrangements. The first category refers to particular management practices that make use of agronomic skills and biological material rather than physical structures. Mechanical practices, on the other hand, refer to practices that involve physical structures, often with a barrier function. Institutional arrangements refer to land tenure arrangements, forms of labor sharing, and so forth that may also contribute to maintenance of soil fertility (Grohs, 1994).

Soil conservation involves the use of biological and physical measures to offset the effect of land degradation. Biological or agronomic measures refer to farming practices, which help to minimize erosion, improve fertility and soil structures. Physical or structural measures include earthworks aimed at controlling and diverting the run off in the arable areas. These measures are applied to maximize infiltration, to drain excess water from

9 rainstorms and to retain moisture in the soil. However, this study is concerned with the physical conservation measures practiced by farmers in the study area (Hoben,1996).

Soil and water conservation interventions are first a response to the perceived land degradation problem. It includes all forms of human actions to prevent and treat soil degradation (Grohs, 1994, cited in Demeke, 1998). Physical soil and water conservation practices are categorized into two: traditional (indigenous) and improved practices. Whatever the measures might be, these measures aim to control run off, improve soil fertility and harvest water.

Indigenous soil and water conservation (ISWC) is defined to be a practice or idea generated locally or imported from outside and transformed by the local people and interpreted in their way of life. Whereas, Kruger et al. (1997), understood traditional conservation measures as farming practices that have evolved through the course of time without any known outside institutional interventions and which have some soil conservation effects. Various mechanical, biological and agronomic techniques used by farmers in various combinations are incorporated in the term. The traditional soil and water conservation(SWC) are simple structures of a short-term nature that could be reshuffled each year to make use of the soil captured above the structure and avoid rodent production (Wagayehu, 2003). These structures are much more flexible and tend to spread labor requirements for construction and maintenances (Scoones et al., 1996). They are frequently site specific and accordingly vary in purpose. They may harvest water in lowland areas (with the help of tied ridges, level physical soil conservation structures); conserve soil in-situ (traditional stone and soil bunds); dispose of excess water from croplands during heavy rains; improve drainage and conserve soil while simultaneously increasing soil fertility (agro forestry, mixed cropping and intercropping) (Hans-Joachim Kruger et al., 1996). The dynamic nature of the technologies and their adaptability to the changing conditions is the fundamental feature of indigenous technologies. This dynamic interpretation of ISWC leads to a wide-ranging perspectives on technology (Yohannes, 1999). Unlike outsiders who often maintain a single objective, farmers are faced with multiple objectives in their livelihood. In addition, farmers' ISWC does not aim at merely protecting the soil or improving the moisture level. They make compromises with their

10 multiple objectives, resources, level of the erosion problem, urgency of the HH needs, profitability, etc. Therefore, the best soil conservation practice from farmers' perspective is not necessarily that which conserves the most soil (Kerr and Sanghi, 1993). In view of this, farmers often favour SWC practices that give them a quick benefit, while minimizing soil erosion (Tesfaye, 2003).

The improved type of soil and water technologies refers to the recommended type of structures, which have standard length, width, and height (Wegayehu, 2003). These structures have specific design requirements and need major investments of labour in construction, often during a single period (Scoones et al., 1996). Hence, this particular measure has been widely constructed within the food for work (FFW) programme areas (Wagayehu, 2003). In most areas of Ethiopia, new SWC technologies were introduced more than two decades ago. During such span of time, the introduced SWC measures have been under continuous modification, which make it very difficult to trace them back to their origins to compare them with recent development.

The modified type of structures refers to those practices in which farmers have constructed with their own preferred length, spacing and /or height that are different from recommended type (Wagayehu, 2003). Farmers' responses to externally imposed SWC methods are highly shaped by their indigenous practices that are embedded in their local institutions and culture (Tesfaye, 2003). On this issue found out that under small farming households different types of modifications are made in time and space. Some modifications are done at micro level (plot), where the local people are not easily observed by their surroundings let alone by an outsider. Hence, in this study also minor modifications of original technologies are referred to as adopted.

The three SWC structures differ in their initial labor requirement, area lost to conservation structures, durability, flexibility and effectiveness of the structures. When Wagayehu (2003) analyses these differences he found out that the recommended type of structure involves a higher cost in terms of both labor requirements and area lost to conservation structures. According to MoARD (2005), the labor requirement for initial construction of improved structures is estimated to be about 150 person days and 250 person days per kilometer for soil bunds and stone bunds respectively. Whereas, the

11 initial labor requirement for check dam is 2 person day per cubic meter. The same source revealed that, with respect to the effectiveness of the structures in reducing soil loss, the recommended type of structures, which has a shorter slope, length, spacing between consecutive structures, is expected to be more effective particularly on steeper plots. The recommended and to some extent the modified type of structures are long-term structures that will stay in place for several years. The modified and traditional types of structures have the advantage of flexibility to adjust to specific farm and plot characteristics.

In this study, however, in order to better capture household's conservation decision with respect to SWC, different types of physical SWC measures used by farmers in the study area were grouped in to two categories: traditional and improved SWC measures. Traditional measure consists of soil bund, stone bund, tied ridge, diversion channel and check dam. Whereas, improved soil conservation measures include those technologies introduced by SWC Programe operating in the study area such as soil bund, stone bund and check dam. Farmers who retained and renewed conservation structures built on the plot by FFW and those farmers who constructed a similar type of structure on their plot by their own initiative were considered as adopters in this study. The latter is because experience from the area and other parts of the country proved that most farmers destroyed the structures (Admassie, 1995; Hoben, 1996; Shiferaw and Holden, 1998 Cited in Wagayehu, 2003)

Soil conservation must be an integral component of intensified agriculture-the choice of adequate conservation measures will need to be based on an assessment of the form and intensity of the degradation process, and the choice of management practices adapted to the environmental conditions, economic feasibility, and the social acceptability of the proposed control techniques. It is vital that land resources be protected. Yet it must be realized that farmers will do so only when they are given the motivation and the means to do so (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1987)

2.4 The concept of managing land resources towards sustainability

Sustainability in agriculture and more specifically in land use has been on the top of priority list of natural management issues in developing countries. Sustainable soil

12 management means cropping, pastoral and forestry use of the limited and only partially renewable resources soil, water and plant nutrients to safeguard soil productivity also for future generations and prevent or reverse degradation process (Senait, 2002).The objective of sustainable land management is to harmonize the complementary goals of providing environmental, economic and social opportunities for the benefit of present and future generations, while maintaining and enhancing the quality of the land (soil, water and air) resource.

There are various technical solutions recommended for managing land towards sustainability. Techniques aimed at erosion control include contour tillage, minimum/zero tillage, construction of physical soil conservation measures, etc. Soil nutrient replenishment has to be achieved through organic and inorganic fertilizer applications. Traditional erosion control practices, for example; mulch application and long-term fallow management no longer keep pace with the increasing frequency of land use. They include the stabilization of the soil by stone lines, terraces, herbal (grass) strips and various forms of agro forestry measures, for example; planting and management of trees, shrubs and windbreaks hedges .However, these technical solutions alone are not the remedy for the problem (Senait, 2002). To understand soil erosion we must be aware of the political and economic factors affecting land users’ and preventing soil erosion requires political, economic and technical changes. Land management measures need to be adapted to specific soil and landscape characteristics such as soil texture or terrain slope and to socio-economic circumstances of the largest population. This study mainly focuses on the role of socio-economic circumstances, farmers’ perception, and land tenure system in land management.

2.5. Vegetative or Biological Soil-Conservation Measures

Biological soil conservation measures include; vegetative barriers, agronomic and soil fertility improvement practices, which help in controlling surface runoff, reduce soil losses and improve productivity. Agronomic measures are practiced as the second line of defense in erosion control exercise while mechanical/physical measures are primary

13 control measure and are often considered as reinforcement measures (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001)

2.5.1 Strip cropping

Strip cropping is a cropping practice where strips of two or more crops are alternately placed on the contour for erosion control. The practice is useful for controlling soil erosion in areas where cropping system is dominated by row (sparsely populated) crops. If the first strip of crop is a row crop or a crop, which is susceptible to erosion such as sorghum and maize, the second crop should be a crop that effectively controls soil erosion. Hence, if the first strip is maize or sorghum, the second should be forage/food legume that forms dense ground cover. Maize and sorghum are soil-depleting crops while the legume is soil enriching. Other crop that can effectively control the impact of raindrops and runoff can be grown in alternate strips with crops such as maize and sorghum.

In strip cropping, erosion takes place from the strips of row crops and the soil removed from these strips is trapped in the strips planted with soil conserving crops. Strip cropping for erosion control is not normally required on slopes less than 3%, and can be effective up to 10% if well designed. However, on steeper slopes it may be necessary to support it with additional vegetative barriers such as grass strips and hedgerows of grass or shrubs. Strip cropping is best suited to well drained soils. On poorly drained soils, it can result in water logging. Strip widths vary with the severity of erosion, but are generally between 15 and 45 meters. Narrower strips on steep slopes and wider strips on gentle slopes.

2.5.2 Crop rotation

Crop rotation is a practice of growing different crops one after another on the same piece of land, season after season or year after year. It is a valuable traditional practice, which plays an important role in maintaining ecological stability and improving agricultural productivity. If the same crop is grown on a piece of land year after year, the soil nutrient depletes sharply and as a result yield decreases. Nevertheless, if different crops are rotated, the depletion of soil nutrient and the decline in crop yields is minimized.

Crop differs in their effect on soil. Some crops restore or build fertility of the soil, while others deplete its fertility. For instance, legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen and hence enrich soil fertility. Forage legumes and grasses provide good ground cover that protects soil erosion and enriches the soil with organic matter, which in turn improves the structure and biological activities. Cereals such as sorghum and maize deplete soil fertility.

Crop rotation, in addition to fertility restoration and soil and water conservation use, is a traditional cropping practice for controlling diseases, pest and weed infestation. Different crops are not equally susceptible to pests or diseases. Growing the same crop every year leads to build up of pests and diseases in the field, which attack that particular crop.

Crop rotation maintains or improves productivity as a result of improved fertility of the land and reduced pest/diseases problems. Different crops vary in their response to different pests and diseases. Some crop are resistant to some pest and disease including weeds, while others are susceptible. Sorghum is more susceptible to the parasitic weed (striga) than leguminous crop(e.g. chickpea)and oil crop (Noug).Therefore, it is advisable to grow legumes or oil crops after sorghum than growing sorghum after sorghum or millet after sorghum and vice-versa.( Ministry of Agriculture,2001).

2.5.3. Intercropping

Intercropping is a practice of growing two or more crops at the same time on the same piece of land. While the principles and objectives of intercropping and mixed cropping are the same, the patterns are different. Intercropping follows specific arrangements. It is not difficult to distinguish the rows of the main crops from that of companion crops in intercropping. However, in mixed cropping, two or more crops are mixed up and broadcast over the field so that one cannot distinguish the rows of one crop from another.

The aim of intercropping is to increase productivity of the land and to protect the soil against erosion. The intercrop stand makes better use of the available environmental resources. Intercropping reduces the problem of soil erosion. If properly applied intercropping could be a solution to low crop yield and soil erosion in row crops. Fodder

15 legumes tend to produce more biomass than food legumes and the amount of nitrogen fixed is proportional to their biomass. The inclusion of forage legumes in intercropping increases the level of atmospheric nitrogen utilization. Nitrogen will be available to the main crop from root and nodule decay of intercropped leguminous crops (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001).

Besides the “mechanical” or “engineering” techniques used, another way of treating soil conservation has been extensively used. This is usually referred to as “vegetative” or “biological” conservation. The underlying principle here is that soil only becomes subject to erosion if it is bare and exposed to the erosive forces of wind and water. It follows from this that if the soil can be kept under a permanent or near-permanent cover of vegetation, then little or no erosion will occur. To understand this concept fully, it is important to realize the force that both wind and rain can exert on bare soil. For instance, the energy dissipated by a 50 mm rainstorm is theoretically capable of lifting 18 cm of soil 1 m into the air. If the raindrops are large, they fragment soil clods and disperse them in all directions. If there is a cover of vegetation on the surface, either living or dead, the soil is protected as the energy of the falling raindrops is dissipated when they hit the vegetation. Research into this subject shows that the vegetation does not even have to provide a complete cover to be effective; if only about 40% of the soil’s surface is protected by low-level vegetation (not more than 1 m above the surface) and evenly distributed cover, erosion can be reduced by as much as 90%.

Not only this, but a cover of vegetation on the ground slows down the movement of water across the surface and allows it to sink into the soil, becoming available to the roots of plants or percolating down to the water table. In addition, if vegetation can be retained, and allowed to break down and become part of the soil, the physical and chemical properties of the soil are improved. This, in turn, makes the soil less susceptible to erosion and more conducive to plant growth.

A great range of biological conservation measures have been developed and used. In the case of grazing land, this can simply amount to ensuring that the land is never overgrazed and that sufficient cover is always retained to protect the soil. For land that is cropped, the problem is more complicated as it is difficult to cultivate without exposing the land to

16 the wind and rain for at least part of the year. One practice that has become very popular in recent years is to use mulches. New types of plows and cultivators have been designed which can break up the soil without burying all the residues or becoming blocked by the straw and stalks in the process. One of the primary reasons for cultivation is to kill weeds, but this is now often done by spraying chemicals rather than cultivating. A wide range of agrochemicals is now available for this purpose, some of them selective so that they will kill the weeds but not affect the crop.

A practice called “relay cropping” is often used in tropical countries. It is very commonly used in China. With this system, different crops are planted in a rotation but the farmer does not wait until one crop is harvested before the next crop is planted. So, for example, seedlings of maize may be planted in narrow strips running through a wheat crop. The maize is planted out a few weeks before the wheat is harvested so that, when the wheat crop is harvested, the maize plants are already big enough to provide a partial cover to the soil.

A system called “Agro forestry” has been widely promoted in the tropics in recent years. Here tree and field crops are grown together in the same field. The trees are often grown in narrow strips, often on the contour, and are usually cut at different times so that they do not provide shade that would affect the field crops. The trees may be either fruit trees or trees, which have the ability to trap nitrogen from the atmosphere and return it to the soil where it can be used by other plants.

Trees are used in many ways to protect the soil. They are particularly effective as windbreaks and are frequently used to control erosion and reclaim badly degraded land. However, trees are seldom very effective on their own, as soil cover needs to be no more than about 1 m above the surface of the soil to prevent water erosion. A good ground cover of grasses, shrubs, and/or leaf litter is needed if the trees are to effectively control water erosion (David Sanders, 2004).

2.6 Physical soil management Practices

Soil management practices refer to the practices, which improve the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil for enhancing germination, establishment and crop

17 growth. Whereas the agronomic soil conservation practices described below contribute to the restoration and maintenance of soil properties. Soil organic matter management and conservation tillage practices are key tools in soil management practices (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001).

2.6.1 Conservation tillage

Conservation tillage is a tillage practice aimed at creating favorable soil environment for germination, establishment and plant growth. Conservation tillage is designed to avoid the tillage operations that destroy soil structure, which initiate problems of surface sealing and soil compaction.

This umbrella term can include reduced tillage, minimum tillage, no-till, direct drill, mulch tillage, stubble-mulch farming, trash farming, strip tillage, plough-plant .In countries with advanced soil conservation programs, particularly the USA and Australia, the concept of conservation tillage is the main theme of the recommendations for cropland, and it is also being taken up quickly in other areas, for example southern Brazil. The application is mainly in mechanized high production farming with good rainfall, or for the control of wind erosion where there is large-scale mechanized cereal production. It is less applicable to low input level crop production, or subsistence agriculture.

The principles are equally effective in any conditions - to maximize cover by returning crop residues and not inverting the top soil, and by using a high crop density of vigorous crops. Conservation tillage also has the advantage of reducing the need for terraces or other permanent structures. However, there are several disadvantages which hinder the application of conservation tillage in semi-arid conditions: dense plant covers may be incompatible with the well-tested strategy of using low plant populations to suit low moisture availability; crop residues may be of value as feed for livestock; planting through surface mulches is not easy for ox-drawn planters although there may be no problem with hand jab planters tillage includes zero tillage, reduced/minimum tillage, mulch tillage, and strip or zero tillage. All conservation tillage operations are aimed at controlling soil degradation and improving soil productivity.

Zero tillage is a tillage in which land remains untilled before planting, but planting furrow or hole is opened at planting.

Minimum /Reduced tillage is a tillage practice in which the least possible tillage operation is performed to break up hard pans/compacted layers to increase infiltration, water storage capacity of the soil and to minimize resistance to root development

Mulch tillage is a tillage operation, which follows the principles of least soil disturbance and maximum crop residue application/maintenance. The crop residue is incorporated into the soil. The practice also includes in-situ mulch management system where residue of dead or chemically killed cover is left in place.

Strip/Zonal tillage is a tillage practice in which the seedbed is divided into two that is seedling zone and soil management zone (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001).

2.6.1.1 Contour cultivation

Contour cultivation and planting is a practice of ploughing land and planting crops along a contour line. Carrying out cultivation and planting on the contour reduces soil erosion from slope. In dry areas, contour cultivation can be adjusted to standard ridge and furrow system to make it effective in controlling soil erosion and moisture conservation in dry areas. The most effective way to reduce soil erosion and conserve soil moisture is by minimizing the rate of runoff.

2.6.1.2 Mulching/crop residue management

Mulching is the covering of the soil with crop residues such as straw, maize or sorghum stalks or standing stubble. The cover protects the soil from raindrop impact and reduces the velocity of runoff. Maintaing crop residues or mulches on the farm controls effectively soil erosion and has considerable potential for the restoration and maintenance of soil fertility. Mulching is one of the most effective methods to minimize erosion. A crop residue covering the ground intercept raindrop impact, preventing splash erosion, slow down the water flows and increases the infiltration rate. It also encourages insects

19 and worms to take holes into the ground, thus increasing the permeability of the soil (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001)

2.7 Population pressure and land degradation

The population pressure concept is a relative and a dynamic concept the extent of which at a given point in time is determined by taking into account endowment of natural resource, human capability, cropping system and production technologies in use and alternative employment/ income opportunities within and outside an area which are by themselves subjected to change (Tesfaye , 2003). In connection to this the same source further point out that as population growth increase fallowing and crop rotation as traditional soil fertility maintenance practice are substantially reduced or totally cease to exist. This would lead to soil mining and decline in per capita output unless significant investment is made in drainage terracing and most importantly in soil fertility management.

Any measure aiming at restoring soil fertility if it is to have sustainable beneficial effect on the livelihood of the rural households has to be related to the causes of degradation, and not just visible system (Ayalneh, 2003). The main causes of land degradation problems are very complex and attributed to both physical and socio- economic factors. Many empirical studies have indicated that the main facets of land degradation such as deforestation, overgrazing, cultivation of marginal lands and soil fertility depletion can attribute to population pressure. Methodology, classify the causes of soil erosion, which is the main form of land degradation in developing countries in to physical factor and human factors. This source further explained that population growth and apparently decline in holdings (fragmentations) are the first most important perceived causes of human induced land degradation. As population increases many farming, households are pushed to poor marginal agricultural land where inadequate and unreliable rainfall, adverse soil condition, fertility and topography limit agricultural productivity and increase the risk of chronic land degradation

Among different form of land degradation processes in Ethiopia soil erosion by water is the most important environmental problem that possesses an ominous treat to the food security of the population and future development prospects of the country (Hurni, 1988). This process has been accelerated by population growth that has brought with it more deforestation. With the increase of population pressure development of agricultural production involves an increased risk of land degradation through deforestation and expansion to new marginal lands that are often fragile and susceptible to erosion.

2.8 Farmers’ perception of soil erosion

Perception is the process whereby sensory stimulation is translated into organized experience. That perception is the joint product of stimulation and of the process itself. In most empirical studies, perception is defined as an attitudinal process explained by the psychological state of an individual that is determined by individual characteristics, socio-economic, institutional and physical factors. The main prerequisite for attaining sustainable land management is the formulation of appropriate resource management policies, which are supported by the farming communities and to which they are willing and able to respond (Ayalneh, 2003). The responses, commitments and responsibilities required for the success of such policies still depend on the knowledge and perception of the problem by smallholder farmers.

To identify changes, which occur in the state of nature, it is valuable to get insights on the awareness of the physical processes and the changes of land management systems and visions and sense of control over the land that the local people have becomes paramount important. With regard to this, Atakilte (2003) states that the local people have a detailed understanding of the biological and the physical elements of their environment. He adds the land degradation problem was real issue and problems that the local people experience in their farming system.

Regarding the farmers’ perception on soil degradation, Biota et al. (1995) suggests that the views of different actors in land management should be considered, because all have their own perceptions on land degradation and the criteria to be used for it. This view is

21 consistent with the social learning perspective, which claims that different actors perceive different things according to their engagement with their immediate environment.

Therefore, resource users have their own reasons for what they do with their resources, their perception of the process and whether they see any problem or not (Leeuwis, 2004).

Local people’s visions and sense in terms of managing and controlling problems related to soil erosion were positive and strong. Ayalneh (2003) found out that farmers’ perception of soil fertility status as fertile, moderately fertile, and degraded is harmonious with what was developed by the International Society of Soil Science. Furthermore, he stresses that through their several years of observation on farming and grazing land and with the knowledge handed down to them by their ancestors, farmers acquired diverse information to recognize extreme indicators of land degradation. Farmers’ perceptions can have a major bearing on land management. Farmers who have already perceived the problem of soil erosion are more likely to be willing to practices land management activities (Tesfaye, 2003; Paulos et al., 2002). Although farmers are often more acutely aware of the condition of their land than is sometimes assumed by experts, they may not be fully aware of land degradation. Thus, the perception variable is expected to have a strong relationship with decision-making on land management practices (Ervin and Ervin, 1982; Bekele and Holden, 1998). Soil degradation is often a very slow process and may be almost invisible. Farmers thus may not observe ongoing erosion or nutrient depletion problems, or perceive them as immediate problems. Even if farmers do accurately perceive land degradation as a problem, they may not be induced to act to reverse it. They may attribute the problem to natural or divine causes beyond their control (Ervin and Ervin, 1982).

On the other hand, they may understand that the problem is affected by their own actions, but the alternatives that they are aware of to address the problem may be too costly relative to the perceived short-term benefits. In some cases, conservation measures reduce farmers’ yields in the short term by reducing cropped area or harboring pests. These problems are compounded if farmers discount the future heavily as a result of poverty and/or credit constraints (Bekele and Holden, 1998).Thus; many farmers require food-for-work to voluntarily participate in soil conservation programme. On the other

22 hand, some farmers may have attitudes favoring conservation; that is, they may obtain psychological benefits from taking actions to conserve the land, regardless of the economic benefits (Singh et al., 1986). If such attitude can be effectively promoted, promotional efforts could be more effective in the long run than using subsidies or compulsory approaches to promote conservation.

2.9 Soil Organic Matter

Soil organic matter is plant and animal residence in the soil in various stage of decomposition (Gardiner and Miller, 2004). It has a number of positive effects such as it is a sources of 90 to 95 percent of the nitrogen in unfertilized soil, is the major source of both available phosphorous and available sulfur, contributes to the cation exchange capacity (CEC): often furnishing 30 to 70 percent, increases water content and air and water flow rate, supply carbon for many microbes that perform other beneficial functions in soil, when it is left of top of soil against changes in acidity on toxicity (Gardiner and Miller, 2004).So, that help to sustain soil fertility by improvising retention of mineral nutrients of soil flora and fauna. It’s also a key factor associated with improvement of decline of soil fertility (Brawn et al,. 1994) which plays an important part in establishing the intrinsic property of soils.

Organic matter enhances the soil in many ways. It is also important for physical, chemical and biological soil properties. The organic matter builds and improves soil structure, thereby, improving soil drainage, infiltration of water in to the soil, aeration and water holding capacity. The improved soil structure results in well-developed plant root system and healthier, more disease resistant crops. Soil organic matter increases the cation exchange capacity of a soil and provides of neutralizing or buffering effect on soil pH (preventing rapid changes in pH). Soils that are high in organic matter contents have water stable aggregates that bind soil particles together and are resistant to being broken down by the impact of raindrops.

Organic matter depilation has been by far one of the most problems leading to soil degradation. This situation must be reversed and accumulate carbon in the soil which help preventing soil degradation). It is affected by the kind of farming and soil fertility

23 management practices for instance; in his study reported that continuous cultivation becomes the major causes of most organic matter losses. Continuous cropping can also reduce soil organic matter or soil organic. Thus, assessment of soil organic matter is a valuable step towards identifying the overall quality of soil. Table below shows that the rating of soil organic matter categories.

Table 1. Rating of Organic Matter and its categories Rating Total organic matter (%) Very high >6 High 4.3-6.0 Medium 2.1-4.2 Low 1.0-2.0 Very Low <1.0 Source: Tan (1996)

2.10 Total Nitrogen

Nitrogen (N) is one of the major nutrients required for the nutrition of plants and is often the controlling factor in plant growth. Thus, lack of nitrogen is the greatest single cause of low crop yield (Young, 1976). Of the total amount of nitrogen present in soils, nearly 95-99% is in the organic form and 1-5% in the inorganic form as ammonium and nitrates. It is a major competent of soil organic matter which contains an average of about 5 percent nitrogen (Gardiner and Miller, 2004).Total nitrogen is merely an indicator of the soil potential for the element, but not the measure in which it becomes available to the plant. Nitrogen in organic forms is not available to plants but must be converted to available forms, either the cationic form ammonium ion (NH4+), or the an ionic form nitrate (NO3-).

Even though total nitrogen is not a measure of available nitrogen to plants, but it is an important indicator of the soil potential for the element. Nitrogen contents of soils are also needed for the evaluation of C-N ratios of soils, which give an indication of the processes of transformations of organic N to available N like ammonia nitrite and nitrate-

N. The principal cause (up to 100kg or more, in intensive cropping) come from removal in harvested crops and insufficient replenishment through manures or fertilizers.

According to Barber (1984), soil total nitrogen can be classified as from very low to very high in total nitrogen.

Table 2 classification of soil based on total nitrogen content (%) Total nitrogen Class >0.4 Very high 0.3-0.4 High 0.2-0.3 Medium 0.1-0.2 Low <0.1 Very low

Source Barber (1984)

2.11 Available phosphorus

Next to nitrogen, phosphorus has more widespread influence on both natural and agricultural ecosystems than any other essential elements. Phosphorus- deficient plants are often severely stunted, since this element takes part in the synthesis of several essential compounds upon which all plant and animal life depends (Barber, 1984). In agricultural ecosystems, phosphorus contains are much more critical because phosphorus in the harvested crops is removed from the system, with only limited quantities being returned in crop residues and animal manures. Neither plants nor animals can grow without phosphorus. It is an essential component of the organic compound often called the energy currency of the living cell adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and an essential component of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA).

The principal environmental problems related to soil phosphorus are land degradation caused by two little available phosphorus and accelerated eutrophication caused by too much. The low phosphorus availability is partly result of extensive losses of phosphorus during long periods of relatively intense weathering and partly due to the low viability of

25 phosphorus in the aluminum and iron combinations that are the dominant forms of phosphorus in these soils. Table below illustrates that the relationship between soil nutrient levels and soil chemical rating of available phosphorus in ppm.

Table 3: Relationship between soil nutrient levels and soil chemical rating

Soil chemical value Soil chemical ratings of available P(ppm) Very low < 5 Low 5-10 Medium 10-25 High 25-50 Very high >50 Source: Barber (1984)

2.12 Soil pH

The term pH is from the French pouvoir hydrogen or hydrogen power. Soil reaction (pH) is an indication of the acidity or basicity of the soil and is measured in pH units. It also defined as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity in which in very dilute solution can be expressed as concentration, in gram mole per liter. The scale ranges from 0 to 14 with pH 7 as the neutral point. From pH 7 to 0 the soil increasing more acidic, from pH 7 to 14 the soil is increasing more alkaline (basic) (Purohit et at., 2004). The pH is a very important property of soil as it determines the availability of nutrients, microbial activity and physical condition of the soil. Soil PH depends on a variety of factors including all five soil forming factors plus the season of the year, cropping practice, the soil horizon sampled, the water content at the sampling time and the way the pH is determined (web site). The soil pH is easily determined and provides clues about other soil properties. The soil pH greatly affects the solubility of minerals. For instance, in acidic soils the phosphate ions react with iron, aluminum, manganese ions to firm insoluble phosphate, since acidic soils have high amount of exchangeable aluminum, manganese and iron. On the other hand, in alkaline soils soluble phosphate ions adsorb on solid calcium carbonate surface so phosphorous is most available at about pH 6.5 by

26 minerals soils and pH 5.5 for organic soil (Gardiner and Miller, 2004). Moreover, it influences plant growth by its effects on the activities of beneficial microorganisms. According to Tan (1996), soil pH is the most important determinant of soil chemical properties.

Table 4 : Soil PH value with associated soil reaction

PH Value Acidity PH value Acidity 4.0-4.5 Extremely acidic 6.5-7.4 Neutral 4.5-5.0 V-strong acidic 7.4-7.8 Slightly alkaline 5.0-5.5 Strong acidic 7.8-7.8 Moderately alkaline 5.5-6.0 Moderately acidic 8.4-9.0 Strongly alkaline 6.0-6.5 Slightly acidic 9.0-10.0 V. Strongly alkaline Source: SSSA (1996)

3. Materials and Methods 3.1 Description of the study area 3.1.1 Location The study was conducted at Diga Woreda of East Wollega Zone, Oromia Regional State. The Woreda is located at about 346 km away from Addis Ababa and 15km from Nekemte town to the West. The area shares boundaries with West Wollega Zone in the West, Guto Gida Woreda in the East, Sasiga in the South and Leka Dulecha in the North. There are 21 Peasant Associations in the Woreda, among these four PAs (Peasant Association) were selected for the study purposively based on the activities of traditional land management practices under taken by the local farmers, in which two sample PAs from the middle altitude area and two PAs from the low land areas; namely: Jirata, Firomsa, Arjo Kote bula and Mada Jalala.

Figure 1: Map of Diga Woreda

Sample PAs

3.1.2. Agro-ecology

The study Woreda is stratified into two regions, based on agro-climatical conditions namely: middle altitude ranges 2100-2342m.a.s.l and low land ranges 1200-2100 m.a.s.l(Josha O,et al;2010). From these total land area middle altitude occupy 42% and low land occupy 58% according to Woreda office of Agriculture, 2010.

3.1.3. Topography

As indicated in table 5 the topography of the study area is characterized as flat, gentle slope, steep slope, very steep slope and hill.

Table 5: Topographic of the Diga Woreda

No Topography Area/ha % coverage 1. Flat (0-3%) 14170 34% 2.. Gentle slope (3-15%) 21247 52% 3. Steep slope (15-30%) 3420 8% 4. Very seep (30-50%) 1675 4% 5. Hill>50% 150 0.37% 6. Others 126 0.3% Total 40788

Source: Diga BOA, 2010

3.1.4. Soils of the study area

The dominant soil color of the area is red in the middle altitude, and black in the low land and generally classified as Acrisols and Alisols according to FAO-UNSCO classification (2008) and Alluvium deposits are found along the riverbanks at downstream of the low land.

3.1.5. Land use

The total area of the Woreda is estimated at 40788 hectares. This total land is allocated to arable land, grazing land, forest land, bushes and shrubs, construction and others which are yet to be classified according the data obtained from Woreda Agricultural Office, 2010. The unclassified land is assumed to be covered by woodland and others (Table 6).

Table 6: Different land use type in the study area

No Land use Coverage in hectares % coverage

1 Arable land 28952 71%

2. Grazing land 4444 11%

3. Forest land 4003 10%

4. Bushes and shrubs 770 2%

5. Construction 399 1%

6. Unclassified land 2220 5%

Total 40788

Source: Diga BOA, 2010

3.1.6. Water resources

The study area is generally located at the high altitude region of the country and receives high rainfall during rainy season, which begin in late April, and ends in early September. Before some 20 years, the area were known in water resource potential(Table 7), but currently it is under severe depletion, due to land degradation caused by water erosion, steep slope cultivation, deforestation for expansion of agriculture and plantation of Eucalyptus tree on farm land and, along river and stream bank at the middle altitude area also causes water depletion. During the dry season, some streams and wells are dry out or the volume of water reduces significantly due to clearance of vegetation cover at the upstream areas of the watershed. This indicates that surface runoff and soil erosion is increased and reducing the annual recharge of the ground water.

Table 7: Types of water sources in Diga Woreda

No Types of water Quantity(No) Annual Perennial Protected Non-protected

1. Rivers 26 26 26

2. Streams 167 75 92 29 138

3. Reservoirs 1 1 1

4. Deep well 2 2 2 5. Shallow well 7 1 6 7 Source: Diga Woreda Water Resource Office, 2010

3.1.7. Climate

Diga Woreda is general located among the high land areas of the country where the rainfall varies from 1376- 2037mm, and the annual mean temperature varies from 14.60 to 30.40 Celsius (Josha O.et al;2010).Within the Woreda, there are two agro ecology region (middle and low land).

3.1.8. Vegetation

The study area is known for its natural vegetation cover before some 20 years ago, where remnant natural vegetation of a country is expected to be existed. But currently the area is under severe pressure of deforestation and land degradation, because of population increase and their encroachment in forestlands which are converted into farm lands especially in untouched low land areas of the Woreda. This intensive destruction of natural vegetation had occurred during the last two decades according to Woreda agricultural office.

Continuing increase in population pressure results not only through increase in local population but also from the migration of adjacent lowland farmers. Such population increment declined the crop productivity at the lowland areas, which forced the continued expansion of cultivation in steep slopes, often involving the clearance of native upland vegetation. The loss of vegetation cover has caused increased soil erosion, biodiversity loss and ultimately reduced the water flows in streams and rivers (MoA, 1989).

Deliberate burning, clearing of forests for expansion of agricultural lands and fuel wood collection are some of the factors for the removal of natural vegetation in the study area. .The remnants of some indigenous tree species and natural vegetation are found along the banks of river and streams and at the top of the hilly areas. Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus Camaldulensis) is the dominant tree species widely planted in the middle altitude of the Woreda. Currently, most farmland and roadside areas are under Eucalyptus plantation. Farmers prefer to plant eucalyptus tree than other indigenous species due to its economic importance as a source of income from sale of wood as construction materials and fuel wood. However, the Eucalyptus negatively affects the soil fertility and water potential of the Woreda which was reported by farmers during the interview.

Since natural vegetation is being an open access resource and it is exposed to misuse and over exploitation, upland soils have been subjected to misuse and unsustainable for farming practices that have resulted in land degradation. The uplands are being eroded and their nutrients depleted, resulting in soil instability and permanent damage. As the land, resource base becomes less productive, food insecurity and competition for dwindling resource increases.

3.1.9. Population

The population size and their distribution vary from the history of early human settlements. High population pressure existed in the middle altitude where human beings were settled first and in low land areas, the distribution of population was low and scattered. The total population of the Woreda is 106,664 while 62513 are women and 44,351 are men. The populations of the sampled four PAs are 27,653, where 16,247 are women and 11,406 are men (CSA, 2007).

3.2. Farming system and land management practices

3.2.1. Farming system

Traditional mixed crop- livestock system is the predominant farming system in the study area. The main crops grown in the study area are; Teff(Eragrostis tef) Finger millet, Maize(Zea mays.L),Noug(Guizotia abyssinica),Faba bean(Vicia faba) and

Barely(HordeumVulgare) in the middle altitude,and Maize, Sorghum, Seasam(Sesamum indicum L) and Haricot bean(Phaseolus Vulgaris) are grown in the low land areas. In addition to land management practices for improving crop land productivity, majority of the farmers except a few farmers who use shifting cultivation at low land areas, are using Inorganic fertilizers for soil fertility amendment .DAP and UREA fertilizers are widely applied according to farmers recommendation rate(less than research recommendation) and a few farmers have applied according to the recommendation in the area only for maize. Oxen power is the main power source for ploughing and threshing activities except maize, sorghum and sesame uses human labor for threshing. Crop weeding is mostly practiced by hand pulling, but before some 10 years, they have started to use herbicide for controlling weeds from Teff, Finger millet and wheat (Triticum spp) farm. Some perennial crops like coffee, Banana and Mango are also grown in the low land areas. Rainfall is the main source of water for agriculture in the area. Besides supplementary irrigation water is also used for agriculture. Shifting cultivation is widely practiced at the low land areas and continuous farming in middle altitude, where the population density is relatively high.

3.2.2. Land Management Practices

3.2.2.1 Biological land management practices

Land degradation is an emergent issue in the study area and becoming one of the prime agricultural constraints in crop- livestock production. The area was previously known for its forest cover and agricultural potential. However, recently land degradation is increasing and cropland productivity is decreasing, due to deforestation, steep slope cultivation, over grazing and erosion. Biological land management is one of the traditional practices, where some farmers have started exercising it after realizing the problem of cropland productivity reduction. Some of the biological land management practices that practiced by the local farmers are: crop rotation, intercropping, grass strip, agro-forestry and very few Alley cropping.

3.2.1.1. Crop rotation

Crop rotation is mainly a common practice exercised by many farmers as compared to other practices both in the middle altitude and low land areas for soil fertility maintenance, weed and diseases control. The sequence of rotation is not similar in both agro-ecology, because it depends on crop grown in the area. All sampled farmers’ fields were cultivated for annual crops with a common rotation sequence in middle altitude teff- bean- finger millet and Noug one after the other. Teff and finger millet are considered as soil depleting crops and bean and Noug are legumes and enrich soil fertility. At the low land areas: maize- seasam and sorghum are grown one after the other and seasam is considered as soil fertility improving crop.

3.2.1.2. Intercropping

Intercropping is mostly practiced at the low land areas where Haricot bean and forages are growing with maize and sorghum (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Intercropping Practices

3.2.1.3 Agro-forestry Agro-forestry is also one of the practices mainly at the low land areas in the Woreda where Mango (Mangifera indica L) is well integrated with the cultivated crops and considered as an important component of the farm (Table 4). A few farmers continue this practice, but the practice is still very much in progress. The reason why farmers pay more attention for mango tree is because of its double benefits, one for the income through sale of mango, and the second that it enhances the cropland productivity by increasing the infiltration and by controlling the runoff and soil erosion.

Figure 3: Agro-forestry practice

3.2.1.4 Grass strip

Grass strip is the other biological land management practice in the area, which is being practiced by a few farmers in their fields by planting vetiver and native grasses along the contour at the top and in between the farmland (Table 5). Besides serving as fodder for the cattle, also impacts soil. It is being used for the control of soil erosion or for effective soil and water conservation.

Figure 4: Grass strip practice on farmland

3.3.2 Physical land Management Practices

Residue management, contour farming, minimum tillage and zero tillage are some of the physical land management practices followed in the study area. Except zero tillage practice, all other practices are very much in vogue in the study area.

3.3.2.1 Residue Management

Residue management is one of traditional practices in which crop residues are left on farmland, recycled until the last date of planting and used as mulch. Three different practices are observed in the study area regarding use of crop residues (Table 6&7)

1. Clearing of crop residues before ploughing the field.

2. Crop residues are left in the field and used as animal feed and for fencing.

3. Burning of residues in the field before ploughing a farm.

Even though the three practices have their own advantages and disadvantage, crop residues in field, and incorporating with the soil, they become organic manure through decomposition and control run off. Mulch application increases water use efficiency during dry season by regulating soil moisture loss

Figure 5: crop residue recycling practices Figure 6: Burning of crop residue

3.3.2.2 Contour farming

Contour farming is a common traditional practice exercised by many farmers as compared to other physical land management practices. Mada Jalala Peeasant Association settler is one of the sampled PA where best practice of contour farming is exercised (Fig 7 &8). The re-settlers occupied the areas before six years through state sponsored from the Eastern parts of Oromia Region ,East and west of Haraghe Zone (RRC,1988).. The area is where the State farm has been growing crops for very long period, and as a result, the soil fertility has considerably been declined. However, those farmers who have practiced water and soil conservation measures have rehabilitated the degraded land. They are well experienced in contour farming, harvesting rainwater and water diversion practices for irrigation. They also use their own local experience in designing and implementing water diversion and channel construction. Furrow irrigation is a commmon practice in the area under study.

Figure 7: contour farming practice Figure 8: Furrow irrigation practice

3.3.2.3 Minimum Tillage

Continuous and intensive tillage pracctices attribute for the declining of soil fertility. As the frequency of tillage increases, soil particles are getting finer and as a result, proportional space for air and water is disturbed which affects the normal growth of crops. For example, in the study area, frequency of tillage for Teff is 5-6 and for Finger millet it is 4-5 times. A few farmers have started to minimize tillage intensity in the study area.

3.4 Methods 3.4.1 Reconnaissance Survey A reconnaissance survey was conducted for selection of the study site, terrain, location and specific study fields in October 2010 before the crop harvest for seven days within a Woreda. Four sample PAs were selected based on the topograaphic representative of the remaining PAs.

3.4.2 Biophysical survey

Biological and physical environment existing within the study area was identified through field survey; Survey of soil, water and drainage, vegetation, and conservation practices and strategies and land management practices, climate (rainfall, altitude, and winds), specific topographic features (gradient and length of slope, shape and direction of past/current erosion feature, land use and cropping history.

3.4.3 Study design and sampling strategy

3.4.3.1 Design of the study

The research was designed and implemented in Diga Woreda and the role of traditional biological and physical land management practices was assessed and examined in improving cropland productivity. From the total of 21 PAs, four sample PAs were selected purposively for the study. From the four PAs, 120 household’s samples and their farm were selected for the study, in which 60 farmers field with and 60 without traditional biological and physical land management practices on their farm. The most common practices were: crop rotation, intercropping, alley cropping and strip-cropping, residue management, contour farming and minimum tillage based on field observation.

Sample House Holds (HHs) and their field were selected as fields of biological and physical land management practices based on maximum and minimum criteria set for, and where at least four and above practices practiced on their farm and at a minimum two for each practice. Another 60 households and their farm sample without biological and physical land management practices were selected purposively where zero or at maximum one practice was practiced on their fields (based on field observation). Two sites have been analyzed and assessed for their soil fertility status, plant biomass weight and crop yield respectively. Soil sample was taken from area of 100x50m cultivated farmer’s field per PA for each and total 24 (12with and 12without) practices within the range of less than 2km distance between each sample; it was due to limited number of farm land sample found adjacently.

3.4.3.2 Sampling Technique

The research was implemented within the project area of the funding the study, namely Diga Woreda of East Wollega Zone. Multi stage sampling techniques have been used to select PAs, draw sample households and their farm fields for the study. The criteria for the selection of PAs were based on; soil erosion problem, potential in agricultural production and where some traditional biological and physical land management

38 practices were relatively undertaken and while other field factors (topography, slope, soil type and crop type) remained homogenous.

Households and their fields were purposively selected and registered from each PAs, based on traditional biological and physical land management practices practiced on their field through survey and data obtained from the respective PAs administration offices. For each practice, 60 farm households were selected. Farmers and their field with and without practices were selected purposively due to limited number of farmers who applied the practices. A total of 120 farm households ‘with equal size (30 sample) from each PA and random sampling techniques were used to draw sample households from list of registered document from each PAs. Individual farmers were identified based on variation in traditional BPLM practices observed in their farm. Efforts were made to include diversity of BPLM practices as much as possible. 60 farmers and their fields with and 60 without traditional biological and physical land management practices were selected for the study.

3.4.4. Type and Source of data

Both relevant qualitative and quantitative data were collected from primary and secondary sources. The primary data for qualitative study were collected from elders, community leaders and non-participant farmers who have adequate knowledge and information about the past and present environmental conditions of the study area. The knowledge and information of these people include; available natural resources and its managements, agricultural production, land use, land management practices, institutional support,. The primary data which were collected for quantitative study include: household characteristics (age, education, farming experiences, family size, marital status), farm characteristics (number of plots), crop yield records, biological and physical land management practices of soil conservation measures, labor availability, agricultural extension and credit. The primary data were collected from sample household farmers.

Secondary data for quantitative study such as description about the study area, location, topography, climate, population, agricultural production, land management practices

39 were collected from published and unpublished documents of different Governmental organizations.

3.4.5 Soil survey

12 soil samples was taken from selected 12 farmer’s fields (treated) those who practiced at minimum four (two for each practices) on their farmland. Another 12 (control) soils sample from 12 farmers’ fields with no biological and physical land management practices exercised on their field were collected from four PAs.The distance between the two sample were from adjacent to less than 2km. 6 soil samples from each farmland and for each practices were collected by using auger at 20cm depth in a zigzag manner and mixed into one composite soil sample and taken to laboratory for soil physic-chemical properties analysis. A total of 24 soil samples(12 treated and 12 untreated) were collected from 24 farmer’s fields on which the two dominant crops (Teff and Maize) were grown and analyzed in the laboratory for its organic matter, NPK, CEC, pH and bulk density. All soil samples have been taken from cropland grown on the slope range of 3-10% at the distance of not more than 2km between the two practices.

From the same sampled farmland, 50kg of soil sample from 6 fields from each PA for each practice was collected and taken to nursery site, and Buck wheat was grown on 1x1m of 8 seed bed, 4 for each practice by using irrigation water in randomized block design. After 35 days of its planting, fresh biomass weight and plants height of 50 plants from each seedbed of the two practices (treated and controll) were measured. Dry biomass weight measurement of the seedlings was also taken after air-dried. Crop yields were taken and measured after 75 days of its planting.

3.4.6 Soil analysis.

The soil samples were air dried, crushed with mortar and pestle, mixed well and passed through a 2 mm sieve for the following physico-chemical analysis; organic matter content, total nitrogen, available phosphorous, available K, soil pH, CEC and bulk density.

Organic carbon content was determined by wet oxidation method (Walkly, 1947). This method involves a wet oxidation of the organic carbon with a mixture of potassium dichromate, sulphuric acid and titrated by ferrous sulphate solution. Conversion of carbon to organic matter was done with the empirical factor of 1.724. Total nitrogen was determined following the Micro-Kjeldahl (1883) procedure for converting organic nitrogen to ammonium-nitrogen that can be readily estimated. Available phosphorous of soil samples was determined by measure absorbance on spectrophotometer following the method of Olsen et al. (1954) at pH 7.0 AVK was by Flame photometer measurement. pH of soil samples was measured from a soil suspension solution prepared with 1:2.5(one gram soil with 2.5 distilled water) soil water ratios using conventional glass electrode meter. CEC were determined by direct method NH4CHCOO (Ammonium Acetate) at pH 7.0 (Mocek et al., 1997). Bulk density of the soil was determined by the mass of a unit volume of soil bulk including pore space. Bulk density of the soil samples were estimated by taking undisturbed soil core from the surface of the soil by driving a metal cylinder /core sampler (Black, 1965) with a diameter of 5 cm and a height of 5 cm.

3.4.7. Socio economic survey

Quantitative data were collected from sampled household respondents using structural quaternaries (both open and closed ended questionnaires) which have been developed prior to interview schedule. Semi-structured questionnaire were used to gather both quantitative and qualitative data from household interview, key informants, focused group discussions by open-ended questions.

3.4.7.1 Household survey

Household survey was conducted and crop yield data/ records was taken from 120 sample households, where 60 farmers and their field with and 60 without traditional biological and physical land management practices practiced on their farm within the selected PAs. From each PA, a history of yield records of 30 households, 15 with and 15 without traditional biological and physical land management practices practiced on their field were taken from the secondary sources for the last consecutive ten years for the two dominant crops (Teff from the middle altitude and Maize from the lowland) grown in the

41 study area, and examined for its yield variation and the role of traditional land management practices in improving cropland productivity was described between the two practices.. In addition, the various types of traditional biological and physical land management practices that have been practiced by the local farmers were identified through farmer’s interview and field observation. Furthermore, the suitable traditional biological and physical land management (TBPLM) practices and their effectiveness in improving cropland productivity were also identified by examining farmer’s level of application and preference to each or cumulative practices of different types of biological and physical land management practices at field through household survey for further up scaling.

3.4.8 Method of data collection

For qualitative data; observation, individual and group interview and discussions were the main methods used for data collection where semi-structured interview have been used primarily. Besides these, transect survey was also undertaken. During the survey, discussion was carried out with different groups of farmers. Observations and identifications of biological and physical land management practices practiced in the study area were also done .The researcher and four enumerators have collected all these data until the end of the fieldwork.

The primary data required for the quantitative study were collected from sample households through formal survey using a structured interview schedule. However, before the actual data collection, several preparatory activities were carried out. First, four enumerators were trained for one day in class room on the objectives, content of the questionnaire and method of data collection; and second, one day practical field training on the types, identification and assessment of biological and physical land management practices. Four development agents of Agricultural Development Office (enumerators) who have better knowledge and experience on the farming and land management system of the study area were participated in data collection both at household and field level.

3.4.9 Data Analysis

The qualitative and quantitative data that have been obtained through data collection methods were analyzed by using appropriate methods for each analysis. The quantitative data obtained from the soil analysis, were subjected to statistical sample analysis using SPSS computer software like; mean, standard deviation and standard error of mean for mean separation of each soil parameters. Paired samples T-Test analysis was done to detect whether the differences in soil attributes studied differed significantly between farmers’ fields with and without TBPLM practices. While household survey for the states of traditional BPLM practice was analyzed using descriptive statistics to examine the difference and relationship between the variables. Descriptive statistics like: percentage, mean, variance, figures, charts and standard deviation. Qualitative data was analyzed and interpreted in words.

3.4.9.1 Soil data Analysis

Data that have been obtained from the laboratory test and analysis for each soil chemical property of soil with and without BPLM practices were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis for determination of mean, standard deviation and standard error of mean for each variable. Mean difference between the two variables (with and without), traditional BPLM practice was calculated and concluded accordingly. Also to detect the presence of significant difference between the two practices in soil physic-chemical properties, paired samples T-Test analysis were conducted by using SPSS-16 software computer at 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 significance level. The final output of the analysis was interpreted in words and figures depending on criteria stated for accepting or rejecting null hypothesis based on t calculated and p-value and the mean values of each variable were displayed on tables and figures.

3.4.9.2 Socio-economic data analysis

The data which were collected from household respondents about their trend and experience of traditional BPLM practices on their farmland by using questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as standard deviation, means, and percentages.

Paired samples T-test analysis was also used to compute yield data obtained from household respondents, which has been practiced through time series and examined to check whether yield difference existed between farmland with and without traditional BPLM practices during the last 10 years. Finally mean and computed percentages of each variable was displayed on tables and charts and interpreted accordingly.

4. Result and Discussions

4.1. States of traditional Biological and physical land management practices

4.1.1 Biological land management practices

Biological land management practice is one of the traditional practices under taken by the local farmers in the study area. Some of the biological land management practices that practiced by the local farmers were: crop rotation, intercropping, grass strip and agro- forestry (Fig 9).

4.1.1.1 Crop rotation

This is very important, as a shortage of nitrogen is one of the most common causes of crops not growing well. Plant nutrients specially nitrogen which has been removed by crop harvest or lost from soil by erosion must be replenished by incorporating nitrogen fixing leguminous crop in cropping sequences for better yield. Crop rotation as indicated in the (Fig 9) above ranked first, which has been practiced by almost all sampled households 59 (98.3%). Almost all of sampled farmers’ fields were cultivated for annual crops with a common rotation sequences; Teff-bean- finger millet and Noug (Niger seed) one after the other in middle altitude. Teff and finger millet are considered as soil depleting crops and bean and Noug are legumes and enrich soil fertility. At the low land areas: maize- seasam and sorghum are grown one after the other and seasam is considered as soil fertility improving crop. It is a long year’s farmer’s experiences in which legume crops were rotating with other non-leguminous crops for the main purposes of soil fertility improvement in the study areas. The use of crop rotation helps to increase soil organic matter, reduce erosion and bring biological diversity back to the soil.

4.1.1.2 Intercropping

Intercropping follows specific arrangements where some legume animal fodder and haricot bean grown in rows within the main crops (maize and sorghum) in the study area. From the total 60 sampled households 43(71%) of them were used intercropping practices on their field (Fig 9). Even though, farmers practices intercropping mainly to

45 ensure the availability of food from different crops and to obtain animal feed on continuous supply, it also improves soil fertility through crop diversification and provide soil cover to protect the impact of rain drop on soil and minimize erosion which is in agreement with the finding of (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001) reported that, the aim of intercropping is to increase productivity of the land and to protect the soil against erosion.

4.1.1.3 Grass strip

The barriers were usually of grasses, which has been planted or left to grow naturally in narrow strips along the contour at intervals across the slope of a field. The grass strips act in the same way as the crop residue barriers act, trapping moving soil, slowing down moving water, and encouraging it to sink into the soil. When planted as a contour hedge it acts as a continuous filtering system that slow down run off and collects soil sediments at the hedge faces. 17(28%) of sampled households were used grass strip practices for soil fertility improvement in the areas (Fig 9).Some natural grasses were left in between cropland across the contour and vetiver grasses were planted across contour line between the crops for controlling run off and nutrient loss and increases water infiltration in the study areas.

4.1.1.4 Agro‐forestry

Agro forestry has been promoted in the lowland areas in recent years where tree and field crops are grown together in the same field. Mango trees are often grown in narrow strips, often on the contour, and are usually used for intercepting raindrop and decreases run off which is in agreement with (Sanders, 2004) who reported that, Agro-forestry practices are used in many ways to protect the soil. They are particularly effective as windbreaks and are frequently used to control erosion and reclaim badly degraded land. It is also a valuable traditional practice which plays an important role in maintaining ecological stability. Very few innovative farmers were started to integrate fruit tress into their farmland. From the total 60 sampled households only 14 (23%) of them were grown mango trees within the cropland specifically at the low land areas of the Woreda, but still in progress. The states of traditional biological land management practices by sampled HHs presented in (Fig 9).

States of BPLM practices 70 59 60

50 43 40 respondents

of 30

17 20 14

Number 10 0 Crop rotation Grass strip Intercropng Agro‐forestry Types of practices

Figure 9: Traditional BLM practices by respondents

4.1.2. Physical land management practices

A Socio-economic survey result indicates that contour farming, residue management and minimum tillage are some common traditional physical land management practices practiced in the study area. Among these practices, contour farming is a potential practice exercised by 56(93.3%) sample households followed by residue recycling 52(86.6%) and 41(68%) minimum tillage as presented in (Fig 10).

4.1.2.1 Contour farming This consists of cultivating the land on or close to the contour instead of up and down the slope or round and round the field. When this is done, each furrow acts as a small dam, catching water as it runs down the hill and encouraging it to soak into the soil. This simple conservation measure may be enough by itself to prevent the runoff of water and erosion where slopes are gentle and the rainfall intensities are low. Such land management practices were also supported with semi-parallel drainage furrows depending on the slope and types of crops grown. For example Teff in the middle altitude is planted after the seed bed is smoothed and packed by animals, and higher run off rates are expected. In such cropland drainage furrows was constructed relatively at closer

47 interval depending on the slope for controlling soil erosion in the study area which is in agreement with the finding of (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001) that reported, contour cultivation can be adjusted to standard ridge and furrow system to make it effective in controlling soil erosion and moisture conservation.

56(93%) sampled households were practiced contour farming on their field, particularly Mada Jalala farmers among sampled PAs in the Woreda have a long years’ experience in using such practices which accompanied with semi-parallel furrow with a sufficient slope to allow excess water to gently flow based on the degree of the slope (Fig 10).

4.1.2.2 Residue Management

Residue management is an act of leaving crop residue on the field after harvest mainly for the purpose of animal feed, fuel and construction materials in the study area. Despite its uses as animal feed, fuel and construction purpose crop residues are very important for crop land improvements by enhancing water availability to crops and increasing the soils water retention capacity (CAB International, 1997).

It is one of the physical land management practices applied by farmers in both middle altitude and low land areas of the study Woreda. Crop straw, Maize and sorghum stalks are among crop residues used as soil mulch in protecting soil moisture lose during dry season, intercepts rain drops impacts from striking soil surface and contribute in reducing run off. These add organic matter to the soil through decomposition of its litters and improve physical structures of the soil. Until the recent years returning crop residues to soil were not common practices for most farmers, who prefer to use for livestock feed, fuel and construction materials or to burn or remove from the fields.

Currently,52( 86%) of the households were started to practice residue recycling on their farm fields for soil fertility improvement (Fig 10), which adds organic matter to the soil and increases moisture retention capacity of the soil. This finding was found to be in agreement with the works (FAO, 1995), reported that, mulches are materials placed on the soil surface to protect it against raindrop impact and erosion, and to enhance its fertility Crop residue mulching is a system of maintaining a protective cover of

48 vegetative residues such as straw, maize stalks, palm fronds and stubble on the soil surface.

4.1.2.3 Minimum tillage

Minimum tillage is also the other traditional physical land management practice in which soil disturbance is reduced. This practice was mostly done at the area where soil compaction is less and the soil is light, such type of soil is found at the low land areas of the Woreda. Furthermore, in the study area particularly at the middle altitude 6-5 time’s tillage and packing of the fine seedbed by animals is a common practice for teff and finger millet. This intensive tillage practices reduces infiltration, smoothens the land surface and consequently low surface water storage and leading to high runoff and soil loss. The finding was found to be in agreement with the works (Teklu Erkossa and Gezahegn Ayele, 2003) who observed that high rate of erosion is caused mainly by vegetation clearance and intensive tillage. In the region, 7-9 times tillage and packing of the fine seedbed by animals is a common practice for teff in Digga Leeqaa district. This reduces infiltration, smoothens the land surface and consequently low surface storage leading to high runoff and soil loss.

Most farmers in the low land areas have started to reduce the frequency of tillage, since their soil is relatively fertile and lose. About 41( 68%) of the sampled households were practiced reduced tillage on the crop land for fertility improvement in the study area from the total of 60 households based on crop grown and soil type( from 6 times to 4 for Teff and from 4 times to 2-3 for Maize)as it was reported from the respondents(Fig 10).

Soil disturbances tend to stimulate soil carbon loss through enhanced decomposition and erosion. Therefore, reducing soil disturbances through minimal tillage systems reduces soil carbon losses. At the soil surface, the impact of raindrops on a bare soil surface can decrease porosity through the formation of surface seals and crusts. These limit the rate of infiltration, leading to increased runoff (McGarry, Des. 2000).

States of PLM practices 60 56 52 50 41 40 respondants

30 of

10 Number 0 Contour farming Residue management Minimum tillage Types of practices

Figure 10: State of Physical land management practices by the respondents

4.1.3 The state of land management practices by HHs

Both biological and physical land management practices are the same coin of different face, and one supports the other, and one without the other is not as much effective in improving cropland productivity. However, application of a set practice of traditional biological and physical land management practices on the farmland simultaneously would have improved cropland productivity.

From the household survey results the role of crop rotation, intercropping, contour farming and residue recycling have showed a greater role in improving cropland productivity in the study area. Generally, from the 60 household croplands, most farmers applied a combination of traditional BPLM practices to maintain soil fertility. However, as it indicated in(Fig 9& 10), majority of the surveyed farmland (70%) were used a set of practices; consists of 98% crop rotation, 93% of contour farming, 86% of residue recycling, 71% of intercropping, 68% of minimum tillage, 28% of grass strip and 23% of agro-forestry. Adopting a single practice alone may not lead to in improving crop land productivities, but a set of practices will improve more. Crop rotation practice is the first practice in maintaining soil fertility above all as it reported from sampled HHs.

4.2 Traditional land management practices and soil quality

Based on the results of the following parameters, soil organic matter, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium, CEC, pH, bulk density, the role of traditional BPLM practices in improving soil quality was identified and documented.

4.2.1 Soil organic matter content

The results of the soil organic matter content analysis showed that traditional land management practices have a significant impact in maintaining and improving the soil organic matter content (Table 8). Those fields without biological and physical land management practices showed significantly lower amount of organic matter than those of the treated fields.

Table 8: Paired samples t-test for Soil Organic Matter content

Mean (%) Std. Error Mean t-value P-value With BPLM 7.4925 .09780 2.820 .017 Without BPLM 7.2167

The greater SOM content of the soil on fields with BPLM practices could possibly be due to the added organic matter input to the soil through decaying of plant biomass, maintenance of the available organic matter and plant nutrients and by improving the physical structures of the soil by reducing run off. On the other hand, burning of crop residues, clearing of crop residue after harvest, steep slope cultivation that causes accelerated erosion, continuous cultivation which makes the soil more loose and susceptible to soil erosion would decrease crop land productivity. Therefore, traditional BPLM practices play a great role in improving crop land productivity by adding and maintaining the organic matter in the soil. The finding was in agreement with (Brawn et al,. 1994) who reported that increased infiltration also improves groundwater recharge, thus increasing well supplies and also organic matter builds and improves soil structure, thereby, improving soil drainage, infiltration of water in to the soil, aeration and water holding capacity.

4.2.2 Total nitrogen

The results of the total nitrogen content of soil analysis revealed that, traditional land management practices have a significant role in adding and maintain the total nitrogen contents of soil. Those fields with biological and physical land management practices showed significant different in the amount of total nitrogen than the untreated fields as indicated Table 9.

Table 9: Paired samples t-test for Total Nitrogen content(%)

Mean Std.error t-value p-value With BPLM .3742 0.00529 2.67 0.021 Without BPLM .3600

The higher total nitrogen values on the soil with BPLM fields could be a result of conservational tillage, crop rotation, intercropping and grass strip, which add SOM and prevent soil erosion, and such condition creates favorable condition for the activities of micro-organism in decomposing SOM.

Incorporating legume crop in the sequences of crop rotation enables to add Organic nitrogen to the soil through fixation. Nitrogen content of soil is directly related to the presence of SOM. SOM content of cropland without BPLM practice is low as relative to cropland with BPLM practices. Burning of crop residues is the other cause of nitrogen loss to the atmosphere. Moreover, removal of plant nutrients without proportional supply of organic matter to the soil and removal of nitrogen either by erosion or leaching from the soil due to slope cultivation are the other causes of decline of total nitrogen. So application of traditional BPLM practices reverses such removal of plant nutrients and improves crop land productivity. Soil cover protects the soil against the impact of raindrops, prevents the loss of water from the soil through evaporation, and also protects the soil from the heating effect of the sun. Soil temperature influences the absorption of water and nutrients by plants, seed germination and root development, as well as soil microbial activity and crusting and hardening of the soil. This means that the amount of

52 water that enters the soil (infiltration) must be increased and that the moisture lost through runoff and evaporation must be reduced. Increasing soil cover and better soil management can help achieve this. Soil should be disturbed as little as possible, there should be permanent soil cover and the amount of organic matter should be increased (Bauer, A. & Black, A.L. 1994).

4.2.3 Available pphosphorus

The results of soil analysis of available phosphorus content revealed that, traditional land management practices have a significant impact on the availability of phosphorus in the soil by providing organic matter which adds phosphorus and protect from the removal and fixation of phosphorous. Fields with biological and physical land management practices showed significantly higher amount of available phosphorus than untreated fields as indicated in Table 10.

Table 10: Paired samples t-test for available Phosphorus content

Mean(ppm) Std.error t-value p-value

With BPLM 5.8333 .4820 4.841 0.001

Without BPLM 3.5000

Based on the results of soil quality analysis above, the role of traditional BPLM practices in this regard is providing vegetation cover, adds organic matter to the soil, and reduces the removal of available water-soluble cation by erosion and increase buffering capacity of the soil. As the result fixation of P by aluminum and others, which formed under acid soil is reduced. Intensive tillage increases the loss of organic matter by enhancing decomposition and hence loss of nutrient which is also in agreement with the report that the presence of low organic matter decreases the amount of available phosphorous in soils (Haile, 2007). Therefore, a traditional BPLM practice play great roles in improving crop land productivity by providing vegetation cover and makes more phosphors available to plants by reducing its fixation in the soil.

4.2.4 Available potassium(meq/100g)

The results of soil analysis of available potassium content showed that, traditional land management practices have no significant impact on the potassium availability in the soil. Those fields with biological and physical land management practices and untreated field was not significantly different in available potassium contents ((Table 11).

Table 11: Paired samples t-test for available Potassium content

Mean Std. error t-value p-value With BPLM .4392 .07697 1.41 .184

Without BPLM .3300

4.2.5 pH water

The results of the soil pH content analysis revealed that traditional land management practices have a significant role in providing necessary soil cover, organic matter and reduces run off, as the result plant nutrient is easily accessible to the crop. Those fields without biological and physical land management practices showed significantly lower amount of soil pH than the treated fields (Table 12).

Table 12: Paired samples t-test for Soil pH content

Mean N Std. error t-value p-value With BPLM 5.3742 12 .10067 2.24 .046 Without BPLM 5.1483 12

The possible reasons for lower pH value for soil without BPLM practice was due to low organic matter content resulted from inadequate traditional land management practices , as a result water soluble nutrients are removed by soil erosion and leaching, and what is remaining in the soil is water insoluble acid forming elements like; Fe and Al. When H ion in the soil is high some plant nutrients are becoming less available to the plants, which is also in agreement with (Taffa Tulu, 2002) reported that, mono cropping creates an artificial ecosystem, which alters the pH of the field, and removal of calcium by crop

54 can tend to make soil more acidic. Traditional BPLM practices will reverse the condition by providing necessary soil cover, organic matter and reduces run off, as the result plant nutrient is easily accessible to the crop.

4.2.6 .Cation Exchange Capacity

The result of caton exchange capacity level of soil raveled that traditional land management practices have a significant role in improving soil quality by providing necessary soil cover, organic matter and reduces run off, as the result CEC of the soil was improved. Those fields with biological and physical land management practices were significantly higher in CEC than untreated fields (Table 13).

Table 13: Paired samples t-test for Soil CEC(meq)

Mean Std. error t-value p-value Soil with BPLM 44.33 1.54779 2.365 0.046 Soil without BPLM 41.95

The reasons for low CEC of soil without BPLM practice is due to low organic matter content of the soil. Therefore, traditional land management practices are important in improving cropland productivity by adding organic matter to the soil; as a result CEC of soil is also increased. The finding was also in agreement with (Haile, 2007) that reported the low level of clay and humus in soil is low in CEC, whereas, soil high in clay and humus has a higher in CEC.

4.2.7 Bulk density

The result of bulk density contents of the soil sample showed that, traditional land management practices have a significant impacts in maintain soil fertility. Those fields without biological and physical land management practices showed significantly higher amount of soil bulk density than the treated fields (Table 14).

Table 14: Paired samples t-test for Soil Bulk density(gm/cm3)

Mean Std.error t-value p-value Soil with BPLM .9542 .02538 2.75 .019 Soil without BPLM 1.0242

The possible reason for the reduction of bulk density in soil with BPLM practice is due to the addition of soil organic matter to the soil through the application of traditional land management practices. The result of organic matter content and bulky density is inversely proportional to each other. The higher the OM and the lesser bulk density. Therefore, traditional land management practices have a role in improving cropland productivity by providing necessary organic matter to the soil.

4.2.8 Land degradation indices% of soil quality of land without as compared to with traditional BPLM practices.

Table 15: land degradation indices% of soil without as compared to soil with BPLM

Soil parameters Mean values of soil chemical Soil with-soil Degradation Sign. properties of the two practices w/o BPLM indices % level

Soil with Soil without Mean Soil without BPLMP BPLMP difference BPLM %

Organic matter 7.49 7.2 0.29** -4% 0.017

Total nitrogen 0.37 0.36 0.01** -3% 0.021

Available Phosphorus 5.83 3.5 2.33*** -40% 0.001

Available Potash 0.44 0.33 0.11ns ns ns

CEC 44.33 41.95 2.38** -5.4% 0.046 pH 5.37 5.15 0.22** -4% 0.046

Bulk density 0.95 1.03 0.08 ** 8% 0.019 *** Significant at 0.01, ** significant at0.05 and ns=not significant

4.3.Traditional land management practices and cropland productivity

Buck wheat was used for the biomass weight, height and crop yield test and analysis.

4.3.1 Plant fresh biomass weight

Plant wet biomass weight of 50 plants from each replication have been taken after 35 days of planting date. The results of the measured biomass weight of crops showed that traditional land management practices play a significant role in improving soil fertility. A crop which has been grown on soil with land management practices scored significantly greater wet biomass weight than untreated fields (Table 16).

Table 16: Paired samples t-test of wet biomass weight of crops Mean(gm) Std. error t-value P-value Soil with BPLM 92.5 4.11299 3.52 0.039 Soil without BPLM 78

The possible reasons for the greater plant biomass difference in soil with BPLM practice is the availability of plant nutrient in the soil. Nutrient availability was maintained by application of traditional BPLM practices on the farmland. These practices are protecting the removal of plant nutrients by soil erosion, enhancing water infiltration, adds organic matter and organic nitrogen into the soil. It was the effort of a few innovative farmers who have been applied some traditional BPLM practice to improve cropland productivity, where other factors were remain the same for the two practices.

Traditional BPLM practice with very low cost can enrich the soil with necessary plant nutrients by providing necessary soil cover and protect from the direct impact of rain drop and reduces run of, adds organic matter and make plant nutrients more available to the plant which is also in agreement with(Ministry of Agriculture, 2001) reported that biological soil conservation measures include; vegetative barriers, agronomic and soil fertility improvement practices, which help in controlling surface runoff, reduce soil losses and improve productivity.

The results of the analysis revealed that, combination of traditional Biological and Physical land management practice make difference in wet biomass weight between the two practices. This difference is due to addition and maintaining of organic matter in the soil through crop rotation, vegetation cover, mulch and minimum soil disturbance practices. The low wet biomass weight of soil without BPLM practice was resulted from the soil nutrient depletion by erosion and crop removal due to inadequate traditional biological and physical land management practices, since other abiotic factors (physical factors) were remain similar between the two practices which were assessed during the biophysical survey of the study area.

4.3.2 Plant dry biomass weight

50 plants which were measured for its wet biomass weight from each replication was exposed to air dried for about five days. The result of dry biomass weight of a crop grown on soil with traditional land management practices showed that traditional BPLM practices have a significant role in improving soil fertility through addition of organic input to the soil and maintain organic matter existing in the soil. Dry biomass weight of crop grown on soil of land with BPLM practice showed significantly greater than soils from untreated fields(Fig 17).

Table 17: Paired samples t-test of dry biomass weight of crops

Mean(gm) Std. error t-value p-value Soil with BPLM 20.8 .91287 4.38 .022 Soil without BPLM 16.8

The results of dry biomass weight of a crop revealed that traditional biological and physical land management practice make difference in wet biomass weight between the two practices. This difference was due to addition and maintaining of organic matter in the soil through crop rotation, vegetation cover, mulch and minimum soil disturbance practices. The low wet biomass weight of soil without BPLM practice was resulted from the soil nutrient depletion by erosion and crop removal due to inadequate traditional biological and physical land management practices; since the other abiotic factors

(physical factors) were remain similar which were assessed during the biophysical survey of the study area. Therefore, traditional land management practice plays a great role in improving cropland productivity by providing necessary soil cover which prevents the impact of rain drop and as a result erosion is reduced.

4.3.3 Plant height

The results of plant height measurement showed that there was no significant difference between land with traditional land management practices and without practices in plant height (Table 18).

Table 18: Paired samples t-test of plant height

Mean Std. error t-value P-value Soil with BPLM 44.2500 1.5536 2.62 .079 Soil without BPLM 40.1750

4.3.4 Buck wheat yield

The result of buck wheat yield of the test revealed that soil of land with traditional land management, have a significant role in increasing crop yields by the addition of organic matter to the soil through the practices of crop rotation, intercropping, residue recycling on farmland. there was a significant yield difference at 0.1 level significance between the two practices (Table 19).

Table 19: Paired samples t-test of buck wheat yield

Mean Std. error t-value P-value Soil with BPLMP 517.00 28.097 2.63 .078 Soil without BPLMP 442.88

The possible reasons for the higher in crop yield of soil with traditional biological and physical land management practices are due to available plant nutrient in the soil. Land

59 management practices enables plant nutrient more stable and accessible to crops. Such nutrient availability was due to soil management practices that maintain the existing organic matter, replaces nutrient which have been removed by crop harvest and prevents soil erosion. Absence of adequate traditional BPLM practices on the cropland leads to soil fertility deterioration and as result crop productivity is being declined

4 .3.5 Summery of the role of traditional BPLMP and crop productivity

As indicated in table 22 the result of buck wheat measurement in wet and dry biomass weight, plant height and yield, which have been grown on soil with and without traditional BPLM practices showed that a significant difference in all measured parameters between the two practices. The result showed that traditional biological and physical land management practices have a great role in improving crop land productivity by providing necessary soil cover which prevent the loss of nutrient either by erosion or leaching and adds organic matter to the soil as compared to without practices. Percent difference showed that soil with traditional BPLM practices have greater by 16% in wet biomass weight, 19% dry biomass weight, 5% plant height and 14% than soil without traditional BPLM practices.

Table 20: Summary of the role of BPLM practices and cropland productivity Parameters Soil with Soil without Mean Difference (%)

BPLMP BPLMP difference Fresh biomass 92.5 78 14.5** 16% weight(gm) Dry biomass 20.57 16.75 4** 19.30% weight(gm) Plant height (cm) 42.25 40.15 2.08ns 5% Crop yield (kg) 517 442.75 74.25* 14.40%

** Significant at 0.05 and * significant at 0.1, ns= not significant

The greater crop yield of soil of land with traditional land management practices was due to availability of plant nutrient to crops through appropriate land management practices. The practices provides soil cover and protect from the impact of rain drops and reduces

60 runoff and adds organic matter by its biomass decomposition as a result nutrients are more available to the crop. Less crop yield of soil of land without land management practices was due to the removal of plant nutrient by soil erosion and crop harvest without replacement by adequate land management practices. Therefore, traditional land management practices have a role to play in increasing crop yield by adding and maintain the available nutrient in the soil and enable the crop to take it on a continuous bases.

4.3.6 Teff yield

The result of ten years teff yield record and trends showed that traditional land management practices have a high significant role in improving cropland productivity through conserving soil by its vegetative barriers from the removal by runoff. Ten years yield records of land with traditional land management practices was significantly greater than untreated farmers fields (Table 21).

Table 21: Paired samples t-test of Teff yield data records

Mean Std. error t-value P-value

Soil with BPLM 6.3000 .32318 8.97 .000

Soil without BPLM 3.4000

The higher yield records of land with traditional land management practices was due to a significant impacts of land management practices which adds and conserve the organic matter content of the soil, and as a result cropland productivity have been improved.

Yield reduction in the case of soil without BPLM practice was due to inadequate traditional BPLM practices, since other physical factors were remaining the same for the two practices. It means that there was no crop rotation, intercropping, grass strip, residue recycling practices on their fields which play an important role in soil fertility improvement. So, appropriate traditional biological and physical land management can improve crop land productivity and crop production by providing vegetative cover,

61 organic matter which improves physical structure of soil, reduce soil erosion and as result nutrients are more available to the plants.

As indicated in (Figure 11), it showed that there were yield variations within and between practices during the last ten years. This difference was resulted from the use of a set of practices, reduced practice and without land management practices. The highest yield within practices resulted from application of appropriate set of traditional BPLM. Yield difference between the two practices was due to application of traditional BPLM practices on farmland which maintain soil fertility by providing soil vegetative cover, adding organic matter and it improves soil physical structures as a result soil erosion is reduced.

Teff yield of ten years trends 10 8 6 Soil with BPLM

quntals/hec 4

in 2

Yield 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 years

Figure 11: Trends of ten years Teff yield data records

4.3.7 Maize yield

The result of ten years maize yield record and trends revealed that traditional land management practices have a high significant impact in improving cropland productivity by its vegetative barriers which prevent nutrient removal by runoff, adds organic matter and conserve moisture loss. Ten years yield records of land with traditional land management practices was highly significantly greater than untreated farmers fields (Table 22).

Table 22: Paired samples t-test of Maize yield data records

Mean Std. error t-value P-value Soil with BPLM 26.9000 .86987 11.15 .000 Soil without BPLM 17.2000

The expected reason for high yield records of soil with BPLM practice as compared to untreated fields was due to the application of traditional BPLM practice on their field particularly crop rotation, grass strip, intercropping and agro-forestry practices. These practices were playing a significant role in cropland improvement among biological land management practices. Residue recycling especially residue of maize, sorghum, sesame, and contour farming have a leading potential practices among physical land management practices in the study area. Soils with appropriate traditional practices were protected from runoff by vegetation cover, mulch and contour farming. Low yield records of soil without BPLM practice were due to lack of traditional Biological and physical land management practices on their farm; while other physical factors were, remain homogenous. As indicated in Fig 12 land with traditional land management practices were scored the higher yield than without practices.

Tenyears trends of maize yield 40 30 Soil with BPLM 20 Soil without BPLM 10 quntals/hec 0 in

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Yield Years

Figure 12: Trends of ten years maize yield records

4.4 Effectiveness and suitability of the traditional land management practices

4.4.1 Farmers’ responses on effectiveness of each traditional land management practices

The results of socio-economic survey indicated in the table 23 crop rotation ranked first by almost all respondents as it is highly effective in improving crop land productivity and contour farming ranked second, residue management third, Intercropping fourth, Minimum tillage fifth, Agro forestry sixth and Grass strip ranked last under the score of highly effective option. From soil laboratory result and household survey about the suitability of each practices, one can conclude that the cumulative application of both biological and physical land management practices are very effective in improving crop land productivity within the slope ranges of 3- 8% according to farmers report . From the total 60 sample households, only three farmers were responded differently on the effectiveness of the practice by answering, no to the option.

Table 23: Farmers responses on effectiveness of traditional BPLM practices Types of practices Highly Moderately effective Less effective effective(n=60) (n=60) (n=60)

Crop rotation 57(95%) 0 0 Grass strip 10(16.6%) 6(10%) 1(1%) Intercropping 26(43.3) 14(23%) 2(3%) Agro-forestry 14(23.3%) 0 0 Contour farming 49(81.6%) 5(8.3%) 1 Residue Management 37(61.6%) 14(23%) 1(1.6%) Minimum tillage 18(30%) 11(18.3%) 2(3.3%) Combinations of practices 57(95%) 0 0

4.4.2 Effectiveness of traditional land management practices on soil quality

The result of soil chemical property analysis indicates those soil samples which have been taken from the field with set of practices scored higher mean value for all parameters except for bulk density. As presented in (Fig. 13) for organic matter contents and (Fig. 14) for AVP contents. Soil at middle altitude area have less organic matter contents as indicated in sampled farmers field (1,2,3,4,5&6), while the soil at low land

64 area are relatively have higher OM in sampled farmland(7,8,9,10,11,&12). These variations in mean value were due to application of a set of practice in which low land areas, farmers were practiced a set of practices as compared to middle land farmers.. So, application of the combination of all traditional BPLM practices on a farm land is very suitable practice in improving crop land productivity in the area and the higher mean value revealed this facts. The expected variation in the value of soil chemical properties among sampled soil is due to inherent soil material and types and extent of land management practices within a field.

Organic matter

0.6 in% 0.4 0.2 with BPLM value

0 without BPLM Om 123456789 10 11 12 Sampled farmland

Figure 13: Effectiveness of land management practices based on OM value

Avalaible phosphers

10 ppm 5 in

With BPLM 0 W/o BPLM value

123456789 10 11 12 Sampled farmland AVP

Figure 14: Effectiveness of land management practices based on AVP

4.4.3 Effectiveness of traditional land management practices for plant growth & yield

As presented in (Figure 15) the plants which have been grown on soil with better traditional BPLM practices scored highest wet biomass weight due to a set of practices practiced as compared to reduced practices. Soil without traditional BPLM practices scored less wet plant biomass weight, due too lack of traditional land management practices exercised on their fields which improves cropland productivity through the application and conservation nutrient by adequate traditional BPLM practices. So, application of set of practiices is very suitable traditional BPLM practices in improving crop land productivity.

Sample plots (1&2) have been taken from the middle altitude areas which is low in plant wet biomass weight as compared to sample plots (3&4) from low land area relatively with the highest plant biomass weight. Such variation iis due to soil fertility and application of traditional BPLM practices difference between the two agro-ecological regions in the Woreda.

As indicated in (Fig. 16) there is a yield difference between the practices and within the practices. This difference iis due to application of set of practices, reduced practices, no practices and age of cropping years. Replication with the highest yield shows that, a set of or combinations of prractices were practiced on their farmland as relative to low yielded replications within agro-ecological region.

plant fresh biomass wieght

150 (gm) 100 in 50 With BPLM 0 without BPLM 1 2 3 4 Weight Replication

Figure 15: Effectiveness of land management practices on Plant biomass

Buck wheat yield

600 400 kg/hec

in Soil with BPLM 200 Soil without BPLM 0 Yield 1 2 34 Replications

Figure 16: Effectiveness of land management practices on crop yield

5. Conclusions and recommendations 5.1 Conclusions

The finding of the study revealed that traditional biological and physical land management practices have a significant role in improving cropland and biomass productivity based on its impact on soil quality like; soil organic matter content, total nitrogen, available phosphorous, available potash CEC, pH and bulk density, even though no statistically significant differences were seen in Available potash and CEC. Moreover, the results of field experiment also revealed that, the crop grown on soil with traditional BPLM practices have been scored the highest plant wet and dry biomass weight, plant height and yield as compared to without BPLM practices. The reason for soil fertility differences are due to application of a set of traditional BPLM practices on the farm land in which , crop rotation, grass strip, intercropping and agro forestry practices of biological land management and contour farming, residue management and minimum tillage of physical land management’s were applied on farm lands.

The fertility deterioration of farm fields without traditional biological and physical land management practices are due to inadequate traditional BPLM practices like; crop rotation, intercropping grass strip, agro forestry, residue recycling, contour farming and minimum tillage resulted from continuous removal of plant nutrients by erosion and crop harvest without any replacements. Traditional BPLM practices of soil conservation measures on cropland with the slope range between 3 and 8% alone can improve cropland productivity without any supplementary physical structures of soil conservation measures with a minimum cost, the potential role of land management practices are improving and maintaining soil fertility by providing soil vegetative cover, adding organic matter which improves soil physical structures and as a result nutrient removal by soil erosion and leaching are reduced, the results of the study revealed these facts. A soil that is porous, absorptive, and rich in organic matter and biological activity is able to support maximum crop production for every drop of water it receives.

From soil laboratory results and household survey, application of the combination of all traditional BPLM practices on farmland is highly a suitable practice in improving

68 cropland productivity. Therefore, traditional biological and physical land management practices play a significant role in improving cropland productivity by better matching management practices to local crop and soil conditions.

5.2 Recommendations

¾ Training and experience sharing program should be given to the local farmers on use of traditional land management practices for up scaling. ¾ A combination of traditional biological and physical land management practices should be practiced for effective cropland improvement. ¾ Agro forestry and experience of leaving indigenous trees practices on farm is important in improving cropland productivity and environmental stability. ¾ Contour farming practices should be practiced for improving water use efficiency of the crop and controlling run off ¾ The sequence of crop rotation (non-legumes with legume crop) should be kept, which is a base for the effectiveness of the other practices. ¾ Appropriate plant seedling of leguminous trees, which used for agro forestry and grass strip purpose should be provided to the local farmers. ¾ Due attention should be given to leave and incorporate crop residues in the soil, which maintain organic matter and increases water infiltration by reducing run off. ¾ A set of traditional biological and physical land management practices are effective in rain water management and soil conservation measures on land with less than 8% slope.

6. References

Admassie, (1995). Indigenous and improved soil and water conservation structures Atakilte, B. (2003). Soil conservation, land use and property right in northern Ethiopia. Understanding environmental change in smallholder farming systems. Doctoral Thesis

Ayalneh, D. (2003). Integrated national resources management to enhance food security.The case of community based approaches in Ethiopia, FAO, Rome, Italy 1-44

Barber, R. (1984). An assessment of the dominant soil degradation processes in the highlands their impacts and hazards. Ethiopian highlands reclamation Study. Land use Planning and Regulator Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Bardhan, P. (1989) Alternative approaches to the theory of institutions in economic developmentIn population growth and agricultural change in Africa, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bauer, A. & Black, A.L. (1994). Quantification of the effect of soil organic matter content on soil productivity. Am. J. Soil Sci. Soc., 5: 185-193.

Bekele, S. and Holden, ST. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian highlands: A case study in Andi Tid, North Shewa. Agricultural Economics, 18: 233-247

Bekele, W,and Darke, L. (2003). Soil and water conservation decision behavior of subsistence farmers in the eastern highlands of Ethiopia a case study of the Hunde-Lafto area. Ecological Economics 46:437-451

Belay, T. (1992). “Farmers’ perception of erosion hazards and attitude towards soil Conservation in Gununo, Welayita.” Ethiopia Journal of Development Research. Biot, Y., Blaikie, P.M., Jackson, C.and Jones, R.P. (1995). Rethinking research o land degradation in developing countries. The World Bank, Washington D.C Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural growth: The economics of agrarian change under population pressure. Allen Unwin. London CAB International, (1997).Crop residues in sustainable mixed crop/livestock farming system, New York,USA

Central Statistic Authority, (2007). Ethiopian housing and population censuses program Addis Ababa

David Sanders, (2004). Soil conservation, in Land use ,Land Cover and Soil Sciences, [Ed,and Willy H, Verheye], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK,

De Roo, A.P. (1993). Modeling surface run-off and soil erosion in catchments using geographical information system. PhD Dissertation. University of Utrecht. The Netherlands.

Ervin, A. and Ervin, D.E. (1982). Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: Hypotheses, evidence, and policy Implications. Land economics, 58(3): 277–292.

Food and Agriculture Organization,( 2008). Web site. “Conservation Agriculture.”

Food and Agriculture Organization (1974). Tree planting practices in African savannahs. FAO Forestry Development Gardiner, D.T. and Miller, R.W. ( 2004). Soils in Our Environment. tenth ed. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NewJersey. 07458

Gete Zeleke, (2000). Landscape dynamics and soil erosion process modeling in the Northwestern Ethiopia highlands. African Studies Series. University of Berne Switzerland

Grohs , (1994).Physical soil and water conservation practices; Cited in demeke,1998 Hoben, (1996). Indigenous and improved soil and water conservation structures Haile Fesseha (2007). Land Degradation Assessment At Idris Resettlement Scheme, Kafta Humera Woreda, Western Zone of Tigray, Ethiopia. M.Sc., Thesis, Environmental Science, Addis Ababa University,

Hurni, H. (1988). Degradation and Conservation of the Resources in the Ethiopian. Highlands Mountain research and Development,

Hurni, H. (1993). Land degradation, famines and resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In: Pimental, D. (Ed). World soil erosion and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lal R, (1990). Soil erosion in the tropics: Principles and management. New York.

Lal R, (1995) Sustainable Management of Soil Resources in the Humid Tropics. United Nations University Press, Tokyo

Lee, D.R. ( 2005). “Agricultural Sustainability and Technology Adoption: Issues and Policies for Developing Countries,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for rural innovation. Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Third Edition, Black Well.

Joshua O,Ogunwole,Bharat R.Matthew P,McCarteny,and Biranu Z.(2010).Biophysical Aspects of landscape soil quality improvement for sustainable Agricultural productivity in Ethiopian highlands(draft)

Juma, N.G. (1998). The pedosphere and its dynamics: a systems approach to soil science. Volume 1. Edmonton, Canada, Quality Color Press Inc. 315 pp.

McGarry, Des. (2000). Optimising soil structure condition for cropping without tillage. Soil and Tillage Conference Paper. ISTRO, July 2000.

Million, T. (2001). Factors influencing the adoption of soil conservation practices in Wolaita Zone. M. Sc Thesis. Alemaya, Ethiopia. (MOA)Ministry of Agriculture., 2001.Soil and water conservation. Guide line for Ethiopia. pp 151-169

Ministry of agriculture and rural development, (2005). Community Based Participatory Watershed Development. A Guideline. Part 1 and 2. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.

MoA-Ministry of Agriculture (1989). Anger Gutin Resettlement Afforestation and Rural infrastructure Development Project: Preparation Report in Two volumes (volume 2 Annexes)

Olsen, S.R. Cole, C.V., Watnahe, F.J. and Dean, L.A. (1954).Estimation of available phosphorous in soils by extraction with Sodium bicarbonate, U.S. Department Agr. Circ. 939

Paulos, A. (2002). Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in soil conservation practices in the highlands of Bale: The case of Dinsho farming system area.

Pender, J. (1998). Population growth, agricultural intensification, induced innovation and natural resource sustainability: An application of neoclassical growth theory. Agricultural Economics, 19: 99–112.

Sasakawa Africa Association, (2008). Web site. “Country Profile: Ethiopia.” http://www.saatokyo. org/English/country/ethiopia.shtml. Accessed April 2009 Senait R. (2002). The economics of managing land resources towards sustainability in the High lands of Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation. University of Hohenheim, Germany.

Singh, B., Squire, T. Strauss, J. (1986). Agricultural household models. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Scoones I., Margisoni, J., and Phiri GS. (1996). Sustaining the soil: New perspectives on

local conservation techniques: International institute for environment and development, UK

Shiferaw and Holden, (1998). Indigenous and improved soil and water conservation structures (Cited in Wagayehu, 2003)

SSSA (Soil Science Society of America), (1996). In Glossary of soil science terms, (SSSA), Madison, WI, 1

RRC, (1988). The Advent of Resettlement and Settlement History in Wollega.

Tan, H.K.(1996). Soil sampling, preparation and analysis Marcel Dekker., New York. Taffa Tullu,(2002).Water and soil conservation for sustainable agriculture Teklu Erkossa and Gezahegn Ayele, (2003). Indigenous knowledge and Practices for soil and water management in East Wollega, Ethiopia.Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development

Tesfaye, B. (2003). Understanding Farmers: Explaining soil and water conservation in Kons Walaita and Wello, Ethiopia. PhD. Dissertation Wegeningen University. The Netherlands.

Tiffen M., Mortimore, M., and Gichuki, F. (1994). More people, less erosion: Environmental recovery in Kenya. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Twarog, (2006). “Organic Agriculture: A Trade and Sustainable Development Opportunity for Developing Countries.” In Trade and Environment Review 2006. NewYork and Geneva: UN/UNCTAD.

Wagayehu, B.(2003). Economics of soil and water conservation: Theory and empirical application to subsistence farming in the eastern Ethiopian highlands. PhD Dissertation,Uppsala.

Walkly, A. (1947). Critical examination of rapid method for determining organic carbon in soils, effect of variation in digestion conditions and an inorganic soil constituent. Soil Science, 632.251

Wood, P.A. (1990).Natural resource management and rural development in Ethiopia. In: Pause Wang, S., Cheru, F., Brune, S., Chole, E., (Eds). Ethiopia: Rural development options. Zed Books Ltd, London and New Jersey

Appendices

Annex 1: laboratory results of soil sample taken from Diga Woreda

Soil with traditional BPLM practices Soil without traditional BPLM practices No Soil parameter Code Code

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9 10’ 11’ 12 ’

1 Organic matter 5.92 5.85 6.12 5.45 6.12 5.72 11.1 10.1 10.9 6.25 8.07 8.27 5.4 5.75 5.38 5.0 5.8 4.96 10.8 9.6 11. 6.05 7.73 8. 6 5 (%) 4 5 8 43 40

2 Total nitrogen .30 .29 .31 .27 .31 .29 .55 .50 .55 .31 .40 .41 .27 .29 .27 .25 .29 .25 .54 .48 .57 .30 .39 .4 (%) 2

3 Available 4 4 4 2 10 4 8 10 2 10 4 8 2 2 2 2 4 2 6 6 2 8 2 4 phosphorus

4 Available .39 .80 .78 .38 .88 .41 .25 .21 .20 .37 .27 .33 .25 .18 .73 .27 .33 .49 .24 .61 .22 .24 .18 .2 potassium 2

5 CEC 38.60 36.2 43.0 36.8 35.6 38 41.6 53.6 66.6 32.6 41.6 50.8 37. 40.2 36.6 37. 41 38 53.4 46. 62. 29.6 42 46 8 6 6 8 .6

6 pH 4.78 5.12 5.07 4.82 5.72 4.83 5.55 5.63 5.96 5.82 5.53 5.66 4.9 4.61 4.97 4.7 4.7 4.89 4.85 5.7 5.9 5.53 5.27 5. 6 5

7 Bulk density 1.04 1.25 1.01 1.04 1.14 .92 .79 .88 .76 .90 1.01 .99 1.1 1.15 1.06 1.2 1.1 1.04 .86 .96 .80 1.03 .78 .9 0 4

Annex 2: wet biomass weight of 50 plants in (gm)

Replication Treatment With BPLM without BPLM 1 86 81 2 74 49 3 125 110 4 85 72 sum 370 312 mean 92.5 78 SD 22.34 25.23 SE 11.17 12.61

Annex 3: Dry Biomass weight of 50 plants in(gm)

Replication Treatment With BPLM W/o BPLM 1 21 16 2 18 12 3 23 21 4 21 18 sum 83 67 mean 20.75 16.75 SD 2.06 3.77 1. 1. SE 03 89

Annex 4: Plant height in cm

Replication Treatment With BPLM W/o BPLM 1 46 38 2 38 34.7 3 50.5 46 4 42.5 42 Sum 177 160.7 mean 44.25 40.175 SD 5.30 4.90 2 SE 2.65 .45

Annex 5: Ten years Teff yield records in quntal/hectar

Code Years Soil with BPLM Soil without BPLM 1 1993 5.00 2.00 2 1994 4.00 3.00 3 1995 6.00 3.50 4 1996 6.00 4.50 5 1997 8.00 4.00 6 1998 7.00 3.00 7 1999 7.00 3.00 8 2000 6.00 4.00 9 2001 7.00 5.00 10 2002 7.00 3.50 Total N 10 10 10 Sum 19975 63.00 35.50 Mean 1997.50 6.3000 3.5500 Std. Deviation 3.028 1.15950 .86442

Std. Error of Mean .957 .36667 .27335

Annex 6:Ten years records of maize yield in quntal/hectar Years Soil with BPLM Soil without BPLM 1 1993 22.00 15.00 2 1994 25.00 14.00 3 1995 20.00 14.00 4 1996 23.00 16.00 5 1997 23.00 15.00 6 1998 30.00 17.00 7 1999 32.00 20.00 8 2000 35.00 21.00 9 2001 28.00 19.00 10 2002 31.00 21.00 Total N 10 10 10 Sum 19975 269.00 172.00 Mean 1997.50 26.9000 17.2000 Std. Deviation 3.028 4.99889 2.82056 Std. Error of Mean .957 1.58079 .89194

Annex 7: Buck wheat yield in kg /hectare

Replication Soil with BPLMP Soil without BPLMP 1 456 350 2 452 315 3 580 550 4 580 556 Total N 4 4 Sum 2068 1772 Mean 517.00 442.88 Std. Deviation 72.764 128.268 Std. Error of 36.382 64.134 Mean

Annex 8: Household Questionnaires Survey Area: Region: ______Zone: ______Woreda: ______PA: ______Village: ______

Date of interview: ______Name of interviewer: ______

Name of head of Household: ______Age: ______Sex: ______

I. Soil and water conservation practices

A. Biological and physical land management

1. Do you use biological soil and water conservation measures in your plots? Yes=1, No=2

2. If yes, which type do you use in each of your plots? (Possible to choose more than one answer)______1. Crop rotation----, 2.Intercropping-----, 3.Grass strip---, 2.Agroforestry- 5.Alley cropping----, others specify ______.Yes=1, No=2

3. What are the physical land management practices of soil conservation measures undertaken in your field? ____1 .Residue management---, 2.Zero tillage----, 3. Minimum tillage----, 4.Contour farming----, 5.Noting---- Yes=1, N0=2 4. Why do you use conservation measures in your plots? ______1. To conserve soil-----, 2.to conserve water-----, 3.Both 1 and 2------3.others, specify___ Yes=1, No=2

5. Please would you rank the effectiveness of different Biological and physical land management practices?

5.1 In controlling soil erosion

Types of practices Very Moderately effective Less effective Remark effective(yes=1,No=2) Yes=1,No=2 Yes=1,No=2

1.Biological -Crop rotation -Intercropping -Grass strip -Alley cropping 2.Physical -Residue recycling -Contour farming -Minimum tillage 5.2. In improving crop land productivity

Types of practices Very effective, Moderately effective Less effective Remark Yes=1,No=2 Yes=1,No=2 Yes=1,NO=2 1.Biological -Crop rotation -Intercropping -Grass strip -Alley cropping 2.Physical -Residue Management -Contour farming -Minimum tillage

6. What is your source of information regarding conservation strategies of land management? __1. Neighboring farmers----, 2. NGOs-----,3. Regular extension services (DAs) ,4.From field days and training’-----, 5. Others (specify) ______Yes=1, NO=2

7. What results do you expect from your effort on BPLM practices done on your plots? (Possible to give more than one answer)__1. Reduce soil erosion----, 2. Increase soil fertility---, 3. Increase crop land productivity---, 4. Increase crop production---- 5. All-----Yes=1, NO=2

8 .What other measures are you using to improve soil fertility? (Possible to give more than one answer)_? 1. Inorganic fertilizer-----, 2.Farm yard manure------, 3. Fallowing----- 4.others, specify_ Yes=1, NO=2

9. If your answer in qes 1 is No, what is your reason of not using BPLM? ____1.I use fertilizer---- -, 2.I used physical structures to control erosion----, 3.my land is fertile----, 4.I don’t know their role ------Yes=1, No=2

A. Soil fertility decline

1. Is there any soil fertility problem in your farm? ______Yes =1, No =2.

2. On which 3. When did you 4. What 5. What 6. How did you 7. Did you see any plot?Plot No. realize the indicators did management learn these methods? improvement? problem?(years) you observe? practices have you applied?(Code b) (Code c) Yes =1,No =2 (Code a)

Code a: Yield decline=1; Soil structure and color change=2; increased input demand=3; others (specify) =4 Code b: Fallowing=1; Crop rotation=2; Intercropping=3; Grass strip=3 Residue management=4; Contour farming=5; Mulching=6; Legume trees=7; Minimum tillage=8 others (specify) =9 Code c: From parents (inherited)=1; From neighbors=2; From extension agents(training)=3; From NGOs=4; From school=5; Others______

II. Forests And water

1. Is there a forest currently in this village? Yes -----1, No ------2. 2. If No, was there a forest 5 years ago? Yes---1, No---2; 10 years ago? Yes----1, No---2; 20 years ago? 3. If yes, what type and how much? Natural ______, ha, Plantation ______ha. 4. Who owns the forest? 1. Government ------; 2.Community---- 3.Individuals---- Yes=1, No=2 5. What changes have you observed in the forest cover since the last 10 years? Years 1. Natural forest has disappeared------, 2.plantation forest has increased-----,3.Natural Forest has increased------, 4. Natural forest has decreased-----, 5. Plantation forest has decreased------Yes=1, No=2 6. Is there anything that you used to get and but now lost due to the change in the forest cover? Yes -1, No --2. 7. If yes, can you tell us what they are? ______8. Has the change negatively affected your land, adjacent land and the uplands in general? Yes -- 1, No ---2 9. If yes, can you mention some of the negative changes? 1. Stream flow decreased or dried--- 4.Farm land fragmented------2. Run-off increased------5.yield has declined----- 3. More gullies and rills created----- 6.Others (specify)______Yes=1, No=2 10. What is the source of water for human consumption? 1. Streams----, 2.River---- 3.Shallow wel------, 4. Deep wel------Yes=1, No=2 11. Does it is a perennial or annual? 1. Perennial---- 2.Annual---- Yes=1, No=2 12. How far from your home in Minutes?______13. How about the quality of the water? 1. good---, 2.low, --- 3.worse---- Yes=1,No=2

14What are the source of water for animal drinking? 1. Streams----, 2.River-----, 3.shallow well-----, 4.deep well-----, 5.pond---- Yes=1, No=2 15. Do you have an irrigated land? 1=yes,2=No 16. If your answer in qes 15 is yes, tell me the size of the land you have______ha 17. What are the sources of water for irrigation? 1. Stream----, 2.River----, 3.pond-----, 4.shallow well----- Yes=1, No=2 18. How do you irrigate your land? 1. Furrow irrigation-----,2.flooding-----,3.spot/ring application----- Yes=1, No=2 19. Is there water shortage in your area? 1=yes, 2=No 20 If your answer for question NO19 is yes what are the possible reasons? 1. Drought---- 2.forest clearing------, 3.erosion/sedimentation-----, 4.I don’t know------Yes=1, No=2 21. Which crop do you grow on irrigated land? 1. Maize----, 2.sorghum-----, 3.potato------, 4.other vegetables-----, 5.Banana---- Yes=1, No=2 22. How much do you earn from the yield of irrigated crops per year in birr______

III. Agriculture

A: Land holding, land use and Tenure

1. We would like to ask you questions about all the land your household is using. Please include all the land owned by you and all land that is cultivated by you (even though it belongs to others). What is the size of your farm? Please list plot by plot.

Plot Enumerator’s 2. Plot size 3. What is 4. 5. When 6. When 7. How 8. How is 9. What is 10. What type of No. identification the current Ownership did you get was it did you the fertility the slope of crops are grown note Area Unit* use of the the land cultivated get the of the soil? the plot? on the plots? plot? (Code b) (year) for the first land? (crop type) time (year) (Code d) (Code e) (Sate all) (Code a) (Code c)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 *Local units = Sanga =1, Gasha = 2, Chimidi = 3, hectare = 4, Massa = 5, change to standard hectare Code a: Cultivated crop land = 1, Grazing land = 2, Woodlot (forest) = 3, Backyard garden = 4, Unusable = 5, Fallow = 6, others (specify) ______Code b: Own = 1, Share cropped in = 2, Share cropped out = 3, obtained as loan=4 Code c: Inherited from parents=1 Allocated from the family=2 during redistribution=3, Local administration= 4, Purchased= 5, Leased= 6, clearing forest=7 Code d: good=1, medium=2, poor=3 Code e: flat=1, gentle slope=2, steep slope=3

11. Have you done or are you currently doing any soil improvement or any soil and water conservation works on your land? ______Yes ------1, No ------2. 12. If not, what are your main reasons? ___1.I don’t have any problem on my land------,2. Such type of works are very expensive------,3. The land may be taken sometime in the future---- 4. I don’t have the knowledge------5.Other reasons (specify) Yes=1, No=2 13. What type of rights do you have on your land? ___.1. Use for any purpose------, 2.Use for specified purpose-----, 3. Right to sell------, 4.Right to transfer------5.Right to lease out----- Yes=1, No=2 14. Is the land you have now sufficient for the household? ____ Yes ---1, No -----2. 15. When a member of the household gets married, where does she/he get her/his own land? ____1.From the household land------, 2. From local administration (kebele) ------3. By clearing the nearby forest----- ,4. Others ______Yes=1, No=2 16. How long do you think all the land you have will remain yours? _1. Forever-----, 2. Until next redistribution----- 3. until I pass it to my children-----, 4. I don’t know------Yes=1,No=2 Land Tenure.

1. Who owns /to whom do you think that land belongs? ______

1).To my own------, 2. To the government------, 3.To the Community------,4. Others------

Yes=1, No=2

2. Does the present ownership of land affect your decision to invest on land management practices? 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

3. Is your answer is yes for que.2 what are the possible causes?______

4. Do you expect that you will use the land throughout your lifetime?___1) Yes=1, 2) No=2, 3) I do not know=3

5. Do you think that you have the right to inherit the land to your children? __ 1) Yes=1, No =2,

6. If the government allows you to sell land, would you sell it? ____1) Yes=1, 2) No=2,

3) Difficult to decide=3, 4) No response=4

7. If no, why you will not sell it? 1.I do not have other alternative means of living------, 2. I do not have enough land-----3. I want to inherit to my children------4. I do not support land sales------5. Others----- Yes=1,No=2

8. Have you rented in land before?______1) Yes=1, 2) No=3

9. If yes, who was responsible for keeping the rented land management?______1).The owner------, 2.Myself------,3. Both of us----- Yes=1, No=2

11. Landholding in hectares (in 2002 E.C)

Total land holding (hectares) _____ Cultivated land (hectares) _____Grazing land (hectares) _____ Fallow land (hectares) ______forest land______Others specify (hectares) ______

13. Farm plot characteristics

No Characteristics Plot1 Plot2 Plot3 Plot4 Plot 5 1 Slope 2 Distance from home 3 Type of soil 4 Degree of erosion 5 Degree of plot fertility 6 Types of land management 6.1 Biological

6.2 Physical

7 Rain fed or Irrigated

Code*1. Slope: - very steep, =1, steep=2, gentle slope=3, flat=4 2. Distance from home: In traveling hours

3. Type of soil: clay=1, sand=2, loam=3, Clay loam=4, sandy loam=5

4. Degree of erosion: High=1, medium=2, Low=3

5. Degree of fertility: crop yield

6. Types of land management:

6.1 crop rotation =1 Grass strip=2, Intercropping=3, alley cropping=4, all=5

6.2 Residue management=1, Contour farming=2, Minimum tillage=3, all=4

7. Rain fed=1, Irrigation=2

B. Crop production

1. What are the major food crops produced by the household during 2002/2003 E.C? Please rank them

Crop type 2.Area 3.Types of seed used Cod 4.Types of fertilizer used 5.Amount of 6.Yield/Qun coverage a cod b fertilizer used

Code a=Improved seed=1, Local seed=2, I don’t know=3 Unit= convert the local into Hectare for area and Kg/Qun for yield

Cod b Fertilizer= DAP=1, UREA=2, DAP+UREA=3, No fertilizer=4, Organic=5

7. Please can you recall and tell us a land size and a yield obtained from one of a dominantly crop you produced for the last 10years?

7.1. Land size/hectare in E.C

Crop Type 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average 1.Teff 2.Maize

7.2. Yield obtained/quintals in E.C

Crop Types of 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average Type seed coda 1.Teff

2.Maize

* Teff for Middle altitude * Maize for low land area

Cod a; Improved seed=1, Local seed=2

Quantity Expressed by local unit should change to standard unit, Kg

8. What are the major cash crops produced by the household? ______Please rank them Coffee=1, chat=2, both=3, others, specify_____

9. What type of crop is usually grown with coffee in your farm? ______

1. Maize-----, 2.Sorghum-----, 3.Haricot bean------3. No crop------4.others, specify______Yes=1, No=2

10. Have you used commercial fertilizer in the past five years? ______No=1, Yes=2

11. If yes, what type and quantity of fertilizer used in 2002 E.C? 1) DAP______Qt,

2) Urea______Q others______

12. Do you think that inorganic fertilizer increases the productivity of the land? ____1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

13. What is your feeling about price of fertilizer? ______1. Low------, 2.Reasonable------, 3.High------, Very high------Yes=1, No=2

14. If you didn't use fertilizer, why? ______1.High cost of fertilizer------, 2.Lack access of fertilizer---- -, 3.Lack of credit------, 4.I use organic fertilizer------Yes=1, No=2

15. What is the major purpose of producing food crops? ____ 1.Consumption------, 2. Sale----, 3. Consumption and sale------Yes=1, No=2

16. How did you judge the experience of crop production during the last ten years?____

1. Shows a progress------, 2.the same------, 3.Declined------Yes=1, No=2

17. What constraints did you face in crop production? Please rank them______1. Shortage of rainfall----, 2.Pests and diseases-----, 3.Soil fertility decline------, 4.Lack of farm tools------, 5.Lack of oxen-----, 6.Shortage of land------, 7.Lack of fertilizer and improved seeds------, 8.others Yes=1,No=2

18. For how long the household consume what it produces in a year? ______Months

19. In which months in a year the household face critical food shortage? ______

20. How does the household cover the deficit? ______

1. Purchase of grain from market------,2. Food /cash for work------, 3.from relatives and friends------, 4.others, ------Yes=1,No=2

C. Information on Livestock ownership

1. Do you have oxen? ______; 1) Yes=1,2) No=2

2. If your answer is no for ques 1 how you ploughs your farm?______;

1. Use of hoe/spad------, 2.Use of rented oxen------,3. Shared out the farm------, 4.Others______Yes=1, NO=2

3. What are the major sources of animal feed? ______(Write in order of importance) 1) Natural grazing land=1, 2) Crop residue=2, 3) Improved forage=3, 4) others______Yes=1,No=2

4. How about the status of animal feeding? 1. Sufficient------, 2. Deficit----- 3.Excess------

Yes=1, No=2

5. If deficit, how did you overcome? ______

6. What is your feeling about the price of your livestock and livestock products?

1. Low------, 2.Reasonable------, 3. High------, 4.Very high------Yes=1,No=2

D. Agricultural Extension Services

1. Do you get extension service?______1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

2. If yes, for how long do you get the service? ____Years

3. Who provides the extension service? __ 1.Development agents------, 2. NGOs ------, 3. Others, specify______Yes=1, No=2

4. How frequent were you visited by development agents last year? ______

5. Do you get extension advice on BPLM practices? 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

6. If yes, how often have you obtained advice on BPLM practices? ______

1. Once per month------, 2.Twice per month------, 3. Three times per month-----, 4.Four times per month------, 5) others, specify ______Yes=1, No=2

7. Have you participated in training on BPLM for the past three years? ____1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

8. If yes, for how many days? _____ days

9. Who gave the training? ______1. Agriculture office-----, 2. Development agent------, 3. NGOs------4.all------Yes=1, No=2

10. Do you think that the training was helpful to gain knowledge and skill to solve your practical problems? ______1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

11. If no, why? ______

12. Do you have radio /tape? ______1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

13. If yes, do you get information on soil and water conservation practices?__1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

14. What are your sources of information regarding soil and water land management practices? Rank them in order of importance_____1) Development agents=1,

2) Neighbor farmers=2, 3) Mass media like Radio=3, 4) Filed days and training=4, 5) NGOs=5, 6) Others______

IV. Household profile

A: Demography

ID 1. Name 2. Relationship 3. Age 4. Sex 5. Education 6. 7. Member’s Code (permanent to the head (Years) Male= 1 Illiterate=0 Marital main activity HH member) (Code a) Female=2 Literate=1, status For ages >8 Grades:1,2,3… (Code b) (Code c) 1 2 3 4 5 Code a: Spouse/Husband =1; Daughter/Son =2; Father/Mother = 3; Sister/Brother = 4; Niece/Nephew= 5; Grand Child= 6; Grandparents=7 others (specify) ______

Code b: Single=1; Married=2; Divorced=3

Code c: Farm work= 1; Domestic work= 2, Off-farm work=3 (skilled & unskilled)

7. Have you stored grains of any cereals or pulses at present? Yes-----1, No------2

8. Which type of grains 9. What amount in local units* 10. Are you storing for future sale? Yes--1, have you stored? or kg No--2

* Local units: Kuna, Gomode, Quntala, Dawla, Tasa Estimate of 1 ____(local unit) = __kg 11. How many and what type of grain stores do you have? Modern/improved_____Traditional/Cultural

12. Could you tell us what type and number of domestic animals you have?

Type of animals Number 13. Did you sell any animals in the last two years? Yes-- 1, No--2, Which How many How Why? (Code a)

much?

Code a: To pay for school= 1, to pay for labor= 2, To pay tax= 3, To buy grains for food=4, To buy inputs= 5, To pay for health=6, Others ______

B. Labor Availability.

1. What is the main source of labor for your farm operation?______

1) Family labor=1, 2) Hired labor=2, 3) Labor organization=3, 4) Others, specify

2. Did you involve in labor organization? ______1) Yes=1 2) No=2

3. If yes, for which activities did you involve in labor organization (labor exchange/ cooperation labor)? ______1. Land preparation------, 2.Cultivation (hoeing) ------3. Harvesting------, 4. SWC activities------, 5. Others specify______Yes=1, No=2

4. Did you use hired labor? ______1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

5. If yes, what type of labor do you hire? _____ 1.Causal------, 2. Permanent------, 3. Both------Yes=1, No=2

6. Who construct and maintain SWC structures in each of your plots? (Possible to give more than one answer)_____1.Community participation------, 2.Food/ cash for work______, 3.Family labor____, 4.Labor exchange ___, 5. Hired labor___ Yes=1,No=2

7. In which farming activities do your female family members participate? ____1. Land preparation___, 2.Ploughing___, 3.Hoeing___, 4.Weeding__, 5.Harvesting___ 6. Trashing___, 7. Other Yes=1,No=2

C. Agricultural Credit

1. Do you have credit access 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

2. If yes, did you take credit in the past three years? 1) Yes=1,2) No=2

3. Who is the source of credit? 1. Government organization____, 2. NGOs___, 3. Relatives___ 4. Local lenders___, 5. Neighbors___, 6. Local credit association___, 7. Commercial bank____ Yes=1,No=2

4. In what form did you take the credit? 1. In cash____, 2. in kind___, 3.loan___ Yes=1,No=2

5. What was the purpose of the credit? 1. Fertilizer credit___, 2. Improved seed credit___, 3. Livestock credit___, 4. Post-harvest credit____, 5. land management____, 6.others, specify______Yes=1,No=2

6. Have you ever obtained credit for Land management activities 1) Yes, 2) No=2

7. If yes, for what purpose? 1. To purchase farm tools_____, 2. To purchase fertilizer_____3.To hire labor____, 4. to raise seedling or purchase___, 5.others specify______Yes=1,No=2

8. If you did not use credit for BPLM, what was the reason?

1. Lack of credit access____, 2. High interest rate____, 3. I didn't have a problem____

4.I dislike the process_____, 5.it is not profitable ____, 6) others Yes=1,No=2

9. Do you want credit for BPLM in the future? 1) Yes=1, 2) No=2

10. If yes, in what form? 1. in cash____, 2.in kind___, 3.Both____ Yes=1,No=2

D. Household income and expenditure

1. Do you or your family members work on non-farm activities? Yes=1, No=2

2. If yes, in which of the following non-farm activities did you engage? (Possible to give more than one answer)____1. Petty trade____, 2.Selling of wood____, 3.Pottery____, 4.Carpenter____, 5.Daily work__ Yes=1,No=2

3. For what purpose did you spent your non-farm income? ______;1. for loan payment____, 2.seed purchase____,3. Food____, .4for school fee____, 5.for medical services__ Yes=1,No=2

4. If no, why you did not engage in non-farm activity? ______1.We are busy on our own farm___,2. we do not have interest to work on non-farm Job____,3. Income from non-farm job is not attractive, 4.we have enough cash income____, 5.we have enough food production_____, 6.There is no non-farm job opportunity____ Yes=1,No=2

5. Did you get any income from sale of grains in the last 12 months? ___Yes ---1, No ---2,

6. What type of crop grains 7. How much is 8. How much is the 9. How much is the total amount did you sell? (put a mark) the amount in local current market price per of income generated? (in Birr) unit* or kg unit? (in Birr) Coffee Maize Wheat Barley Teff Haricot beans Sorghum Faba bean Chick pea Others (specify) * Local units: Kuna, Gomode, Gubo, Dawla, Tasa, Quintal, others Estimate of 1 ______(local unit)kg. 10. Did you get any income from the sale of animals or animal products in the last 12 months?______; Yes --1, No --2,

11. Which type of 12. How many or how 13. What is the market 14. How much is the total animals or products much? value per individual or per amount of income generated? did you sell? unit of product? (in Birr)

N.B. Put estimates of local units. 1 ______(local unit) = ______kg or litre 15. Did you get any income from the sale of fuel-wood or charcoal in the last 12 months? Yes ---1, No --2

16. What are the sources of 17. How many of fuel- 18. How much is the 19. How much is the total fuel wood or charcoal for sale? wood or charcoal did price) of fuel-wood or amount of income (Code a) you sale? (local unit) charcoal? (local unit) generated? (in birr)

Code a: Natural forest=1, Community woodlot=2, Private woodlot=3, Farm trees=4, residues (straw) =5 Cow dung=6, Crop others= 7 Local units: Joniya, Madabera, Quintal, Ba’aa, others (specify). Estimate of 1 ___ (local unit) kg

Annex 9:Household and population size of the Woreda, 2010

No Name of PAS Family head Family members Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male female total 1 Demaksa 313 69 382 1120 1270 2390 1884 2841 4725 2 Jirata 730 101 831 1551 2274 3825 3213 4757 7970 3 Firomsa 583 55 638 1204 1513 2717 2480 3410 5890 4 Garuma 424 49 473 1194 1195 2389 2140 2911 5051 5 Oda Gudina 594 90 684 1479 2086 3565 2847 4339 7186 6 Adungna 543 67 610 656 689 1345 1876 2022 3898 7 Gudisa 506 66 572 1050 1619 2669 2194 3307 5501 8 Biqila 347 47 394 712 1055 1767 1500 2208 3708 9 Gemachis 260 48 308 740 983 1723 1356 2079 3435 10 Burka Gudina 616 74 690 1282 1482 2764 2662 3528 6190 11 Furdisa 332 68 400 442 791 1233 1242 1701 2943 12 Arjo Kote blua 959 140 1099 1848 2565 4413 4046 5652 9698 13 Karsa Dako 239 25 264 438 577 1015 966 1304 2270 14 Mada Jalala 443 23 466 735 1204 1939 1667 2428 4095 15 Bachi bachi 180 32 212 401 589 990 825 1234 2059 16 Dagaga Dhidhesa 345 38 383 582 825 1409 1348 1828 3176 17 Lalisa Dimtu 631 86 717 1934 1822 3756 3368 4559 7927 18 Wayesa Dimtu 594 86 680 943 1380 2323 2303 3089 5392 19 Biqiltu Gudina 598 17 615 1071 1774 2845 2301 3477 5778 20 Malka bayti jirma 634 49 683 1514 1940 3454 2880 4186 7066 21 Bareda Soruma 279 12 291 671 679 1350 1253 1653 2906 Total 10150 1242 11392 21567 28312 49881 44351 62513 106864

Annex10:Population size of sample PAs

No Name of PAS Family head Family members Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male female total 1 Jirata 730 101 831 1551 2274 3825 3213 4757 7970 2 Firomsa 583 55 638 1204 1513 2717 2480 3410 5890 3 Arjo Kote blua 959 140 1099 1848 2565 4413 4046 5652 9698 4 Mada Jalala 443 23 466 735 1204 1939 1667 2428 4095 Total 2715 319 3034 5338 7556 12894 11406 16247 27653

Annex 11: Educational status of sampled HH heads Types of practices 1-4 5-8 9-10 Illiterate F M F M F M F M With BPLMP(n=60) 18 15 7 20

Without BPLMP(n=60) 2 16 9 3 30

Annex 12: Age category of the respondent

Types of practices 20-35 36-50 50+ Total

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

With BPLMP(n=60) 25 22 13 60

17 2 24 17 58 2 Without BPLM(n=60)

Total 42 2 46 30 118 2

Declaration

This thesis is my original work, and it has not been presented for a degree in any other university and the source materials used for the thesis is fully acknowledged.

Tolera Megersa ______

This thesis has been submitted for the examination with our approval as a university advisor

Dr. Mekuria Argaw ______Signature

Prof. Dr. P.Natarajan ______Signature