54<strong>World</strong> Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry <strong>in</strong>to the Futurecont<strong>in</strong>uous cultivation, or which have awidespread history <strong>of</strong> fertilizer use, do notexhibit this problem (Scoones and Toulm<strong>in</strong>1999). Localized differences <strong>in</strong> farmerwealth rank<strong>in</strong>g, field-use history and theuse <strong>of</strong> organic additions (typically <strong>in</strong> fieldsclose to the homestead) generally produce‘islands’ <strong>of</strong> high soil fertility (Shepherd andSoule 1998.Given the acute poverty and limited accessto m<strong>in</strong>eral fertilizers, a promis<strong>in</strong>g approachis one that <strong>in</strong>tegrates organic and <strong>in</strong>organicfertilizers. Organic fertilizers <strong>in</strong>clude theuse <strong>of</strong> improved fallows <strong>of</strong> legum<strong>in</strong>oustrees, shrubs, herbaceous legumes andbiomass transfer. <strong>The</strong> improved fallows systemis the product <strong>of</strong> more than 10 years’<strong>of</strong> agr<strong>of</strong>orestry research and developmentefforts by the <strong>World</strong> Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry Centre(ICRAF) and its many partners <strong>in</strong> SSA. Bothresearch and development dimensions arediscussed <strong>in</strong> this chapter. We do this bydraw<strong>in</strong>g particular reference to the Centre’scollaborative work <strong>in</strong> three regions <strong>of</strong>Africa – East and Central Africa, southernAfrica and the Sahel. Decl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g soil fertilityis a major concern faced by smallholderfarmers <strong>in</strong> all these regions (Franzel 1999;Sanchez and Jama 2002).Improved fallows<strong>The</strong> concept and practiceAlthough neither the idea nor the researchon improved fallows is new (Nye andGreenland 1960), critical exam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong>the practice, and the wide-scale evaluation<strong>of</strong> suitable species, is relatively recent(Sanchez 1995). Planted fallows <strong>of</strong> legum<strong>in</strong>oustrees or shrubs can biologically fixconsiderable amounts <strong>of</strong> N – for example,between 60–80 kg ha –1 – <strong>in</strong> above-groundbiomass (Gathumbi 2000). <strong>The</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> therecycled N <strong>in</strong> such legum<strong>in</strong>ous trees orshrubs is accessed from sub-soil N – Oxisolsand Oxic Alfisols – which is unavailableto crops (Mekonnen et al. 1997). Underconditions such as those <strong>in</strong> western Kenya,where the soils possess substantial anionexchange capacity, net N m<strong>in</strong>eralizationexceeds N uptake by crops and high ra<strong>in</strong>fallcarries nutrients to the sub-soil, result<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> a build-up <strong>of</strong> sub-soil N that rangesfrom 70 to 315 kg ha –1 (Hartem<strong>in</strong>k et al.1996). Nitrogen that accumulates <strong>in</strong> theabove-ground biomass <strong>of</strong> planted tree fallowsis returned to the soil upon clear<strong>in</strong>g;the fallow biomass is <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong>to thesoil for subsequent cropp<strong>in</strong>g. Additionally,fallows <strong>in</strong>crease the amount <strong>of</strong> labile fractions<strong>of</strong> organic soil matter, which supplynutrients to crops follow<strong>in</strong>g fallows (Barrioset al. 1997). <strong>The</strong>y can also contribute toimprov<strong>in</strong>g soil structure, build up <strong>of</strong> soilorganic matter and its carbon (C) stocks,thus contribut<strong>in</strong>g to C sequestration.<strong>The</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> which species to plant <strong>in</strong>the fallow period is <strong>in</strong>fluenced by bothbiophysical and socioeconomic conditions.<strong>The</strong> ideal tree species is typicallyfast-grow<strong>in</strong>g, N-fix<strong>in</strong>g and efficient atnutrient capture and cycl<strong>in</strong>g. Examples <strong>of</strong>promis<strong>in</strong>g species <strong>in</strong>clude Crotalaria grahamiana,Tephrosia vogelii, Cajanus cajan(pigeonpea) and Sesbania sesban (sesbania).Coppic<strong>in</strong>g species can also be used,and Gliricidia sepium (gliricidia) and Calliandracalothyrsus (calliandra) are becom<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly popular with farmers <strong>in</strong>Kenya, Malawi and Zambia because theyare perennial and, unlike the non-coppic<strong>in</strong>gspecies, there are no costs <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong>replant<strong>in</strong>g them once they are cut back.Agronomic and economic bene<strong>fit</strong>sSeveral agronomic studies demonstratethat improved fallows <strong>of</strong> 1–3 seasons (8–21months) can <strong>in</strong>crease soil fertility and improveyields considerably. For <strong>in</strong>stance,Kwesiga and Coe (1994) <strong>in</strong> premier fieldstudies demonstrated that 2- and 3-yearsesbania fallows can <strong>in</strong>crease maize yield,compared to unfertilized maize monoculture,for at least three cropp<strong>in</strong>g seasons afterharvest <strong>of</strong> the fallows on an N-deficientsoil <strong>in</strong> Zambia. This was confirmed later<strong>in</strong> multilocational trials <strong>in</strong> eastern Zambia(Kwesiga et al. 2003). In western Kenya,similar observations have also been madewith use <strong>of</strong> several species and fallowdurations (Jama et al. 1998a; Niang et al.1996a; Rao et al. 1998). Recent trials <strong>in</strong> theSahel that were conducted with<strong>in</strong> the subhumidregion <strong>of</strong> Mali also demonstrate theability <strong>of</strong> several species to improve soilfertility and crop yields considerably (Figure1). <strong>The</strong>se studies have led to the generalconclusion that total farm productioncan be greater with improved fallow–croprotations than with cont<strong>in</strong>uous cropp<strong>in</strong>g,even though crop production is skipped forone or more seasons with improved fallows(Sanchez et al. 1997).In areas such as southern Malawi with lowra<strong>in</strong>fall and sandy soils, gliricidia fallowsthat coppice when cut back perform betterthan those <strong>of</strong> sesbania, which <strong>does</strong> notcoppice well. This has been demonstratedthrough long-term trials that also show thatthe highest yields are obta<strong>in</strong>ed when improvedfallows are used <strong>in</strong> conjunction withrepeated application <strong>of</strong> the recommendedrates <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>organic fertilizers (Figure 2).In soils that are severely depleted <strong>of</strong> nutrients,the addition <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>organic fertilizers<strong>in</strong>creases the productivity <strong>of</strong> improved fallows.In western Kenya, for <strong>in</strong>stance, thereis <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g evidence that 1–2 season-longfallows do not overcome N deficiency <strong>in</strong>highly degraded soils, especially when deficiencies<strong>of</strong> other nutrients are overcomeand when high-yield<strong>in</strong>g crop varieties areused. Fertilizer use is, however, limited by
Chapter 6: Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry <strong>in</strong>novations for soil fertility management <strong>in</strong> sub-Saharan Africa55Sorghum gra<strong>in</strong> yield (t ha —1 )2.52.01.51.00.50.01.4Figure 1. Effect <strong>of</strong> improved fallows us<strong>in</strong>g different species on the gra<strong>in</strong> yield <strong>of</strong> sorghumat Bamako, Mali.Source: Niang (unpublished data).2.31.1T.candida S.sesban C.siberia C.cajan NaturalfallowCropp<strong>in</strong>g system1.21.30.6Cont<strong>in</strong>uouscropits high cost. In SSA, fertilizers cost around3–4 times the <strong>in</strong>ternational price largelybecause <strong>of</strong> poor roads and the associatedhigh transport costs <strong>in</strong> many countries.However, fertilizers are needed for the<strong>in</strong>tegrated nutrient management approachproposed for replenish<strong>in</strong>g soil fertility <strong>in</strong>Africa, and hence should be made affordableto farmers.Economic analysis <strong>in</strong>dicates that improvedfallows are generally attractive (Franzel etal. 1999; Sw<strong>in</strong>kels et al. 1997). Accord<strong>in</strong>gto sensitivity studies conducted by Placeet al. (2000) <strong>in</strong> eastern Zambia, which isprone to droughts, this is the case even underdrought conditions. In western Kenya,however, economic bene<strong>fit</strong>s are marg<strong>in</strong>al.Even though the soils <strong>in</strong> this region are P-deficient and require application <strong>of</strong> P-richfertilizers, that are prohibitively expensive(cost<strong>in</strong>g more than US$500 t –1 ).Maize gra<strong>in</strong> yield (t ha —1 )8765432= SedOther bene<strong>fit</strong>sControl <strong>of</strong> Striga hermontheca, a parasiticweed <strong>of</strong> many cereal crops, is an addedbene<strong>fit</strong> <strong>of</strong> the repeated use <strong>of</strong> improved fallows(Barrios et al. 1998; Gacheru and Rao2001). Striga causes large yield losses <strong>in</strong>the Lake Victoria area <strong>of</strong> the East and CentralAfrica bas<strong>in</strong>. Although the processesare not well understood, it is suspected thatthe fallow species excrete substances thatcause suicidal early germ<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> Striga.101996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Figure 2. Maize gra<strong>in</strong> yield for eight seasons us<strong>in</strong>g Sesbania sesban and Gliricidia sepiumfallows. Sed = Standard error <strong>of</strong> difference <strong>of</strong> means. M+F = Maize that was fertilized with200 kg ha –1 <strong>of</strong> a compound fertilizer (N = 100 g kg –1 , P = 90 g kg –1 and K = 80 g kg –1 )at sow<strong>in</strong>g, and 92 g N ha –1 as urea 4 weeks after emergence; M-F is maize not fertilized.Source: Kwesiga (unpublished data).Years/seasonGliricidia M+F M–F Sesbania<strong>The</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> fuelwood is another bene<strong>fit</strong><strong>of</strong> improved fallows. Depend<strong>in</strong>g on thespecies and fallow duration, considerableamounts <strong>of</strong> wood can be obta<strong>in</strong>ed fromimproved fallows. For <strong>in</strong>stance, <strong>in</strong> westernKenya, calliandra, which produces woodwith good fuelwood properties, can generatemore than 10 t ha –1 <strong>of</strong> wood from asearly as the third year <strong>of</strong> establishment. Thisis enough to meet the fuelwood needs <strong>of</strong> atypical rural household with 6–7 members
- Page 4 and 5:
CitationGarrity, D., A. Okono, M. G
- Page 6 and 7:
Enhancing Environmental ServicesCha
- Page 8 and 9:
viWorld Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 10 and 11:
viiiWorld Agroforestry into the Fut
- Page 13 and 14:
Agroforestry and the Future
- Page 15 and 16: Keywords:Millennium Development Goa
- Page 17 and 18: Chapter 1: Science-based agroforest
- Page 19 and 20: Chapter 1: Science-based agroforest
- Page 21 and 22: Trees and Markets
- Page 23 and 24: Keywords:Dacryodes edulis, Irvingia
- Page 25 and 26: Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 27 and 28: Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 29 and 30: Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 31 and 32: Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 33 and 34: Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 35 and 36: Keywords:Perennial tree crops, plan
- Page 37 and 38: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 39 and 40: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 41 and 42: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 43 and 44: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 45 and 46: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 47: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 50 and 51: 38World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 52 and 53: 40World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 54 and 55: “Trees influence landscape scaled
- Page 56 and 57: 44World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 58 and 59: 46World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 60 and 61: 48World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 62 and 63: 50World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 65: Keywords:Agroforestry, improved fal
- Page 69 and 70: Chapter 6: Agroforestry innovations
- Page 71 and 72: Chapter 6: Agroforestry innovations
- Page 73 and 74: Keywords:Extension, farmer-centred
- Page 75 and 76: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 77 and 78: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 79 and 80: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 81 and 82: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 83 and 84: Keywords:Policy, land management, a
- Page 85 and 86: Chapter 8: Policies for improved la
- Page 87 and 88: Chapter 8: Policies for improved la
- Page 89 and 90: Chapter 8: Policies for improved la
- Page 91 and 92: Chapter 9Land and People:Working Gr
- Page 93: Chapter 9: Land and people81• sca
- Page 96 and 97: “Forest conservation is no longer
- Page 98 and 99: 86World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 100 and 101: 88World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 102 and 103: 90World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 104 and 105: 92World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 106 and 107: 94World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 108 and 109: 96World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 110 and 111: 98World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 112 and 113: 100World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 115 and 116: Keywords:Agroforestry, buffering wa
- Page 117 and 118:
Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 119 and 120:
Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 121 and 122:
Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 123 and 124:
Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 125 and 126:
Keywords:Agroforestry, vulnerabilit
- Page 127 and 128:
Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 129 and 130:
Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 131 and 132:
Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 133:
Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 136 and 137:
124World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 138 and 139:
126World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 140 and 141:
“Agroforestry can and does playa
- Page 142 and 143:
130World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 144 and 145:
132World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 147 and 148:
Keywords:Educational impact, sustai
- Page 149 and 150:
Chapter 16: Capacity building in ag
- Page 151 and 152:
Chapter 16: Capacity building in ag
- Page 153 and 154:
Keywords:Networking, research-exten
- Page 155 and 156:
Chapter 17: Institutional collabora
- Page 157 and 158:
Chapter 17: Institutional collabora
- Page 159 and 160:
Keywords:Capacity building, agrofor
- Page 161 and 162:
Chapter 18: Building capacity for r
- Page 163 and 164:
Chapter 18: Building capacity for r
- Page 165 and 166:
Chapter 18: Building capacity for r
- Page 167 and 168:
Keywords:E-learning, agricultural e
- Page 169 and 170:
Chapter 19: Can e-learning support
- Page 171 and 172:
Chapter 19: Can e-learning support
- Page 173 and 174:
Chapter 19: Can e-learning support
- Page 175 and 176:
Chapter 20Strengthening Institution
- Page 177:
Chapter 20: Strengthening instituti
- Page 180 and 181:
168“The biological characteristic
- Page 182 and 183:
170World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 184 and 185:
172World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 186 and 187:
174World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 188 and 189:
176World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 190 and 191:
178World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 192 and 193:
180World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 194 and 195:
182World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 196 and 197:
184World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 198 and 199:
186World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 200 and 201:
188World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 202 and 203:
190World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 205 and 206:
Author ContactsFahmudin Agusisri@in
- Page 207 and 208:
Acronyms and AbbreviationsACIARAFTP
- Page 210:
CreditsFront cover photo: Karen Rob
- Page 213:
World Agroforestry into the Future