WFC3_Rao

8/2/2019 WFC3_Rao

1/1

ITUTIONAL PARTNERS:(1) CIAT-Colombia;(2) Insti tut o Nicaragense de Tecnologa Agropecuaria (INTA), Nicaragua;(3) CIAT-Honduras;(4) Corporacin Colombiana de Investi gacinpecuar ia (CORPOICA), Colombia;(5) EMBRAPA, Brazil;(6) International Development Research Center (IDRC), Canada;(7) University of Western Australia;(8) CIAT-Nicaragua;(9)ersidad Nacional de Agricult ura (UNA), Nicaragua;(10) Food and Agri cult ure Organization of the Unit ed Nati ons (FAO), Honduras;(11) CPWF-Theme 2 (Water and People in CatchmenPWF-Basin Focal Project Coordination, Colombia.

NOWLEDGEMENTS:This proj ect i s part ially founded by t he Challenge Program on Water and Food of CGIAR. It is co-executed by the Integrated Management of Soil consort ium

ral Amer ica incl uding INTA and UNA, Nicaragua; ESNACIFOR, UNA and FAO, Honduras; and CIAT - Honduras, Nicaragua and Colombi a; Inter- inst it ut ional consort ium for suulture i n hi llsides (CIPASLA), Colombia; and Nati onal University of Colombia - Palmir a. We thank E. Humphreys, J. Rubiano, M. Fisher, N. Asakawa, C. Benavides, G. BorreChvez, J. Galvis, M. del P. Hurt ado, M. Quintero, J. Quintero, J. Ricaurte, M.T. Trej o, R. Vivas, A. lvarez, O. Ayala, E. Melo and D. Vsquez for t heir cont ributi ons to t h

A. Castro1, M. Rivera1, O. Ferreira1, J. Pavn2, E. Garca3, E. Amzquit a4, M. Ayarza4, E. Barrios5,M. Rondn6, N. Pauli7, M. E. Baltodano8, B. Mendoza9, L.A. Wlchez10, N. Johnson11, S. Cook12 and I.M. Rao1

Consortium for the Integrated Management ofSoils in Central America

MAS int egrates local and t echnical knowledge and provides resource-poormers an alt ernative t o replace the non-sustainable, environmentally unf ri endlyh and burn (SB) traditional production system.

sungual Slash and Mulch Agroforestr y System (QSMAS) is a smallholderduction system with a group of technologies for the sustainable management of water and nutri ents in drought-prone areas of hill sides agroecosystems of t he

-humid tropics.

Here we describe f our basic pri nciples and a brief technical explanati on of timpacts, and the science behind those principles that support therecommendation of QSMAS as an option to achieve a number of social, agricand environmental benefit s in rainfed systems of the sub-humid tr opics.

itability of QSMAS foritability of QSMAS foroption by small farmers:option by small farmers:erience over three years of on-

m participatory validation inaragua (Somoti ll o) and Colombiarez) suggests that QSMAS wi ll bedily accepted and adopted byllholders in similar agroecosystems-humid t ropics). It also receivedng support from local authoritiespolicy makers.

Validation plots nearbyValidation plots nearbySalvajinaSalvajinadam,dam, SuSurezrez , Cauca,, Cauca,

Colombia (Jan. 2008)Colombia (Jan. 2008)

I know there is still much I know there is stil l much to be i mproved and to be i mproved and learned, but we already learned, but we already took the most important took t he most important step that i s not to use step that i s not to use burning burning

G. Aguilar, NicaraguanG. Aguilar, Nicaraguanfarmer practi cing QSMASfarmer practi cing QSMAS

NicaraguaNicaraguaandandColombia:Colombia:Validation sitesValidation sites

Honduras: Refer enceHonduras: Refer encesite for QSMASsite for QSMAS

Nicaragua (2005-06):QSMAS improvednet income (83%) compared to SB system.

S la sh a nd B ur n Q SM AS

G r a

i n y i e

l d ( t h a -

1 )

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6Maize

Common beanDMS 0.05 = nsDMS 0.05 = 0.43


G r a

i n y i e

l d ( t h a -

1 )

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6Maize


Maize



G r a

i n y i e

l d ( t h a -

1 )

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6Maize



G r a

i n y i e

l d ( t h a -

1 )

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6Maize


Maize


IMPACTS of the PRINCIPLES:IMPACTS of the PRINCIPLES: Soil-plant-atmosphere continuum:Reduced impact of raindrops, reduced runoff and soil losses through

erosion, increased infiltration and water holding capacity, reduced evaporation and increased use ofgreen water, and improved crop water productivit y.

Soil physical quality:Improved soil aggregation and therefore improved soil structure.

Soil chemical-biological quality:Improved soil organic matter , soil biological activi ty, source of nutr ientsand fert ili zer use efficiency; and minimized risk for crop failur e. Green house gases (GHG): Reduced carbon emissions.

The above can be summarized as increased C synthesis and accumulThe above can be summarized as increased C synthesis and accumulation, accelerated nutri ent cycling andation, accelerated nutri ent cycling andimproved crop water productivit y in a resilient producti on systeimproved crop water productivit y in a resilient pr oducti on system, t hereby enhancing support form, t hereby enhancing support for

livelihoods in rural areas.livelihoods in rural areas.

The four basiche four basicprinciplesrinciples

& the science behind themthe science behind them

GHG emission:QSMAS reduces t he r isk ( 42%) f orglobal w arming potent ial (GWP) compared t o

slash and burn (SB) system (20 year scenario).

G W P ( k g

C O

2 e q u i v a

l e n t s

h a - 1

y - 1 )

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Slash and BurnQSMASSecondary Forest

G W P ( k g

C O

2 e q u i v a

l e n t s

h a - 1

y - 1 )

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000


A v a

i l a b l e w a t e r

( m 3

m - 3 )

0.00

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

LSD 0.05 = 0.026QSMAS

SecondaryForest

Slashand Burn

A v a

i l a b l e w a t e r

( m 3

m - 3 )

0.00

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

LSD 0.05 = 0.026QSMAS

SecondaryForest

Slashand Burn

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40DMS 0.05 =6.2

DMS 0.05 =6.6

R u n o

f f ( m m

h - 1 )

I n f i l t r a

t i o n

( m m

h - 1 )

Slash andBurnQSMASSecondary Forest

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40DMS 0.05 =6.2

DMS 0.05 =6.6

R u n o

f f ( m m

h - 1 )

I n f i l t r a

t i o n

( m m

h - 1 )

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40DMS 0.05 =6.2DMS 0.05 =6.2

DMS 0.05 =6.6DMS 0.05 =6.6

R u n o

f f ( m m

h - 1 )

I n f i l t r a

t i o n

( m m

h - 1 )

Slash andBurnQSMASSecondary Forest

Soil water:QSMAS improves dry season adaptation of crops through higher soilwater availabilit y together wit h reduced runoff and increased infilt ration

compared to SB.

S o i

l l o s s

( t h a - 1 )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2007 LSD= ns2006 LSD= 1.082005 LSD= 6.59

QSMASSecondary

Forest

Slashand Burn

S o i

l l o s s

( t h a - 1 )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2007 LSD= ns2006 LSD= 1.082005 LSD= 6.59

2007 LSD= ns2006 LSD= 1.082005 LSD= 6.59

QSMASSecondary

Forest

Slashand Burn

Erosion: QSMAS protects soil by markedlyreducing soil losses (~7.5 t imes in tw o years)

compared to SB system.

Slash and Burn QSMAS -F QSMAS +F

G r a

i n y i e l

d ( k g

h a - 1 )

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Maize

Commonbeans

Slash and Burn QSMAS -F QSMAS +F

G r a

i n y i e l

d ( k g

h a - 1 )

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Maize

Commonbeans

Honduras (2005-06):Productivity i s

higher in QSMAS than i n SB system(-F = no fertil izer).

C h a n g e

i n n u

t r i e n

t s t a t u s

( m g

k g - 1 )

-40

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

QSMAS SecondaryForest

Slashand Burn

Total NAvailable P

C h a n g e

i n n u

t r i e n

t s t a t u s

( m g

k g - 1 )

-40

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320


Slashand Burn

Total NAvailable P

C h a n g e

i n S O M ( % )

-0.9-0.8-0.7-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.30.4

0.5



Slashand Burn

C h a n g e

i n S O M ( % )

-0.9-0.8-0.7-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.30.4

0.5



Slashand Burn

Soil quality:QSMAS improves soil nutrient status and soil organic matter (SOM)content (0-20 cm soil depth) compared to SB system (after one year).

Honduras (2007):value ofenvironmental services

consideri ng: (i) Soil and water(runoff, infiltration, waterholding capacity, and soil

losses) att ribut es; and (ii) Ccapture (soil organic carbon)

US$ 2,240 per hectare

QSMAS also provides environmental services:QSMAS also provides environmental services: Increase of soil quality and resilience Increase of water quality and availability Recuperati on of degrading soils Mitigation of greenhouse gas fluxes Improved C capture Conservation of biodiversity Miti gation of impact related to natural

disaster s and/or cli mate change

No slash & burno slash & burnManagement (partial,selective, and progressiveslash-and-prune) ofnatural vegetation.

Permanent soilermanent soilcoveroverContinual deposit ion ofbiomass from trees,shrubs and weeds, andthrough crop r esidues.

Minimalinimaldisturbanceisturbanceof soilf soilNo tillage, direct seedling,and reduced soildisturbance duringagronomic practices.

Efficient usefficient useof fertilizerf fertilizerAppropriate application(type, amount, locati on)of fert ilizers.

MAS is pract iced by resource-poor smallhol ders in southwest Honduras (Cent ralerica), where the system has been successfully disseminated due to itsefits, including resilience even to extreme climatic events such as El Nio97) and hurri cane Mitch (1998).

The main obj ective of thi s CPWF funded proj ect was to deter mine t he keypri nciples behind the social acceptance and biophysical resili ence of QSMASdefining the r ole of t he management components of the system and QSMAS'capacit y to sustain crop producti on and alleviate water deficit s on steeper swit h high r isk of soil erosion. Acti vit ies included the evaluation of QSMASperformance compared t o the tr aditional slash-and-burn system, in t he ref esit e (Honduras) and the vali dati on sites (Nicaragua and Colombia).

WFC3_Rao

Documents

Transcript of WFC3_Rao