Wolde Mekuria, Euan Phimister, Getahun Yakob, Desalegn Tegegne, Awdenegest Moges, Yitna Tesfaye, Dagmawi Melaku, Charlene Gerber, Paul Hallett, Jo Smith
{"title":"埃塞俄比亚南部的沟壑恢复--对农民的价值和影响","authors":"Wolde Mekuria, Euan Phimister, Getahun Yakob, Desalegn Tegegne, Awdenegest Moges, Yitna Tesfaye, Dagmawi Melaku, Charlene Gerber, Paul Hallett, Jo Smith","doi":"10.5194/egusphere-2024-1125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Abstract.</strong> Gully erosion can be combatted in severely affected regions like sub-Saharan Africa by a range of low-cost interventions that are accessible to affected farmers. However, for successful implementation, biophysical evidence of the effectiveness of interventions needs to be combined with buy-in and input from local communities. Working with farmers in a watershed in Southern Ethiopia, we investigated (a) the effectiveness of low-cost gully rehabilitation measures to reduce soil loss and upward expansion of gully heads, (b) how farmers and communities view gully interventions, and (c) whether demonstrating gully interventions in-context changes farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of their capacity to act. On-farm field experiments, key informant interviews, focus group discussions and household surveys were used to collect and analyze data. Three gully treatments were explored, all with riprap, one also with grass planting, and one with grass planting and check-dam integration. Over a period of 26 months these low-cost practices ceased measurable gully head expansion, whereas untreated gullies had a mean upward expansion of 671 cm resulting in a calculated soil loss of 11.0 tonnes. Farmers viewed these gully rehabilitation measures positively, apart from the high cost of input materials and technical requirements of gabion check-dams. Ongoing rehabilitation activities and on-farm trials influenced knowledge and understanding of similar gully treatments among survey respondents. On-farm experiments and field day demonstrations empowered farmers to act, addressing pessimism from some respondents about their capacity to do so.","PeriodicalId":48610,"journal":{"name":"Soil","volume":"142 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gully rehabilitation in Southern Ethiopia – value and impacts for farmers\",\"authors\":\"Wolde Mekuria, Euan Phimister, Getahun Yakob, Desalegn Tegegne, Awdenegest Moges, Yitna Tesfaye, Dagmawi Melaku, Charlene Gerber, Paul Hallett, Jo Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/egusphere-2024-1125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<strong>Abstract.</strong> Gully erosion can be combatted in severely affected regions like sub-Saharan Africa by a range of low-cost interventions that are accessible to affected farmers. However, for successful implementation, biophysical evidence of the effectiveness of interventions needs to be combined with buy-in and input from local communities. Working with farmers in a watershed in Southern Ethiopia, we investigated (a) the effectiveness of low-cost gully rehabilitation measures to reduce soil loss and upward expansion of gully heads, (b) how farmers and communities view gully interventions, and (c) whether demonstrating gully interventions in-context changes farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of their capacity to act. On-farm field experiments, key informant interviews, focus group discussions and household surveys were used to collect and analyze data. Three gully treatments were explored, all with riprap, one also with grass planting, and one with grass planting and check-dam integration. Over a period of 26 months these low-cost practices ceased measurable gully head expansion, whereas untreated gullies had a mean upward expansion of 671 cm resulting in a calculated soil loss of 11.0 tonnes. Farmers viewed these gully rehabilitation measures positively, apart from the high cost of input materials and technical requirements of gabion check-dams. Ongoing rehabilitation activities and on-farm trials influenced knowledge and understanding of similar gully treatments among survey respondents. On-farm experiments and field day demonstrations empowered farmers to act, addressing pessimism from some respondents about their capacity to do so.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soil\",\"volume\":\"142 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soil\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1125\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOIL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1125","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Gully rehabilitation in Southern Ethiopia – value and impacts for farmers
Abstract. Gully erosion can be combatted in severely affected regions like sub-Saharan Africa by a range of low-cost interventions that are accessible to affected farmers. However, for successful implementation, biophysical evidence of the effectiveness of interventions needs to be combined with buy-in and input from local communities. Working with farmers in a watershed in Southern Ethiopia, we investigated (a) the effectiveness of low-cost gully rehabilitation measures to reduce soil loss and upward expansion of gully heads, (b) how farmers and communities view gully interventions, and (c) whether demonstrating gully interventions in-context changes farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of their capacity to act. On-farm field experiments, key informant interviews, focus group discussions and household surveys were used to collect and analyze data. Three gully treatments were explored, all with riprap, one also with grass planting, and one with grass planting and check-dam integration. Over a period of 26 months these low-cost practices ceased measurable gully head expansion, whereas untreated gullies had a mean upward expansion of 671 cm resulting in a calculated soil loss of 11.0 tonnes. Farmers viewed these gully rehabilitation measures positively, apart from the high cost of input materials and technical requirements of gabion check-dams. Ongoing rehabilitation activities and on-farm trials influenced knowledge and understanding of similar gully treatments among survey respondents. On-farm experiments and field day demonstrations empowered farmers to act, addressing pessimism from some respondents about their capacity to do so.
SoilAgricultural and Biological Sciences-Soil Science
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
44
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍:
SOIL is an international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and discussion of high-quality research in the field of soil system sciences.
SOIL is at the interface between the atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. SOIL publishes scientific research that contributes to understanding the soil system and its interaction with humans and the entire Earth system. The scope of the journal includes all topics that fall within the study of soil science as a discipline, with an emphasis on studies that integrate soil science with other sciences (hydrology, agronomy, socio-economics, health sciences, atmospheric sciences, etc.).