Poster for CIAT 2009 Knowledge Sharing Week

1. Mariela Rivera1,Edgar Amézquita2 and Idupulapati Rao1
1 Agriculture,
Consortium for the Integrated Management of
Consortium for the Integrated Management of
Soils in Central America
Soils in Central America
1International Center for Tropical Agriculture, A.A 6713. Cali, Colombia
2
2Present address: CORPOICA, Palmira, Colombia
address:
THE PROBLEM
Most hillside areas in sub-humid tropics of the world suffer from severe
seasonal water scarcity, which is increasing due to deforestation and lack of
adequate soil and crop management practices. This problem is particularly
acute for rural poor that need safe water to meet their daily requirements.
About 1,200 million people, almost one fifth of the world's population, live
in water scarce regions, and 500 million are approaching this situation. FAO
projects that by 2030, one in five developing countries will be suffering
actual or impending water scarcity. Agriculture in developing countries is
under pressure to use water more efficiently. Better water management and
improved technologies are needed to achieve 'more crop per drop'. It takes
between 1,000 and 3,000 liters of water to produce one kilogram of rice
grain and 13,000 to 15,000 to produce a kilogram of grain-fed beef. Many of
the around 840 million poor people in the world who still go hungry live in
water-scarce regions.
Source: IWMI, 2006
THE SYSTEM
Quesungual Slash and Mulch Agroforestry System (QSMAS), is a smolholder production
system with a group of technologies for the sustainable management of soil, water and
nutrients in drought-prone areas of hillsides agroecosystems of the sub-humid tropics. It
has contributed to a successful development strategy in improving rural livelihoods in the
Lempira Department of Honduras. This alternative to slash and burn agriculture strongly
builds on local knowledge and has been a major production system to achieve food
security by resource poor farmers. Farmers practicing this system reported less soil,
water and crop losses as a consequence of the “El Niño” drought event in 1997 and the
Hurricane Mitch in 1998. The system includes the production of maize and common bean.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the soil physical properties driving the acceptance, storage and
redistribution of soil water;
To assess the risk of susceptibility to erosion and water quality in the system;
To quantify the components of water balance (precipitation, interception, runoff,
drainage, evapotranspiration and storage in the soil) in the system; and
To quantify differences in crop water productivity of maize and common bean.
SYSTEM TREATMENTS
SB = slash and burn
QSMAS<2 = Quesungual system of less than 2 years
QSMAS 5-7 = Quesungual system of 5-7 years 1.2
1.2 2005
2005
2006
QSMAS>10 = Quesungual system of more than 10 years
LSD 0.05 ==0.22
LSD 0.05 0.22 2006
1.0 2007
2007
1.0 Average
Average
SF= Secondary forest 0.8
0.8
Grain yield
Grain yield
(t ha-1) )
0.6
(t ha-1
0.6
CONCLUSIONS
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
SB SMAS<22 MAS 55-7 MAS>110
SB -7 0
QSMAS compared to the SB showed: Q
<
Q SMASQS MAS QS MAS>
QS QS
Land Use Systems
Land Use Systems
0.08 25 Increased
Runoff
0.08 25 Rainy season
(mm)
Runoff
common bean yield
Rainy season
(mm)
20 Runoff 0.16
0.16
20 Runoff Dry season
Dry season LSD 0.05 == 0.015
LSD 0.05 0.015
LSD 0.05 ==3.1
LSD 0.05 3.1 Infiltration
Rainy season LSD 15 Infiltration
Rainy season LSD0.05 ==0.024
0.024 15 0.14
Available water content
0.06 0.14 Rainy season LSD 0.05 ==NS
Available water content
0.05
0.06 10
10
Rainy season LSD 0.05 NS
Dry season LSD 0.05 ==0.010 55 0.12
(kg ssm ) )
Ki-WEPP
Dry season LSD 0.05 0.010 0.12
-4
Ki-WEPP
(kg m -4
(m3 m-3) )
(m3 m-3
00
Infiltration
0.04 0.6
Infiltration
0.04 0.10 0.6
0.10
(mm)
55
(mm)
Maize
Maize
0.5
Crop water productivity
LSD 0.05 ==0.14
10 0.5
Crop water productivity
0.08 LSD 0.05 0.14
10 0.08
0.02
0.02 15
15 LSD 0.05 ==3.3 0.4
LSD 0.05 3.3 0.06 0.4 Common bean
Common bean
20 0.06
(kg m-3) )
20
(kg m-3
LSD 0.05 ==0.10
LSD 0.05 0.10
25
25 0.3
0.3
0.00
0.00 SB 7 0 SFF
SB -7 0 SF SQSMAS<2SMAS 5- 7 MAS>1 0
B AS<2 S 5- S>1 S 0.00
0.00
SQSMAS<2SMAS 55-7 MAS>1 0
B AS<2 S S>1 SF QSM Q SMA QS MA
Q QS SB MAS<2 AS 5-77 AS>100
B SFF 0.2
QSM Q SMA QS MA
Q QS SQS MAS<2 M AS 5- SM AS>1
QS M Q SM
S 0.2
QS QS Q
Land Use systems
Land Use systems
Land Use Systems
Land Use Systems Land Use Systems
Land Use Systems 0.1
0.1
Lower susceptibility Increased infiltration, Increased available 0.0
0.0
SB 7 0
SB QSMAS<2 SMAS 5- 7 SMAS>1 0
AS<2 MAS 5- Q MAS>1
to erosion decreased runoff water in soil QSM QS
Q QS
Land Use Systems
Land Use Systems
Ki-WEPP: Inter-rill soil erodibility (Water Erosion Prediction Project);
Crop water productivity: Kilogram of grain produced per m3 of water used Increased crop water
PARTNERS productivity
CIAT, Colombia; MIS Consortium Central America; UNA, Nicaragua; ESNACIFOR, Honduras; INTA/CENIA, Nicaragua; CIPASLA Consortium, Colombia;
Berlin University of Technology, Germany; FAO, Honduras.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is partially funded by the Water and Food Challenge Program of the CGIAR. We thank E. García, O. Ayala, A. Álvarez and A. Rodríguez for
their contributions to this work.