The study aims to analyze climate variability and farmers’ perception in Southern Ethiopia. Gridded annual temperature and precipitation data were obtained from the National Meteorological Agency (NMA) of Ethiopia for the period between 1983 and 2014. Using a multistage sampling technique, 403 farm households were surveyed to substantiate farmers’ perceptions about climate variability and change. The study applied a nonparametric Sen’s slope estimator and Mann–Kendall’s trend tests to detect the magnitude and statistical significance of climate variability and binary logit regression model to find factors influencing farm households’ perceptions about climate variability over three agroecological zones (AEZs). The trend analysis reveals that positive trends were observed in the annual maximum temperature, 0.02°C/year ( p < 0.01 ) in the lowland and 0.04°C/year ( p < 0.01 ) in the highland AEZs. The positive trend in annual minimum temperature was consistent in all AEZs and significant ( p < 0.01 ). An upward trend in the annual total rainfall (10 mm/year) ( p < 0.05 ) was recorded in the midland AEZ. Over 60% of farmers have perceived increasing temperature and decreasing rainfall in all AEZs. However, farmers’ perception about rainfall in the midland AEZ contradicts with meteorological analysis. Results from the binary logit model inform that farmers’ climate change perceptions are significantly influenced by their access to climate and market information, agroecology, education, agricultural input, and village market distance. Based on these results, it is recommended to enhance farm households’ capacity by providing timely weather and climate information along with institutional actions such as agricultural extension services.
more »
« less
Spatial and Ecological Farmer Knowledge and Decision-Making about Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity
Amid climate change, biodiversity loss and food insecurity, there is the growing need to draw synergies between micro-scale environmental processes and practices, and macro-level ecosystem dynamics to facilitate conservation decision-making. Adopting this synergistic approach can improve crop yields and profitability more sustainably, enhance livelihoods and mitigate climate change. Using spatially explicit data generated through a public participatory geographic information system methodology (n = 37), complemented by spatial analysis, interviews (n = 68) and focus group discussions (n = 4), we explored the synergies between participatory farmer-to-farmer agroecology knowledge sharing, farm-level decisions and their links with macro-level prioritization of conservation strategies. We mapped farm conditions and ecosystem services (ES) of two village areas with varying knowledge systems about farming. Results of the farm-level analysis revealed variations in spatial perception among farmers, differences in understanding the dynamics of crop growth and varying priorities for extension services based on agroecological knowledge. The ES use pattern analysis revealed hotspots in the mapped ES indicators with similarities in both village areas. Despite the similarities in ES use, priorities for biodiversity conservation align with farmers’ understanding of farm processes and practices. Farmers with training in agroecology prioritized strategies that are ecologically friendly while farmers with no agroecology training prioritized the use of strict regulations. Importantly, the results show that agroecology can potentially contribute to biodiversity conservation and food security, with climate change mitigation co-benefits. The findings generally contribute to debates on land sparing and land sharing conservation strategies and advance social learning theory as it pertains to acquiring agroecological knowledge for improved yield and a sustainable environment.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1852587
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10212819
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Land
- Volume:
- 9
- Issue:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 2073-445X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 356
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Abstract In the tropics, smallholder farming characterizes some of the world's most biodiverse landscapes. Agroecology as a pathway to sustainable agriculture has been proposed and implemented in sub‐Saharan Africa, but the effects of agricultural practices in smallholder agriculture on biodiversity and ecosystem services are understudied. Similarly, the contribution of different landscape elements, such as shrubland or grassland cover, on biodiversity and ecosystem services to fields remains unknown.
We selected 24 villages situated in landscapes with varying shrubland and grassland cover in Malawi. In each village, we assessed biodiversity of eight taxa and ecosystem services in relation to crop type, shrubland and grassland cover and the number of agroecological pest and soil management practices on smallholder's fields of different crop types (bean monoculture, maize‐bean intercrop and maize monoculture).
Increasing shrubland cover altered carabid and soil bacteria communities. Carabid abundance increased in maize but decreased in intercrop and bean fields with increasing shrubland cover. Carabid abundance and richness and wasp abundance increased with soil management practices. Carabid, spider and parasitoid abundances were higher in bean monocultures, but this was modulated by surrounding shrubland cover. Natural enemy abundances in beans were especially high in landscapes with little shrubland, possibly leading to lower bean damage in monocultures compared to intercropped fields, whereas maize monocultures had higher damage. In maize, grassland cover and pest management practices were positively related to damage. Carabid abundance was higher fields with high bean damage, and increased carabid richness in fields with high maize damage. Parasitoid abundance was negatively associated with bean damage.
Synthesis and application . Our results suggest that maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services on smallholder farms is not achievable with a ‘one size fits all’ approach but should instead be adapted to the landscape context and the priorities of smallholders. Shrubland is important to maintain carabid and soil bacterial diversity, but legume cultivation beneficial to natural enemies could complement pest management in landscapes with a low shrubland cover. An increased number of agroecological soil management practices can lead to improved pest control while the effectiveness of agroecological pest management practices needs to be re‐evaluated. -
null (Ed.)Agricultural landscapes in North America have developed through complex interactions of biophysical, socioeconomic and technological forces. While they can be highly productive, these landscapes are increasingly simplified, causing biodiversity loss. As a result, ecosystem services associated with biodiversity are being dismantled. Agricultural landscape structure arises from collective decisions of farmers over long time periods, which are usually not intentionally coordinated beyond the farm scale. Regaining ecosystem services will require active efforts to intentionally redesign landscapes, in part based on ecological evidence about relationships between landscape structure and ecosystem services. Here we focus on services provided by arthropods and how to foster them at landscape scales. We first provide a brief history of how agricultural landscape structure in temperate North America developed and review the landscape-scale ecological drivers underpinning arthropod-based ecosystem services. We then propose ecological and social principles for designing agricultural landscapes, based on the ecological evidence we reviewed and on previous efforts in agricultural landscape design. Finally, we look ahead to discern prospects for putting agricultural landscape design into practice, including ecological, technological and policy opportunities. To reap benefits from arthropod-based services, future agricultural landscapes will need to increase in structural heterogeneity and diversity across multiple dimensions including crop, farmer and consumer diversity. A number of knowledge gaps persist, including how to design landscapes at spatial scales that are relevant to service providers, identifying areas of overlap or conflict between design for ecosystem services and for biodiversity conservation more broadly and navigating the social and political processes needed to implement landscape design.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract As demand for wood products increases in step with global population growth, balancing the potentially competing values of biodiversity conservation, carbon storage and timber production is a major challenge. Land sparing involves conserving forest while growing timber in intensively managed areas. On the other hand, land sharing utilizes ecological forestry approaches, but with a larger management footprint due to lower yields. While the sparing‐sharing framework has been widely tested and debated in agricultural settings to balance competing values, such land‐allocation strategies have been rarely studied in forestry.
We examined whether a sparing, sharing or Triad strategy best achieves multiple forest objectives simultaneously. In Triad, management units (stands) in forest landscapes are allocated to one of three treatments: reserve (where conservation is the sole objective), intensive (timber production is the sole objective) and ecological (both objectives are combined). To our knowledge, ours is the first Triad study from the temperate zone to quantify direct measures of biodiversity (e.g. species' abundance).
Using a commonly utilized forest planning tool parameterized with empirical data, we modelled the capacity of a temperate rainforest to provide multiple ecosystem services (biodiversity, carbon storage, timber production and old‐growth forest structure) over 125 years based on 43 different allocation scenarios. We then quantified trade‐offs between scenarios, taking into account the landscape structure, and determined which strategies most consistently balanced ecosystem services.
Sparing strategies were best when the services provided by both old‐growth and early seral (young) forests were prioritized, but at a cost to species associated with mid‐seral stages, which benefitted most from Triad and sharing strategies. Therefore, sparing provides the greatest net benefit, particularly given that old‐growth‐associated species and ecosystem services are currently of the greatest conservation concern.
Synthesis and applications . We found that maximizing multiple elements of biodiversity and ecosystem services simultaneously with a single management strategy was elusive. The strategy that maximized each service and species varied greatly by both the service and the level of timber production. Fortunately, a diversity of management options can produce the same wood supply, providing ample decision space for establishing priorities and evaluating trade‐offs. -
Deforestation drives climate change and reinforces food insecurity in forest dependent communities. What drives deforestation varies by location and is shaped by livelihood systems. But how locals perceive restoration is crucial for developing restoration policies. Evidence suggests that applying sustainable farming strategies can potentially restore forests and sustain livelihoods. Applying a broad-based conceptualization of deforestation and restoration in policymaking, however, results in missed opportunities for addressing deforestation and restoration. Here, we explore the drivers of deforestation, the perceptions of restoration, and the challenges to restoration among smallholder farmers in northern Malawi and examine how agroecology can contribute to restoring degraded agroecosystems. Participants report agricultural land expansion, charcoal production, climate change, burnt brick production, and government subsidies as the major drivers of deforestation. We observed that although perceptions of forest restoration reflect farmers' traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) to include reclamation of degraded farmlands, reconstruction of native tree species, and replacement of felled trees on farmlands, there are challenges including splitting families to gain access to more subsidized fertilizers and food aid, embedded cultural practices, growing demand for charcoal in cities, and weak ecosystem governance structures that hinder the effectiveness of restoration efforts. We, however, do find that agroecological intensification can increase yield from smaller farmlands and allow for larger and longer-lasting fallows of spare lands which regenerate forests. Key overarching implications of these findings include the need to integrate livelihoods more explicitly into restoration plans, accounting for TEK in restoration policies in forest-dependent communities and encouraging the adoption of agroecology.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100356
