Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:11:36.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Natural terrace formation through vegetative barriers on hillside farms in Honduras

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Robert J. Walle
Affiliation:
Soil Conservationist, Hillsides Project and International Development Group, Silsoe Research Institute, Bedford MK 45 4HS, U.K.
Brian G. Sims
Affiliation:
Agricultural Engineer, International Development Group, Silsoe Research Institute, Bedford MK 45 4HS, U.K.
Get access

Abstract

The effects of contour live barriers of vetiver and pennisetum on soil erosion were studied on four small farms in south central Honduras. Paired plots were installed and soil erosion measured by changes in the soil surface level of transects 0.3 and 6.0 m up the slope from the barrier. After three years, transects 0.3 m above the barriers significantly retained eroded soil compared with control transects. Soil accumulation by barriers ranged from 2.6 to 11.2 cm, and natural terrace formation (the difference between the barrier and corresponding control transect) ranged from 5.2 to 13.8 cm. No difference was detected between barrier and control for the transects 6.0 m above the barrier. Deposition in front of the barriers and reduction in surface rilling were apparent to farmers. Erosion from up slope on the barrier plots and from both transects in the control sections was not obvious. Direct measurement and farmer observation of sediment deposition by live barriers will help evaluate farmer-identified species for future use. The deposition helps farmers become aware of sheet erosion before the effects of soil degradation on crop yields become grossly apparent and soil fertility restoration becomes too costly for small-scale farmers.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Belshaw, D.G.R., Blaikie, P.M., and Stocking, M.A.. 1991. Identifying key land degradation issues and applied research priorities. In Winpenny, J.T. (ed). Development Research: The Environmental Challenge. Overseas Development Institute, London, U.K. pp. 6691.Google Scholar
2.Bentley, J.W. 1989. What farmers don't know can't help them: the strengths and weaknesses of indigenous technical knowledge in Honduras. Agric. and Human Values 6(3):2531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Bentley, J.W., and Andrews, K.L.. 1991. Pests, peasants and publications: Anthropological and entomological views of an integrated pest management program for small-scale Honduran farmers. Human Organization 50(2):113124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Bunch, R. 1990. Como lograr la participación del agricultor campesino en el proceso de investigación-extensión: algunas experiencias. (How to obtain the peasant's participation in research-extension: Some experiences.) Ceiba 31(2):7382.Google Scholar
5.Bunch, R., and López., G. 1994. La recuperación de suelos en Centro America de 4 a 40 años después de la intervención. (Recuperation of soilsin Central America from 4 to 40 years after intervention.) COSECHA, El Zamorano, Honduras.Google Scholar
6.Fujisaka, S., and Garrity, D.P.. 1991. Farmers and scientists: A joint effort. In Moldenhauer, W.C., Hudson, N.W., Sheng, T.C., and Lee, S.W. (eds). Development of Conservation Farming on Hillsides. Soil and Water Conservation Soc., Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 195198.Google Scholar
7.Gómez, K.A., and Gómez, A.A.. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. Wiley-Interscience, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
8.Hudson, N.W. 1983. Soil conservation strategies in the third world. J. Soil and Water Conservation 38:446449.Google Scholar
9.Lal, R. 1984. Soil erosion from tropical arable lands and its control. Advances in Agronomy 37:183248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Leonard, D.L., and Margoya, J.. 1993. Guía técnica sobre barreras vivas de zacate. (Technical guide for live grass barriers.) LUPE project. Recursos Naturales, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.Google Scholar
11.Lopez, G.L., Garcia, J.J., and Bunch, R.. 1995. Adopción de conservación de suelos y agua en el distrito de Güinope, El Para, so, Honduras. (Adoption of soil and water conservation in the Güinope district.) Silsoe Research Institute, Bedford, U.K.Google Scholar
12.Manavolta, E., and Rocha, M.. 1978. Recent Brazilian experience on farmer reaction and crop response to fertilizer use. In Usherwood, N.R., Stelly, M., Krall, D.M., and Cousin, M.K. (eds). Transferring Technology for Small-scale Farming. Spec. Pub. 41. Amer. Soc. Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. pp. 101113.Google Scholar
13.Napier, T.L. 1991. Factors affecting acceptance and continued use of soil conservation practices in developing societies: a diffusion perspective. Agric., Ecosystems and Environment 36:127140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.National Research Council. 1993. Vetiver Grass: A Thin Green Line against Erosion. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
15.Peace Corps. 1990. Soil conservation techniques for hillside farms. Reprint series R-62. Peace Corps Information and Collection Exchange, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
16.Recursos Naturales. 1986. Conservación de suelos, folleto de campo: Distanciamientos y dimensiones de obras f, sicas. (Soil conservation field brochure: Spacing and dimensions of physical structures.) USAID project 522–0168. Tegucigalpa, Honduras.Google Scholar
17.Sims, B.G., Ellis-Jones, J., Uresti, G.J., and Francisco, N.N.. 1994. Soil and water conservation for hillside farmers: Farming systems orientated investigation in Latin America. In Proc. International Agric. Engineering Conference, 6–9 Dec. Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 633643.Google Scholar
18.World Bank. 1990. Vetiver Grass: The Hedge against Erosion. World Bank. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar