EFFECTS OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES ON SOIL

PRODUCTIVITY AND BEAN GRAIN YIELD IN NYAMASHEKE DISTRICT,

RWANDA

Joas Tugizimana (BSc in Agricultural Engineering)

A147EA/22341/2011

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master
of Science (Land and Water Management) in the School of Agriculture and Enterprise
Development, Kenyatta University

OCTOBER, 2015
 ii

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis is my original work and has not been presented for the award of a
degree in any other University.

Signature______________________________Date________________________

Joas Tugizimana

Supervisors

We confirm that the work reported in this thesis was carried out by the candidate under
our supervision and has been submitted with our approval as university supervisors.

Signature______________________________Date________________________

Dr. Kennedy Mwetu

Department of Agricultural Resource Management

Kenyatta University, Kenya

Signature______________________________Date________________________

Dr. Joseph Gweyi

Department of Agriculture Science and Technology

Kenyatta University, Kenya

 iii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my wife Colette Nyirahakuzimana and my children Arianne

Ishimwe, Jovial Shema and Shimwa Ariette. The patience they showed and the support

they provided during the time I was studying and the period of writing this thesis.
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I sincerely thank my supervisors Dr. Kennedy Mwetu and Dr. Joseph Gweyi for their

professional guidance and tireless efforts to assist me during this work. I acknowledge the

contribution received from all academic staff at Kenyatta University and particularly

Department of Agricultural Resource Management, during my stay in Kenya.

I am highly grateful to my wife, parents, father- in- law for their financial support during

my master’s study in Kenya. All other colleagues and friends who have both directly and

indirectly contributed to the success of this work, I thank you all and may God bless you.
 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. ii

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. v

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ viii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................................ x

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

1.1. Background Information ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Research hypotheses .............................................................................................................. 5

1.5 Significance of the study ........................................................................................................ 5

1.6 Conceptual framework ........................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 8

2.1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 SOIL EROSION AND SOIL PRODUCTIVITY IN RWANDA .......................................... 9

2.3 IMPORTANCE OF BEANS IN RWANDA ......................................................................... 9

2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTING BEANS PRODUCTION ........................ 10

2.5. EFFECTS OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION (SWC) MEASURES ON SOIL

PRODUCTIVITY ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.5.1 Terracing and soil productivity ..................................................................................... 11

2.5.2 Grass Strips ................................................................................................................... 12
2.5.3 Agroforestry and soil productivity ................................................................................ 14
2.5.4 Bench terraces ............................................................................................................... 14
 vi

2.5.5 Contour bunds ............................................................................................................... 15

2.6. SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES ....................................................................................... 15

2.6.1 Soil structure ................................................................................................................. 16

2.6.2 Soil texture .................................................................................................................... 16
2.6.3. Moisture content and retention capacity ...................................................................... 17
2.7. SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES ..................................................................................... 18

2.7.1 Soil reaction (pH value) ................................................................................................ 18

2.7.2. Soil organic carbon (SOC) and organic matter (SOM) ................................................ 18
2.7.3 Cation exchange capacity (CEC) .................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................. 22

3.1 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................... 22

3.2 DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................ 23

3.2.1 Field survey data collection .......................................................................................... 23

3.2.2 Experimental design of runoff plots and estimation of soil loss ................................... 24
3.2.3 Soil sampling ................................................................................................................ 26
3.2.4 Bean production and bean yield assessment ................................................................. 26
3.2.5 Soil laboratory analysis ................................................................................................. 26
3.3 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 28

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................... 29

4.1. Demographic profile of respondents ................................................................................... 29

4.2 Cultivable land and its characteristics in Macuba/ Nyamasheke ......................................... 31

4.3 Adoption of soil and water conservation techniques ........................................................... 32

4.4. Causes of soil productivity decline ..................................................................................... 33

4.5. Predominant soil erosion type, causes and effects .............................................................. 34

4.6 Farmers’ opinion on soil conservation techniques ............................................................... 36

4.6.1 Common SWC techniques used for soil erosion control .............................................. 36
4.6.2 Combination of mechanical and biological measures................................................... 38
4.6.3 Advantages of soil and water conservation adoption .................................................... 39
4.7. Challenges and suggestions of adoption soil and water conservation techniques .............. 39
 vii

4.7.1 Challenges of adoption soil and water conservation techniques ....................................... 39

4.7.2 Suggestions of adoption soil and water conservation techniques ................................. 40

4.8 Effects soil and water conservation techniques on soil chemical and physical properties .. 41

4.8.1 Baseline of experimental soil properties ....................................................................... 41

4.8.2. Responses of soil physical properties to SWC techniques and soil slope .................... 42
4.8.3 Effects of SWC on chemical properties and beans production ..................................... 48
4.8.3.1. Effect of land slope on Soil pH, CEC and OC .......................................................... 48
4.8.3.2. Soil pH, CEC, OC values under different SWC techniques ..................................... 49
4.8.3.3. Effects of slope level and SWC techniques on pH, CEC and OC ............................ 50
4.8.3.4 Influence of land slope and SWC on soil nutrients and bean yield............................ 52
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 56

5.1 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 56

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 57

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 58

APPENDIXES ............................................................................................................................... 76

Appendix 1: QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................................. 76

Appendix 2: TEXTURAL TRIANGLE ..................................................................................... 78

Appendix 3: Interpretation of soil chemical values (Landon, 1991) ......................................... 79

 viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3. 1: RCBD with three replications ............................................................. 25

Table 4. 1: Demographic profile of respondents .................................................. 29

Table 4. 2: Characteristics of cultivated land in Macuba/ Nyamasheke ............... 31

Table 4. 3: Adoption of SWC techniques in Nyamasheke ................................... 32

Table 4. 4: Farmer perceptions on causes of soil productivity decline ................. 33

Table 4. 5: Farmers perception on predominant erosion type in Nyamasheke ..... 34

Table 4. 6: Farmer perceptions on causes of soil erosion in Nyamasheke ........... 35

Table 4. 7: Expected consequences of soil erosion............................................... 36

Table 4. 8: Common practices for soil erosion control ......................................... 37

Table 4. 9: Combination of SWC techniques used by farmers ............................. 38

Table 4. 10: Farmers perception on advantages of soil and water conservation .. 39

Table 4. 11: Challenges faced in adopting SWC techniques by farmers .............. 40

Table 4. 12: Farmer’s opinion toward improved SWC practices ......................... 41

Table 4. 13: Initial experimental soil properties ................................................... 42

Table 4. 14: Variation of soil fraction at different slope level .............................. 43

Table 4. 15: Variation of clay, silt and sand under SWC techniques and slope ... 44

Table 4. 16: Effects of land slope and SWC on moisture content and soil loss ... 45

Table 4. 17: Effect of land slope on Soil pH, CEC and OC ................................. 48

Table 4. 18: Variation of pH, CEC and OC at different SWC techniques ........... 49

Table 4. 19: Effects of slope and SWC techniques on soil pH, CEC and OC ...... 50

Table 4. 20: Soil nutrients and bean yield at different slope level ........................ 53

Table 4. 21: Soil nutrients and bean yield under SWC techniques ....................... 54

Table 4. 22: Parameters variation at the end of experimentation ......................... 54

 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 1: Conceptual framework ........................................................................ 7

Figure 3. 1: Map of Birembo watershed showing study area. .............................. 23

Figure 3. 2: Field plan for soil loss study.............................................................. 25

Figure 4. 1: Average soil loss per slope and SWC techniques ............................. 47

Figure 4. 2: Correlation between rainfall and soil loss ......................................... 47

Figure 4. 3: Correlation between Cation Exchange capacity and organic carbon 51

Figure 4. 4: Correlation between organic carbon and pH ..................................... 52

 x

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CAVM College of Agriculture and Animal Sciences and Veterinary Medicine

CEC Cation Exchange Capacity

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

DDP District Development Plan

EDPRS Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

GoR Government of Rwanda

HCDA Horticultural Crop Development Authority

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture

MINECOFIN Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.

MT Metric tone

NISR National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

RCBD Randomized complete block design

REMA Rwanda Environmental Management Authority

SOM Soil Organic Matter

SWC Soil and Water Conservation

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation

 xi

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WMO World Meteorological Organization

WRI World Resource Institute

 xii

ABSTRACT
Erosion due to water runoff is one of the major factors that lead to poor soil productivity
in Sub-Saharan Africa. The increase in population has driven the populace to inhabit
marginal frontiers; worsening the erosion problem. This study evaluated the effects of
some soil and water conservation (SWC) techniques on soil productivity and bean yield
in Nyamasheke District; characterized by steep topography, higher precipitation and
intensive agricultural activities. The study was conducted at Birembo watershed located
in Macuba Sector. The specific objectives were (1) To identify common SWC techniques
practiced and adoption challenges, (2) To evaluate the effects of SWC techniques on
some soil physio-chemical properties, (3) To determine the effect of SWC techniques on
soil loss, (4) To determine the effect of SWC techniques on bean crop yields. Semi-
structured questionnaires were randomly administrated to 99 farmers to collect survey
data. Field trials and soil analysis were used to record effects of SWC soil properties.
Randomized complete block design replicated three times under bush beans production
was employed. This was arranged in split plots with three levels of slope aspect: high (>
30%) , Medium (15-30%) and low (<15 %) being the main plot while the sub-plot
constituted the four SWC techniques; Bench terracing + Agroforestry (BA), Bench
terracing (BT),Contour bund (CB), Strip cropping (SC) and Control (C). The results
revealed that all farmers recognized the negative impact of erosion on soil productivity,
with 68% of farmers adopting SWC techniques and the majority of them (97%)
implemented the techniques under the support of the Government and NGOs. The
common SWC techniques used were agroforestry; accounting for about 45%, contour
bund 29 and bench terracing 11%. In addition, 26% of the farmers adopted the
combination of mechanical and biological measures for soil erosion control. Fallow, strip
grass and ditches were used less frequently. Farmers did not implement soil erosion
control due to poverty (51%), lack of materials (19%) and limited knowledge (16%).
Furthermore soil texture, moisture and soil loss were significantly (p ≤0.001) affected by
land slope and the techniques. The highest value of soil moisture of 27%, clay content
59% were recorded at low slope under BA and soil loss was zero under the same
treatment at high slope. The BA treatment significantly (p≤0.001) affected soil pH, CEC
and OC. However, CB and SC were not significantly different and had the lowest effects
on these parameters. Slope and SWC techniques significantly (p≤0.001) affected soil
nutrients (NPK) and bean yield. The highest values of N, P, K and yield were recorded in
low slope plots and the highest bean yields were observed in BA with about 586kg.ha-1.
The study recommends the combination of mechanical (bench terraces) and biological
measures (agro-forestry) for improving soil productivity and bean yield.
 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background Information

Soil erosion is a great global concern as it leads to loss of topsoil and plant nutrients

depletion (WRI, 1996). This has been the cause of reduced agricultural productivity per

unit area and high costs of production due to the rehabilitation of farmlands. Soil erosion

contributes to siltation of reservoirs, rivers and irrigation channels. According to WRI

(1996), the total land area subjected to human-induced soil degradation is estimated to be

20 million km2; of which 30% is agricultural land, 35% is permanent pastures, and 35%

is forest and wood land. The land affected due to water erosion is estimated to 11 million

km2 while that due to wind erosion is 5.5 million km2 (Lal, 2001). It is also estimated that

630 million rural people in the world live in marginal agricultural, forested and arid lands

that are prone to degradation, particularly when there is lack of careful management of

land and water resource (WMO, 1997; UNEP, 1999). Land degradation is estimated at

about 35% of agricultural land in Asia, 45% in South America, 65% in Africa and 74% in

Central America (CGIAR, 2003).

In Africa, the problem of soil erosion is estimated to cause damage of $26 billion

annually to productive soils (Lal, 2001). This, according to Angima et al., (2003), leads

to 5 million grams per hectare of productive topsoil being lost to lakes and oceans each

year. This major land management problem is threatening the economic productivity of

agricultural lands in the tropics (Elwell, 1976). Scientists and farmers are becoming

increasingly concerned about the declining fertility of soil in the highlands of Eastern
 2

Africa and Sub-Saharian Africa (Sanchez and Leakey, 1997). Due to continuous

intensive cropping, farmers have experienced declining crop yields over time (Mugendi

et al., 1999), raising both scientific and farmer environmental concerns over the land

quality. Land degradation and increasing soil quality variability is a problem in the

densely populated highlands of Rwanda and elsewhere in the African continent

(MINAGRI, 1998). Soil erosion (resulting from cultivation on steeply sloping terrain)

and mining of soil nutrients are among the key factors that have led to low agricultural

productivity, widespread poverty and food insecurity in Africa (Mugendi et al., 1999).

Food insecurity is a central concern and a fundamental challenge for human welfare and

economic growth in Africa. Land degradation and soil fertility depletion are considered

as the major threats to food security and natural resource conservation in sub- Saharan

Africa (Lal, 2001). In Rwanda land degradation is characterized by soil erosion and

declining soil fertility due to its steep topography, natural soil susceptibility to erosion

and varying climatic conditions (Yamoah et al., 1990). About 77% of all cultivated land

in Rwanda have slopes between 13% and 55% and are classified under the category of

moderate to high erosion risk soils (MINAGRI, 2004). However the use of land with a

slope of over 80% is attributed to land scarcity. The cultivated land in Rwanda falls under

three categories of soil erosion risk, high erosion risk (39%), Middle risk (37.5%) and

low or no risk (23.4%) (Brett et al., 2005). Soil losses are estimated at 0-557 t/ha per year

and this is attributed to improper management of natural resources, excessive rainfall and

the gradient of cultivated hill slopes (MINILENA, 2004). This degradation of the natural

environment is illustrated in a definite manner by water erosion that strips off a large

section of the cultivated area. Consequently, soil erosion impact on soil fertility reduces
 3

Rwanda’s capacity to feed its population by about 40,000 persons per year (MINAGRI,

2004). It also causes annual nutrient losses estimated at 945,200 tones of organic matter,

41,210 tones of nitrogen, 280 tones of phosphorus and 3,055 tones of potassium for the

whole country (MINAGRI, 2009).

To cope with this problem, the Government of Rwanda set a long-term program of

transforming agriculture that includes conservation of soils, reducing soil erosion and

restoring soil fertility. Land use consolidation approach has been adopted to encourage

farmers to grow the same crop in order to increase crop production and improve access to

agricultural inputs. The Crop Intensification Program (CIP) launched in September 2007,

with the main goal of increasing agricultural productivity in Rwanda has focused on

improving six priority crops in which the beans is included and land management by

reducing soil erosion (MINAGRI, 2009). Thus, the main objective of this study was to

evaluate the effects of soil and water conservation techniques on soil productivity and

bean’s yield in Nyamasheke District, Western Province of Rwanda.

1.2 Problem Statement

Soil erosion has detrimental effects on productivity and soil quality since the majority of

soil nutrients and soil organic matter are stored in the topsoil that is most affected by

erosion. The consequences of runoff and erosion are the impairment of the quality and

productivity of the land. Although agriculture is an important sub-sector of Rwanda’s

economy that contributes to 43% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and

generates more than 45 % of the country’s export revenues (World Bank, 2011), the

problem of soil erosion in Rwanda is a challenge. This is due to over-cultivation, leading

 4

to the disappearance of traditional techniques of soil fertility regeneration such as

fallowing practices. In addition, water-induced erosion caused by the cultivation of

excessively steep slopes without adequate erosion control techniques; renders Rwanda’s

soils subject to continual degradation.

There are several techniques sensitized by the government to prevent soil erosion in

different parts of Rwanda. However, soil loss remains a critical shortcoming, mainly due

to low control adoption levels (MINAGRI, 2004). This study sought to find out the

challenges related to adoption of SWC techniques in the study area and their

effectiveness in reducing soil erosion. In addition there are no reliable data on soil loss

due to limited studies done to evaluate effects of soil erosion on soil productivity in

Rwanda and Nyamasheke District in particular. Therefore, this research is aimed to

assess the best measures to control erosion as recommended by Cantore (2011) in

Rwanda.

1.3 Objectives

The general objective was to evaluate the effects of soil and water conservation

techniques on soil productivity and bean yield in Nyamasheke District, Western Province

of Rwanda.

The specific objectives were:

i. To identify the common Soil and Water Conservation techniques practiced

and the challenges in adopting these techniques in Nyamasheke district.

ii. To evaluate the effect of slope, and Soil and Water Conservation techniques

on soil chemical and physical properties.

 5

iii. To determine the effect of slope, and Soil and Water Conservation techniques

on soil loss.

iv. To determine the effect of slope, and Soil and Water Conservation techniques

on bean grain yields.

1.4 Research hypotheses

The hypotheses tested in this study were:

a) The use of different soil and water conservation techniques do not improve soil

physical and chemical properties.

b) Soil and Water Conservation techniques do not limit soil loss.

c) Different soil and water conservation techniques do not affect bean grain yield.

1.5 Significance of the study

The research was envisaged to provide adequate techniques to minimize soil loss,

nutrients depletion and spell out the limiting factors of farmers to adopt soil and water

conservation technologies. This study was also in line with campaign of the Government

of Rwanda on the conservation of soil and water resources in the country as enshrined in

vision 2020 document (MINECOFIN, 2003). This study is instrumental to the

Government in developing institutional structures to assist farmers supplement their

efforts towards achieving their objectives of food security and environmental

sustainability.

At the end, the study aimed to provide useful information that could be used by policy

makers and watershed managers to manage the watersheds and also to ensure sustainable
 6

development. Findings may guide government, agricultural experts and environmental

management practitioners to put measures in place on how best to help farmers to

rehabilitate degraded farmlands to improve their productivity. This will help in availing

farming systems that alleviate hunger and poverty among the farmers in Rwanda.

1.6 Conceptual framework

Land degradation is the main constraint of soil nutrient depletion which consequently

cause low crop yields. Soil erosion, continuous cropping and farmers’ perception on

SWC techniques are the engine for soil degradation in Rwanda. Soil and water

conservation techniques such as contour bunds, bench terraces, strip cropping and agro-

forestry, and understanding farmers perceptions on these techniques can reduce the

effects of soil erosion and hence improve soil properties and crop yield (Figure 1.1).
 7

Soil productivity and

bean yield increased

Improved soil physical and

chemical properties

Contour bunds
Bench terraces (CB)
(BT) Understanding farmer’s
perceptions

Bench terraces + Strip cropping

Agro-forestry (BA) (SC

Land degradation nutrients

depletion and low bean
grain yield

 Soil erosion
 Low adoption of SWC techniques
 Continuous intensive cropping
Figure 1. 1: Conceptual framework
 8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 OVERVIEW

More than 80% of land degradation is due to soil erosion; out of which 56% is due to the

water-induced soil erosion (Oldeman, 1992). United Nation Environmental Program

reports that crop productivity on about 20 million hectares each year becomes

unproductive because of soil erosion or soil-induced degradation (UNEP, 1991). The loss

of soil production due to erosion is caused by deterioration in soil physical and chemical

properties such as infiltration rate, water-holding capacity, loss of nutrients needed for

crop production, and loss of soil carbon (Oldeman, 1992).

The effect of soil loss on crop production varies depending upon the type and depth of the

topsoil. The decline in yield with the reduction in topsoil depth can be related to A-

horizon (topsoil) thickness. A study made by Stallings (1964) in Indian shows that as the

A-horizon thickness increased from 3.8 to 7.5 cm, there was a corresponding increase in

estimated corn yield of 728kg ha-1. The change in soil A horizon thickness plays a

significant role in changing the amount of soil moisture and soil nutrients that form store

for the plant use. However agronomic and structural practices such as strip cropping,

terracing, grass waterways are some of key methods for control of soil erosion. These are

achieved by dividing the slope into discrete segments and their contribution to improving

productivity and water quality is significant (Kazemi et al., 1990).

 9

2.2 SOIL EROSION AND SOIL PRODUCTIVITY IN RWANDA

While soil erosion is a long standing problem dating from the colonial period, it has

become more severe from 1994 (MINAGRI, 2004). Heavily degraded soils are incapable

of supporting a large plant biomass because of low or depleted nutrients and soil organic

matter (SOM). Organic matter is important for maintaining soil structure and maximizing

nutrient retention. Frequent, continuous cultivation has accelerated the rate of SOM

depletion in the country.

The cultivated land in Rwanda falls under three categories of soil erosion risk, high

erosion risk (39%), Middle risk (37.5%) and low or no risk (27%) (Brett et al., 2005).

Soil losses are estimated at 0-557 t ha-1 per year due to improper management of natural

resources, excessive rainfall and the gradient of cultivated hill slopes. This degradation of

the natural environment is illustrated in a definite manner by water erosion that strips off

a large section of the cultivated area. Consequently, soil erosion results in a significant

decline in soil fertility, which is the primary cause of low agricultural productivity in

Rwanda (MINAGRI, 1998) and it has reduced Rwanda’s capacity to feed about 40,000

persons per year. More also, the soil erosion causes annual losses due to poor soil

conservation, totaling an estimated 945,200 t of organic matter, 41,210 t of nitrogen, 280

t of phosphorus and 3,055 t of potassium for the whole country (MINAGRI, 2004).

2.3 IMPORTANCE OF BEANS IN RWANDA

Beans are the primary source of dietary proteins and supply 65% of national dietary

proteins, compared to 4% from animal sources in Rwanda. Due to their diversified

 10

nutritional content and predominant protein supply, beans are regarded as a near-perfect

food in Rwandan (Kornegay and Russell, 1996). Beans (dry of field) production cover 22

– 30% of cultivated land, being second to bananas (Ferris et al., 2002).The annual

production range between 200,000 MT to 300,000 MT. However, the on-farm

productivity of about 0.8 to 1.0 t ha-1 is still low compared to 2 t ha-1 (for bush bean) and

5 t ha-1 (for climbers beans) One of the beans production constraint in Rwanda is

nutrients depletion and declining soil fertility due to soil erosion (Yamoah et al., 1990).

2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTING BEANS PRODUCTION

Optimum temperature for good growth and yield of beans range from 16oC to 25oC

(Bunting, 1961). Beans require an optimum rainfall of about 500mm per season. High

rainfall towards the end of growing season is undesirable, because this leads to high

incidence of pests and diseases. The minimum rainfall requirement is around 300 mm per

cropping cycle. The beans can be grown in a wide range of soil types ranging from light

sandy loam to clay. They however grow best on friable, medium loam soils that are well

drained and having a lot of organic matter content and which are slightly acidic to

slightly alkaline (HCDA, 1996).

Beans production require good soil management, well drained, deep sandy loam, pH

range between 6.5 to 7.5 and spacing of 50x30 cm. Beans require adequate amounts of all

essential plant nutrients for optimum growth. These nutrients include phosphorus (P),

nitrogen (N), zinc (Zn), potassium (K), sulfur (S), and to a much less extent boron (B),

copper, (Cu), manganese (Mn) and iron (Fe). A deficiency of P can reduce bean yield.

Symptoms of P deficiency appear as a general stunting of the plant as internodes length is

 11

reduced, there is less branching, and leaves grow slowly. The effect of low P is primarily

through reduced leaf area development rather than reduced photosynthetic capacity of the

leaves (Lynch et al., 1991). The N fertilizer is important for bean growth. For instance, a

study in the Columbia Basin demonstrated the need for nitrogen supply when soil N was

low (Dow et al. 1973).

2.5. EFFECTS OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION (SWC) MEASURES

ON SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

2.5.1 Terracing and soil productivity

Water erosion is one of the major causes of soil loss and soil degradation. Terracing

could be one way of stopping or reducing the degrading effect of soil erosion and saving

soil and water. For some time, terracing have continually been promoted as among the

best management practices for effective soil and water conservation (Wheaton and

Monke, 2001).The practice refers to building a mechanical structure of soil in form of

channel and bank or single terrace wall, such as an earthen ridge or a stone wall.

Terracing reduces slope steepness and divides the slope into short gently sloping sections

(Morgan, 2009).

Terraces are created to intercept surface runoff, improve water infiltration, reduce

evaporation or diverted water towards a predetermined and protected safe outlet at a

controlled velocity to avoid soil erosion (FAO, 2000). Beach and Dunning (1995) stated

that terracing could also promote rock weathering and eventually increase crop growth.

Terraces can be naturally formed upslope contour hedgerows (Poudel et al., 1999),

vegetative filter strips (Stark et al., 1999) and grass barriers (Sims, 1999). However many

terraces are directly man-made.

 12

According to FAO report (2000), terracing reduces runoff and soil loss caused by water

erosion. Results obtained in Nepal (Green, 1978) showed that terracing makes it possible

to reduce soil losses by half, independently of the used cultivation system. Chow et al.

(1999) observed dramatic decreases in soil loss, from an average of 20 t ha-1, to less than

one tone per hectare by terracing sloppy fields in combination with constructing grassed-

waterways and contour planting of potatoes. Runoff was reduced by as much as 25% of

the total growing season’s rainfall, making it more available to the crop. Similar results

have been obtained by Hatch (1981) who showed in Malaysia that a slope of 70%

covered with peppers had a soil loss of 63 t per year. Soil loss on the same slope with

terraces and with identical vegetation cover was 1.4 t per year. Schuman et al., (1973)

found that runoff on a slope with level terraces was 8 times as low as on a comparable

slope with contour planted crops. In the Granite Mountains of western Japan, Mizuyama

et al. (1999) observed that sediment yield immediately decreased after terracing. In

addition, they concluded that terracing is much more effective in reducing sediment yield

than planting trees only. A study made in the West Usambara Highlands in Tanzania

reported significant increase in the crop yield for maize and beans by implementing

bench terraces in the range of 2.1-2.7 tones per hectare (Tenge et al., 2005).

2.5.2 Grass Strips

Grass strips are the least costly and least labor-demanding soil conservation structures.

They combine characteristics of both biological and structural measures. Grass strips are

a popular and easy way to terrace land, especially in areas with relatively good rainfall,
 13

where grass is used also as fodder (Thomas, 1997; Duveskog, 2001). The grass is planted

in dense strips, about 0.5-1 m wide, along the contour at intervals equivalent to calculated

terrace spacing. These lines create barriers that minimize soil erosion and runoff, through

a filtering process. Silt builds up in front of the strip, and with time, benches are formed.

The spacing of the strips depends on the slope of the land. On gentle sloping land, the

strips are made with a wide spacing (20-30 m), while on steep land the spacing is about

10 to 15 m. Grass strips have been widely used in Tanzania in the Kondoa area of

Dodoma, also in Arusha, Iringa and Kilimanjaro regions (Christianson et al., 1993). In

Kenya, they are commonly found in the highlands of Central and Rift valley where there

is good rainfall. In Ethiopia, they have been adopted in the highland areas (Wolde-

Ageray, 1996). Surface runoff with severe soil erosion has been the main factor

enhancing nitrogen loss from agricultural fields.

Grass strips are the effective and economical conservation measures to reduce soil and

nutrients losses (Pearce et al., 1997). The results of study done in India by Machito et al.,

(2001) concerning the effects of grass strips on reducing soil and nutrients loss showed

that the buffer strips contributed to a decrease of about 59% of soil loss and 42% of

nitrogen loss averagely compared to the loss from the plots without conservation

measures.
 14

2.5.3 Agroforestry and soil productivity

Soil erosion is regarded as one of the forms of soil degradation, which involve

deterioration of physical, chemical and biological properties of soil; all of which require

attention (FAO, 1978). Soil erosion is highly related to the slope angle and it causes

considerable deterioration of soil fertility and crop yields (Stocking, 1984). Young (1988)

found that the barriers could be effective in controlling soil erosion on relatively gentle

slopes of up to about 14%. On steep slopes; barriers have to be closely spaced if they are

to reduce soil erosion to tolerable levels. When trees are arranged along the contours with

close spacing; they form an effective barrier to soil erosion. In addition to this, over time,

a natural terrace would be formed upslope, the barrier further reducing soil erosion rates

(Angima et al., 2003). Agronomically, Calliandra and Leucaena spp are good colonizers

of denuded areas, tolerating soils that are heavily compacted and poorly aerated, and can

persist in poorly drained soils. Through erosion control and addition of high N green

manure or leaf litter Calliandra calothyrisus and Leucaena tricandra can improve soil

quality and hence yields of associated crops (Goudreddy, 1995).

2.5.4 Bench terraces

Bench terraces are effective soil conservation measures used on slope lands for crop

production (Sheng, 2002). A bench terrace is a piece of sloped plane that has been cut

into a series of successively receding flat surfaces or platforms, which resemble steps, for

the purposes of more effective farming. It is designed as a method of soil conservation to

slow or prevent the rapid surface runoff of rainwater and irrigation (Oweis, 2005). Thus,
 15

bench terraces have received considerable attention from soil and water conservation

programs involved in soil erosion control in Rwanda (Bizoza and de Graaff, 2012).

2.5.5 Contour bunds

Soil contour bunds are ridges and ditches made of soil, dug across the slope along the

contour. They are used to prevent run-off and to conserve soil and water (Barungi and

Maonga, 2011). Thus, they reduce soil erosion and increase the amount of water the soil

can hold. Contour bunds can be used both on cultivated and uncultivated land. Farmers

can build contour bunds themselves without external assistance (Adolph, 1996). Contour

bunds are appropriate for fields with permeable soils of gentle to moderate slopes

(Franzluebbers, 2010) and it is not recommended to build bunds on steep slopes more

than 30% slopes. Vanlauwe et al, (2013) indicated that contour bunds are among the

recommended soil erosion control techniques in some moderate hills lands of Rwanda.

2.6. SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

The physical properties of soils determine their adaptability to cultivation and the level of

biological activity that can be supported by the soil. Soil physical properties also largely

determine the soil's water and air supplying capacity to plants. Many soil physical

properties change with changes in land use system and its management such as intensity

of cultivation, the instrument used and the nature of the land under cultivation, rendering

the soil less permeable and more susceptible to runoff and erosion (Sanchez, 1976).
 16

2.6.1 Soil structure

Soil structure describes the arrangement of the solid parts of the soil and of the pore space

located between them (Marshall and Holmes, 1979). Soil structure is one of the most

important physical properties of a soil. Air and water movement within the soil,

aggregate stability and workability largely depend on the type of soil structure. Well-

structured soil provides both large and small pores, which are desirable for water uptake

and plant growth. The benefits of improving soil structure for the growth of plants

include: reduced erosion, improved root penetration and access to soil moisture and

nutrients; improved emergence of seedlings due to reduced crusting of the surface and;

greater water infiltration, retention and availability due to improved porosity. It has been

estimated that productivity from irrigated perennial horticulture could be increased by

two to three times the present level by improving soil structure, because of the resulting

access by plants to available soil water and nutrients (Cockroft et al., 2000)

2.6.2 Soil texture

Soil texture determines a number of physical and chemical properties of soils. It affects

the infiltration and retention of water, soil aeration, absorption of nutrients, microbial

activities, tillage and irrigation practices (Foth, 1990; Gupta, 2004). It is also an indicator

of some other related soil features such as type of parent material, homogeneity and

heterogeneity within the profile, migration of clay and intensity of weathering of soil

material or age of soil (Miller Donahue, 1995).

The rate of increase in stickiness and the moisture content increases depend on the

content of silt and clay, the degree to which the clay particles are bound together into
 17

stable granules and the OM content of the soil (White, 1997). Over a very long period of

time, pedogenic processes such as erosion, deposition, eluviations and weathering can

change the textures of various soil horizons (Brady and Weil, 2002).

2.6.3. Moisture content and retention capacity

Soil water enhances various soil physicochemical reactions and supplies essential

nutrients for plants and animals including micro and macro organisms residing in soils to

carry out their own activities (Tisdale et al., 1995; Brady and Weil, 2002). The portion of

stored soil water that can readily be absorbed by plants is said to be available water. The

available soil water is held within a potential between field capacity (FC) and permanent

wilting point (PWP). Available soil water content is greatly influenced by SOM content,

texture, mineralogy and soil morphology (Landon, 1991). According to Tekilu (1992),

soils with high amount of clay have higher amount of water both at -1/3 and -15 bars than

soils with low amount of clay content and thus, water retention capacity of a soil is a

function of silicate clays and amorphous materials. Water occupies the soil pore spaces

and is adsorbed to soil particles. Soil water content at FC, PWP and available water

holding capacity (AWHC) were found to increase with depth for the soil under different

management practices (Wakene, 2001). The increases of these three components of soil

moisture with depth were correlated positively with the clay fractions of the soils, which

increased with profile depth. Variation in topography and land use affects the distribution

of soil moisture (Ahmed, 2002).

 18

2.7. SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

Soil chemical properties are the most important among the factors that determine the

nutrient supplying power of the soil to the plants and microbes. The chemical reactions

that occur in the soil affect processes leading to soil development and soil fertility build

up. Minerals inherited from the soil parent materials over time release chemical elements

that undergo various changes and transformations within the soil (Lilienfein et al., 2000).

2.7.1 Soil reaction (pH value)

Soil reaction (usually expressed as pH value) is the degree of soil acidity or alkalinity,

which is caused by particular chemical, mineralogical and/or biological environment. Soil

reaction affects nutrient availability and toxicity, microbial activity, and root growth.

Although there are plants that thrive in acid or alkaline media, most crops perform best in

a slightly acidic soil to neutral (pH 6.0-7.0). The values of pH less than 5.5 may lead to

aluminium toxicity, and hence unavailability of phosphorus and some of the soil

micronutrients such as molybdenum and reduced biological activity (Gachene, 2003).

When Soil have pH >8, some of the micronutrients and phosphorus become unavailable

to the plants, biological activity is reduced and soil becomes saline. The optimum pH for

bean production is 6.0-7.0 and can also tolerate the range comprising of 5.5-7.5 (Landon,

1991).

2.7.2. Soil organic carbon (SOC) and organic matter (SOM)

Soil organic carbon is the main constituent of SOM and its importance as a soil quality

indicator both as a single soil or compound (SOM) attribute was reported (Yemefack et

al., 2006). The total organic carbon is the carbon stored in soil organic matter; organic
 19

carbon enters the soil through the decomposition of plant and animal residues, root

exudates, living and dead microorganisms, and soil biota (Nelson and Sommers, 1996;

White, 1997). SOM is the organic fraction of soil exclusive of non decomposed plant and

animal residues (Dudal and Decaers, 1993). Foth (1990) has indicated that the

distribution of SOM, expressed as organic carbon, is 38% in trees and ground cover, 9%

in the forest floor and 53% is in the soil including the roots plus the SOM associated with

soil particles. Soil organic matter is about 58% carbon; therefore, soil organic matter

conversions can be made by taking soil C values and dividing by 0.58 or multiplying by

1.72 (USDA, 2001).

The soil organic carbon is one of the most important constituents of the soil due to its

capacity to affect plant growth as both a source of energy and a trigger for nutrient

availability through mineralization. Humus participates in aggregate stability, and

nutrient and water holding capacity (Kahn, 2014). SOM contains substance (glomalin)

that may account 20% of soil carbon, glues aggregates together and stabilizes soil

structure making soil resistant to erosion, but porous enough to allow air, water and plant

roots to move through the soil (Pal and Pandey, 2014). Farming practices resulted in loss

of OC (Eylachew, 1999). To compensate OC losses, practices such as no-till may

increase SOC. Other practices that increase SOC include continuous application of

manure and compost, and use of cover crops. Burning, harvesting, or removing residues

decrease SOC (Yihenew, 2002; Kennedy and Arceneaux, 2006).

Uncultivated soils have higher OM (both on surface and in soil) than those soils

cultivated yearly (Miller and Gardiner, 2001). Cook and Ellis (1987) reported that some

of the functions of OM are: (a) aids in water management as residues or plants protect the
 20

soil surface from rain drop impacts, resist wind action, and thus, greatly aid in erosion

control. Furthermore, decomposing OM causes soil aggregation, which aids infiltration

and increases pore space in clay soils. (b) increases exchange and buffering capacity

since well decomposed OM or humus has a very high CEC that adds to the buffering

capacity of the soil, (c) minimizes leaching loss because organic substances have the

ability of holding substances other than cations against leaching, (d) sources of nutrients

(N, P, S and most micronutrients) (e) stabilizes soil structure, and (f) provides energy for

microbial activity.

2.7.3 Cation exchange capacity (CEC)

The Cation exchange capacity (CEC) of soils is defined as the capacity of soils to adsorb

and exchange cations (Brady and Weil, 2002). Cation exchange capacity is an important

parameter of soil because it gives an indication of the type of clay minerals present in the

soil, its capacity to retain nutrients against leaching and assessing their fertility and

environmental behavior. Generally, the chemical activity of the soil depends on its CEC.

The CEC of a soil is strongly affected by the amount and type of clay, and amount of OM

present in the soil (Curtis and Courson, 1981).

Soils with CEC less than 16meq/100g are considered not to be fertile. Such soils are

usually highly weathered. Fertile soils have a CEC of more than 24meq/100g. Most soils

in the Eastern Africa region are dominated by kaolinitic type of clay whose CEC values

are between 10 and 20meq/100g (Brady, 2002). Soils with large amounts of clay and

SOM have higher CEC than sandy soils with low SOM. Cation Exchange Capacity is

considered to be of greater importance to soil fertility, because the majority of essential

 21

minerals are absorbed by plants as cations (Poritchett and Fisher, 1987). Woldeamlak

(2003) reported that CEC value was highest in soils under forest land and lowest under

cultivated land.
 22

CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 STUDY AREA

The study was carried out in Birembo watershed located in Macuba Sector/Division of

Nyamasheke District, one of the important beans producing districts in Rwanda. The

district has a population of 386,541 people, representing a population density of

approximately 302 persons per km2 with a total number of 64,425 households (DDP,

2005). Nyamasheke District lies in the Western Province of Rwanda with high rainfall.

Rainfall is a bimodal pattern with a short rainy season from September to November and

a long rainy season from February to May. Birembo watershed located at Macuba sectors

was chosen for survey and field experiment because it is representing the average

conditions of landscape, climate, land use, and soil conditions of the whole Nyamasheke

District. The mean annual rainfall ranges from about 1415 mm to 1848 mm, the altitude

lie from 1463 to 2500 m above sea level and the temperature ranges from 19C to 23C.

The major soils are classified as Entisols and Inceptisols on hill slope (DDP, 2005).

These soils are poorly consolidated on steep slopes and are susceptible to erosion.
 23

Figure 3. 1: Map of Birembo watershed showing study area.

The agricultural activities are undertaken continuously on the hills and mountains. The

predominant land use system is natural forest and crop growing of tea, coffee, food crops

like banana, beans, maize, and rice. The average farm size of a household is 0.7ha,

intensive and continuous cultivation are usual farming practices in the area. Cultivation is

done even on steep slopes (DDP, 2005).

3.2 DATA COLLECTION

3.2.1 Field survey data collection

To collect data a survey was using semi –structured questionnaires (Appendix 1). The

questionnaire had questions on farm characteristics, perceptions, problems, causes,

 24

consequences of soil erosion and currently implemented SWC techniques. In Macuba

sector /Division, among 9,912 farmers living in the sector, only 99 farmers were

randomly sampled based on the formula proposed by Glenn (1992).

n Where: n is the sample size

N is the size of the total household in study area

e is the precision level chosen

(10% at 90 % Confidence level).

3.2.2 Experimental design of runoff plots and estimation of soil loss

In order to determine soil loss, experimental plots to determine runoff was carried out at

three levels of slope characterized by low (<15%), medium (15-30%) and higher (>30%).

A randomized complete block design (RCBD) with split plot arrangement was laid. The

main plot was represented by the three levels of the slope [low (<15%), medium (15-

30%) and higher (>30%)] while different soil conservation measures, bench terraces,

contour bunds, strip cropping, bench terraces +agro-forestry and control constituted the

sub-plots. As indicated the field subplot experiments composed of 5 treatments with 3

replications, namely:

1. Bench terraces (BT)

2. Contour bunds (CB)

3. Strip cropping (SC)

4. Bench terraces + Agroforestry (BA)

 25

5. Control (no soil conservation structures) (C)

In total there were 45 experimental plots where beans crop was established. The species

of agroforestry trees planted was Calliandra calothyrsus and slope range identified was

10% for low slope, 21% for medium slope and 46% for high slope.

Table 3. 1: RCBD with three replications

Slope Block 1/ R1 Block 2/ R2 Block 3/ R3

<15% BT CB SC BA C SC C BA BT CB C BA BT SC CB

15-30 % BA SC BT C CB BA BT C CB SC BT C CB BA SC

>30% C BA CB SC BT C CB SC BA BT BA CB SC C BT

Figure 3. 2: Field plan for soil loss study

The data for soil loss was determined using bounded runoff plots of 2x2 m. Soil collected

at the open edge of the tipping bucket had been dried in a conventional oven (105C for
 26

24 hours) and weighed. Clisimeter was used to compute the slope angle. Timber was used

for bounding and sacks used to collect soil loss at the open edge of the bounded plots.

3.2.3 Soil sampling

The soil samples were taken from topsoil at a depth of 0-30 cm with a soil auger. These

samples were randomly collected from 5 different locations of each plot and thoroughly

mixed to form a representative sample. From these samples, selected soil chemical (pH,

N, P, K, CEC and OC) and physical properties (texture and moisture content) were

determined.

3.2.4 Bean production and bean yield assessment

The bush beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) were grown at different treatment on the plots of

2x2 m, spacing of 50x30 cm during 90 days. Beans were selected as check crop because

of its nutritional importance for Rwandan diet, and the government crop regionalization

policy. Beans were grown without additional fertilizer supplement and pesticides; the

weeding was performed twice during growing season. To obtain grain yields, the whole

plot was harvested and grains were separated from the pods by hand, and weighed for dry

weight with a precision scale.

3.2.5 Soil laboratory analysis

The soil physical and chemical analysis was carried out at the Laboratory of the

University of Rwanda, College of Agriculture and Animal Sciences and Veterinary

Medicine (CAVM). The parameters analyzed composed of soil pH, moisture content,

organic carbon, soil nutrients (N, P, and K), soil texture, and CEC.
 27

3.2.5.1 Analysis of soil physical properties

Soil moisture contents were determined by gravimetric method (Hess, 1971). Fresh soil

samples were taken in china dishes and weights were recorded. The soil samples were

dried in the oven at 1050C overnight. Samples were removed from the oven and after 24

hours, weights were recorded. Soil moisture was determined by using the following

formula:

The particle analysis was done using hydrometer method (Gee and Bauder, 1986) and the

soil texture classification was determined using USDA texture triangle.

3.2.4.2 Analysis of soil chemical properties

The Walkley and Black (1934) wet digestion method was used to determine soil carbon

content. Total nitrogen (N) was analyzed using the Kjeldahl digestion, distillation and

titration method as described by Black (1965), which oxidizes the organic matter in

concentrated sulfuric acid solution. Soil Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) was

determined using ammonium acetate saturation method at pH 7.0 (Rhoades, 1982).

Available phosphorus (P) was measured by the Bray 2 method. This method consists of

an extraction with a mixture of 0.03N Ammonium fluoride and 0.025N hydrochloric acid

(Baize, 2000). Soil pH was determined using a pH meter in 1:2.5 soils: water ratio (Page

et al., 1982). Potassium (K) content in the soil was determined by extraction method

using one of the spectrometric determination methods (Rowell, 1994).

 28

3.3 DATA ANALYSIS

The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using GenStat 14th edition.

The least significance difference (LSD) test was used to separate means after main effects

were found significant at P < 0.05 at 95%. Microsoft Excel was used for data entry and

drawing graphs. Social data was coded into Excel spreadsheet and SPSS computer

software was used to analyze percentages, frequencies and then means separated by use

of standard error of the difference (SED) for data gathered during survey.
 29

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Demographic profile of respondents

Age of the farmers surveyed ranged from 18 to 65 years old of which 64.65% were

female and large numbers of farmers were found in age ranges of between 31-45 years

old (Table 4.1).

Table 4. 1: Demographic profile of respondents

Respondents
characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)
Sex
Male 35 35.3
Female 64 64.6
Marital status
Single 9 9.1
Married 82 82.8
Widows 8 8.1
Age distribution
18-20 2 2.0
21-30 30 30.3
31-45 44 44.4
46-65 22 22.2
>65 1 1.0
Education level
None/Illiterate 31 31.3
Primary 63 63.6
Secondary 5 5.0

The high number of women found in the field revealed that agricultural activity was

mostly coordinated by women farmers in many families. In Rwanda, women contribute

immensely to the agriculture value chain by providing labor for planting, weeding,

harvesting and processing and they account for a large number of the population

estimated at 51.8 % (NISR, 2012). The observation is in agreement with those of

 30

Ohuegbe (1989) who observed that women farmers contribute more to food production

and family labour than men. The same author found that over 95% of rural women are

small-scale farmers who produce most of the food needed day-to-day for family

subsistence.

Considering the status of sampled farmers, this study found that 82.83 % were married

while 9% and 8% were respectively single and widows (Table 4.1). The married family

and farmers in the year’s range of 31-45 participated actively in agriculture than other

categories of people because they are stressed by their economic and included within

economically active age groups. This explains their implication in agriculture which

constitutes the main economic activity for the rural households in Rwanda (Bryson, 1981;

NISR, 2012; Fatima et al., 2012)

The majority of the farmers were not highly educated. Among the respondents, 31.31 %

were found to have no formal education, while 63.64% had completed primary school.

The remaining 5% attended secondary education without completion. However, none of

them had gone to university level. Level of education is related to adoption of

conservation structures, hence literate farmers were in better conditions to get

information and use it in such a way that it contribute in their farming practices.

However, there was no systematic association between the literacy status and the

adoption of SWC techniques. These are in agreement with Teshome et al., (2012) who

reported that there is no an association among adopter categories with education status. In

addition, Tesfaye and Debebe, (2013) found that there was no systematic association

between the literacy status and the adoption of conservation structures in Ethiopia.
 31

4.2 Cultivable land and its characteristics in Macuba/ Nyamasheke

The current study revealed that the land area cultivated for many farmers (54.5%) was

less than 0.5ha located at steep slope as mentioned by 75.7 % of the respondents. All

farmers (100%) experienced soil erosion in their land even those having land located at

marshland (Table 4.2).

Table 4. 2: Characteristics of cultivated land in Macuba/ Nyamasheke

Categories Frequency Percentage (%)

Family land size
Less than 0.5 hectare 54 54.55
Between 0.5ha and 1ha 37 37.37
More than 1ha 8 8.08
Land location
Steep slope 75 75.76
Low slope 19 19.19
Marshland 5 5.05
Soil erosion experienced
Yes 99 100
No 0 0

The soil erosion signs observed in land located at marshland could be attributed to the

deposited sediments from upstream due to soil erosion. Nevertheless, there was no

significant association between farm size and SWC adoption.

Higher pressure of population had induced the exploitation of marginal land, even located

at high slope. The impact of human needs on available resources, poses a strain on

limited land and natural resources. This shows that there are serious problems of land

scarcity in Nyamasheke District. The findings are in concurrence with those of other

authors Prunier (1995) and Bizimana (2005) whose work indicated that 51% of

households had less than 0.5ha.

 32

4.3 Adoption of soil and water conservation techniques

The study showed that soil and water conservation techniques were adopted by 68.7 % of

respondents whereas 31.3% didn’t practice any conservation measures. Many of the

adopters of SWC techniques evaluated at 83.8 % stated having received support from the

Government while 2% practiced SWC techniques in their farmland without any support.

The combinations of mechanical and biological measures were adopted by 26% (Table

4.3).

Table 4. 3: Adoption of SWC techniques in Nyamasheke

Categories Frequency Percentage (%)

SWC* adoption
Yes 68 68.69
No 31 31.31
Support in SWC adoption (n=68)
None 2 2.94
Government 57 83.82
NGOs 9 13.24
Mechanical and biological combination
Yes 18 26.5
No 50 73.5
*Terraces, agroforestry, bunds and ditches

The results from this study revealed that farmers are supported either by the government

or by NGOs to practice soil conservation techniques. In Rwanda there are different

institutions and government projects that support farmers in that domain. Those are for

example Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA), Land husbandry Water

harvesting and Hillside irrigation (LWH) project, Vision Umurenge Program (VUP)

,Rural Sector Support Project ( RSSP) and HelpAge; many of them use the labor-

intensive work approach to reduce poverty by creating temporary jobs to the community.
 33

This creates an opportunity for many farmers to benefit from SWC techniques

implemented in their farmland due to government interventions. The findings are in

agreement with Kassa et al, (2013) who reported that the government support for soil and

water conservation techniques led to the adoption of SWC techniques in different ways in

Ethiopia. This was furthermore supported by the findings of Mgbenka et al, (2012) who

reported government support to farmers to adopt SWC techniques in Nigeria.

4.4. Causes of soil productivity decline

Productivity decline was reported by all of the interviewed farmers and attributed to soil

erosion, followed by land shortage and lack of input use (Table 4.4).

Table 4. 4: Farmer perceptions on causes of soil productivity decline

Causes of soil productivity Frequency Percentage (%)

decline
Soil erosion 53 53.54
Drought 5 5.05
Erratic rainfall 8 8.08
Land shortage 15 15.15
Lack of input use 18 18.18

Soil erosion was identified to be the main cause of soil productivity decline accounting

for 53.5% of respondents. The topography of Nyamasheke District coupled with high

rainfall induce soil erosion that contribute to soil loss and removal of top soil rich in

organic matter hence soil fertility decline. The two third (75.7%) of the farm plots

managed by the total respondents were located on slopes (Table 4.2). Given higher

rainfall conditions, farm plots on steep slopes exhibit a higher erosion potential (Nyssen

et al., 2004). The finding is in agreement with those of Tadesse et al, (2001), who
 34

reported that soil erosion created severe limitations to sustainable agricultural land use

and reduced on-farm soil productivity.

4.5. Predominant soil erosion type, causes and effects

Erosion in the form of sheet (55%) and rill (24%) were the dominant form of erosion

mentioned by the majority of the farmers (Table 4.5). Further discussions revealed that

farmers considered erosion to be severe when the visible signs “rills and gullies”

appeared on their fields. This shows that although farmers were aware of erosion

problems, their understanding of the severity was confined mostly to visual evidence.

Table 4.5 shows the predominant erosion types in the watershed.

Table 4. 5: Farmers perception on predominant erosion type in Nyamasheke

Erosion type Frequency Percentage (%)

Gullies erosion 7 7.07
Splash erosion 13 13.13
Sheet erosion 55 55.56
Rill erosion 24 24.24

Furthermore, it was clear from field observation that both sheet and rill erosion caused

considerable damage to cropland and that farmers’ limited understating of the severity of

sheet erosion could influence their conservation decisions negatively. The findings are

supported by Katarina (2009) who reported that sheet and rill erosion are considered as

the most common types on cultivated hillsides in Rwanda. Amsalu and de Graaff (2006)

also indicated that 91% of farmers in Ethiopia confirmed that sheet and rill erosion to be

predominant in Ethiopia.
 35

The major causes of soil erosion mentioned by farmers include intensive cultivation

(38%), steep slope indicated by 29%, removal of vegetation mentioned by 18% and high

rainfall mentioned by 14% of the respondents (Table 4.6).

Table 4. 6: Farmer perceptions on causes of soil erosion in Nyamasheke

Factors that cause soil erosion Frequency Percentage (%)

Vegetation removal 18 18.18
Land slope 29 29.29
Intensive cultivation 38 38.38
High rainfall 14 14.14

Intensive cultivation without fallow is as a consequence of higher demographic pressure

and land scarcity in Rwanda. The population increase lead to a higher demand for both

food and cash crops that make land exploitation continuously. Considering that many

parts of arable land areas are located on steep slope, coupled with high rain fall, leading

to the soil erosion and soils being transported down streams. The results are not far from

that reported by Clay and Lewis, (1990) who stated that a combination of a hilly

landscape, extensive land use, and intensive rainy seasons makes the erosion problem in

Rwanda. Montanarella, (1999) indicated that different forms of intensive land use cause

soil degradation and soil destruction. Yang et al, (2003) and Morgan, (2009) confirmed

that heavy rainfall to cause enhanced erosion on hillside lands.

The consequences of soil erosion as mentioned by the majority of farmers were low

yields (53%), land becomes un-cultivable (21%), hunger (13%) Table (4.7).
 36

Table 4. 7: Expected consequences of soil erosion

Consequences of soil erosion Frequency Percentage (%)

Poverty 12 12.12
Land become out of cultivation 21 21.21
Low yield 53 53.53
Hunger 13 13.13

Soil erosion changes fertility status of the soil by removing top soils rich in soil nutrients

and organic matter. Soil undergoes compaction that reduce soil aeration, permeability

hence change in physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil. The findings are

in agreement with Mwakubo et al, (2004) who reported that 3mm top soil lost due to soil

erosion each year caused an annual decline in maize yield of 22kg and 15kg for beans. In

addition, erosion has long been recognized to be a major reason for the poverty and food

insecurity in the Rwanda as reported by Byiringiro and Reardon (1996).

4.6 Farmers’ opinion on soil conservation techniques

This paragraph illustrates the perception of farmers concerning the common SWC

techniques used, combination of mechanical and biological measures and advantages of

adopting SWC practices in their farmland.

4.6.1 Common SWC techniques used for soil erosion control

The most common soil and water conservation practices used by farmers were

agroforestry (45%), followed by contour bund (29%), bench terracing (11%). Strip grass,

ditches and fallow, were used less frequently than the other practices accounting

respectively 7%, 4% and 1% (Table 4.8).

 37

Table 4. 8: Common practices for soil erosion control

Common SWC techniques used Frequency Percentage (%)

Contour bund 20 29.41
Terraces 8 11.77
Agroforestry 31 45.59
Strip grass 5 7.35
Fallow 1 1.47
Ditches (Rudumburi) 3 4.41

The Government of Rwanda has for several decades sensitized the people to protect the

soil by digging ditches and planting trees. To promote this, the government distributed

seeds and offered incentive to the farmers who had protected their land. Recently the

government started to promote terraces through different government projects. The

interview made with sampled farmers revealed that the most common technique adopted

was agroforestry because it does not require higher labor, investments and that they

received the seeds easily. Whereas, the terraces were less adopted due to higher cost and

techniques required for its implementation. These findings are supported by Gracia et al.,

(2007) who showed that terracing are more profitable but investments required for

terracing were much higher. The usual agroforestry species used in Rwanda are

Calliandra calothyrisus, Leucaena tricandra, Acacia saligna, Alnus nepalensis, Grevillea

robusta, cedrella serrata, mesopsis sp, Markhamia lutea and jacalanda sp (Nahayo et al.,

2013). Bucagu et al, (2013) reported farmer preferences of some of the above

agroforestry species in Rwanda.

 38

4.6.2 Combination of mechanical and biological measures

The results from the survey showed that some farmers combined mechanical and

biological measures to protect soil. It was revealed that 17.6% practiced a combination of

contour bund and agroforestry/ grass, 8.8% of sampled farmers combined bench terracing

with agroforestry whereas 73.5% did not combine mechanical and biological measures

(Table 4.9).

Table 4. 9: Combination of SWC techniques used by farmers

Combined SWC techniques Frequency Percentage (%)

Contour bund + agroforestry/grass 12 17.65
Bench terracing +Agroforestry 6 8.82
None combined SWC 50 73.53

The combination of SWC practices results showed that few people (26.4 %) combined

mechanical and biological measures for soil conservation (Table 4.9). This might create a

problem of soil productivity because as mentioned by REMA, 2010 the combinations of

mechanical and biological measures minimize soil loss, improve soil physical, chemical

and biological properties and subsequently enhance soil productivity. Barbier, (1990)

confirmed the less adoption of terraces due to poverty and limited knowledge. Lack of

agro forestry species coupled with financial situation could be the reason of less adopting

the combined bench terraces and agroforestry practices in study area.

 39

4.6.3 Advantages of soil and water conservation adoption

Farmers were asked the advantages of conservation measures. More than half (55.8%) of

the respondents considered increase in crop yield, while 25% indicated that conservation

structures improve soil fertility and 19% mentioned reduced soil loss (Table 4.10).

Table 4. 10: Farmers perception on advantages of soil and water conservation

Advantages Frequency Percentage (%)

Reduced soil loss 13 19.12
Improved crop yield 38 55.88
Increased soil fertility 17 25

The improved crop yield was possibly due to the effect of soil conservation techniques on

soil fertility which was also reported as the advantage of SWC techniques. This is in

agreement with Abdul-Hanan et al, (2014) who reported that the adoption of soil and

water conservation increased Maize yield in Ghana as the result from soil fertility

improved by SWC techniques. Hailu et al, (2012) also confirmed that SWC increase soil

fertility and consequently improved crop yield.

4.7. Challenges and suggestions of adoption soil and water conservation techniques

4.7.1 Challenges of adoption soil and water conservation techniques

All farmers (100%) reported having experienced soil erosion in their farmland (Table

4.2). In response to the problem of soil erosion, farmers practiced different soil

conservations measures which are either biological or mechanical. The results from the

study revealed that the challenges faced in adopting SWC techniques are poverty, lack of

required equipment and limited knowledge (Table 4.11).

 40

Table 4. 11: Challenges faced in adopting SWC techniques by farmers

Challenges of SWC techniques Frequency Percentage (%)

Poverty 19 51.29
Lack of required equipment 6 19.35
Limited knowledge 5 16.13
Land tenure 1 3.23

Over fifty percent (51%) mentioned poverty as the main challenge related to SWC

adoption and as mentioned in the Table 4.3, ninety seven percent (97%) were supported

by the GoR and NGOs to conserve their farmland. These explain that the limiting factors

of non adoption of soil and water conservation techniques were related to poverty and

limited knowledge. These are in agreement with Barbier, (1990) who reported that lack

of money is the main factor limiting the adoption of SWC techniques in Java. Bizoza and

De Graaff (2012) and Bidogeza et al., (2008) reported that most of SWC techniques are

costly hence less adopted in Rwanda by poor resources farmers. The poor knowledge

about the benefits of SWC could be the limiting factor to adopt such techniques (Okoba

and de Graaff, 2005).

4.7.2 Suggestions of adoption soil and water conservation techniques

As indicated in Table 4.12, farmers reported that to improve the adoption of SWC

measures, the farmers suggested: (a) Technical support in terracing and bunds

construction, (b) Farmers trainings and experiences sharing, (c) incentives should be

given to the community, (d) Farmers sensitization until farmers show willingness to

adopt SWC the techniques.

 41

Table 4. 12: Farmer’s opinion toward improved SWC practices

Farmers ‘suggestions Frequency Percentage (%)

Technical support in terracing and
bunds construction 36 36.36
Incentives given to the community 12 12.12
Farmers trainings and experiences
sharing 43 43.44
Farmers mobilization until they
adopt SWC techniques 8 8.08

The majority suggest farmers training and experiences sharing accounting about 43.4%

and technical support mentioned by 36.3 % of farmers. These recommendations have an

important implication in SWC adoption because they respond to the challenges raised by

farmers as mentioned in Table 4.11. Bizoza (2014) confirmed that sharing knowledge

among farmers and training could enhance adoption of bench terraces in Rwanda.

4.8 Effects soil and water conservation techniques on soil chemical and physical

properties

4.8.1 Baseline of experimental soil properties

Results of soil properties before establishment of the experiment showed that the soil was

acidic with pH of 5.28 at low slope, pH of 4.51 at medium and pH of 3.05 at high slope.

The soil also had CEC of 21.13 cmol kg-1 at low 20.68 cmol kg-1 at medium and 19.25

cmol kg-1 at high slope (Table 4.13) .

 42

Table 4. 13: Initial experimental soil properties

Soil properties Slopes

Low Medium High

pH water 5.28 4.51 3.05

Moisture content (%) 14.42 14.33 13.80
Organic carbon (%) 7.05 6.40 4.88
Total Nitrogen % 0.32 0.31 0.30
Available P( ppm) 18.87 16.29 15.05
K (cmol kg-1) 0.21 0.19 0.18
CEC (cmol kg-1) 21.13 20.68 19.25
Clay % 39.87 37.91 29.10
Silt % 39.53 35.47 20.77
Sand % 20.60 26.62 50.14

In general the CEC, nitrogen (N) content, available P, organic carbon (C) were in the

middle level while potassium (K) was weak at high slope (Table 4.13 & Appendix 3).

According to USDA texture triangle (Appendix 2), soil texture was classified as clay

loam at low and medium slope level while at high slope soil was classified as sandy clay

loam. The variation of soil properties observed at different slopes could be attributed to

topo-sequence characteristic in soil as reported by Amuyou et al., (2013).

4.8.2. Responses of soil physical properties to SWC techniques and soil slope

4.8.2.1. Effect of slope on soil texture

The clay, silt and sand fractions were significantly (P ≤ 0.001) affected by SWC

techniques and land slope. Considering the variation of soil fraction at different slope

level, the highest average clay content (48.64%) was observed at low level and the lowest

(34.27%) was recorded at high level.

 43

Table 4. 14: Variation of soil fraction at different slope level

Slope level Clay % Silt % Sand %

High 34.27a 19.57a 46.16c

Medium 47.07b 29.64b 22.50b
Low 48.64b 31.97b 20.29a
P value < 0.001 < 0.001 <0.001
LSD 1.582 1.880 1.500
Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p<0.05

The highest average silt content also was recorded at low level (31.97%) and the lowest

(19.57%) at high level. Whereas the average sand fraction at low, medium and high level

of slope were 20.29 %, 22.50% and 46.16% respectively (Table 4.14). Obalum et al.,

(2011) reported that landforms and slopes affect soil properties and fraction (silt, sand

and clay). Amuyou et al., (2013) also indicated that landscape brings variations in soil

properties probably due to the topo-sequence characteristics in soils. Lima (1995) cited

by Soares et al., (2005) also found that clay content increased along the slope

downwards.

Clay, silt and sand were significantly (p<0.001) affected by land slope and different SWC

techniques used in this study (BA, BT, C, CB, SC). The highest value of clay soil was

observed at low slope under BA (59.34%), BT (50.76%) and lowest was observed at high

slope under CB treatment (32.78%) and C (29.1%) the highest values of sand contents

(50%, 48% and 47.86 %) were recorded at high slope respectively under C, CB and SC

techniques (Table 4.15).

 44

Table 4. 15: Variation of clay, silt and sand under SWC techniques and slope

Slope level Treatments Clay (%) Silt (%) Sand (%)

High BA 39.62de 19.71f 40.67c
BT 36.87ef 19.01f 44.12bc
C 29.10g 20.77f 50.14a
CB 32.78fg 19.21f 48.00ab
SC 33.00fg 19.14f 47.86ab
Medium BA 57.51a 19.22f 19.94de
BT 54.45b 24.54ef 20.34efg
C 37.91ef 35.47abc 26.62d
CB 40.95de 37.32ab 21.80def
SC 44.53cd 31.65bcd 23.82de
Low BA 59.34a 24.63ef 16.03g
BT 50.76b 32.00bcd 17.24fg
C 39.87de 39.53a 20.60efg
CB 49.50bc 30.16cde 20.34efg
SC 43.73d 29.02de 27.25d
p value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
LSD 3.539 4.204 3.353
Where:BA: Bench terracing + Agroforestry, BT:Bench terracing, C:Control; CB:Contour bund, SC:Strip
cropping; Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p<0.05

There were statistical significance in the clay, silt and sand for each control treatment

between each slope levels. The data of this study showed that clay and silt decreased with

soil slope (low to higher slope) while the average sand content increase from low to

higher soil slope.

The results were in agreement with those reported by Khan et al. (2004) who found high

amount of clay content at bottom slope and higher sand content at the top slope position.

Similar observations were made by Lima (1995) cited by Soares et al., (2005) who found

that along the slope clay content increased downwards. As confirmed by Soares et al.,

(2005), the amount of sand observed at higher slope might be due to a residual quartz

grain due to downward clay movement by water erosion. The suspended finer particles
 45

transported down the slope due to erosion increase the clay and silt fraction at low slope.

The higher content clay in BA and BT may be due to the accumulation of suspended

materials from uphill in bench terracing and its role to improve soil texture. The findings

are supported by Chow et al., (1999) who reported that terracing changes the landscape

and affect soil moisture and soil characteristics.

4.8.2.2 Moisture content and soil loss

The treatments and land slope significantly (p<0.001) affected soil moisture and soil loss,

the highest soil moisture content (27.67, 21.11% ) was recorded in low slope respectively

under BA and BT treatments; whereas soil loss in those plots was zero at low and

medium slope level (Table 4.16).

Table 4. 16: Effects of land slope and SWC on moisture content and soil loss

Slope level Treatments Moisture (%) Soil loss (t/ha)

High BA 19.12bcd 0.00d
BT 17.55def 0.00d
C 13.72h 0.10a
CB 17.18def 0.04cd
SC 14.1gh 0.05c
Medium BA 20.67bc 0.00d
BT 17.76cde 0.00d
C 14.65fgh 0.08b
CB 16.92defg 0.06bc
SC 14.87efgh 0.07b
Low BA 27.65a 0.00d
BT 21.11b 0.00d
C 14.72fgh 0.02e
CB 18.92bcd 0.01e
SC 15.99efgh 0.01e
p value <0.001 <0.001
LSD 1.618 0.0136
Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p<0.05
 46

This effect might be attributed to the high quantity of clay soil and organic matter

deposited during the erosion process (Table 4.15), which has major implication to retain

water in the soil. Clay soils are fine textured and have a greater water-holding capacity

.The result are supported by Zachary et al., (2005) who found that the areas near the

bottom of the slope had higher soil-moisture content than areas near the top of the slope.

Considering the impact of SWC techniques the highest soil loss was highly recorded in

control whereas under BA soil loss was almost zero. This are in agreement with

Mizuyama et al., (1999) who observed that sediment yield immediately decreased after

terracing. In addition, they concluded that terracing is much more effective in reducing

sediment yield than planting trees only.

At low and medium slope under BA and BT the soil loss was zero. This explains that BA

and BT as being the best treatment in minimizing soil loss on land slope. The higher

amount of soil loss observed in high slope at control plots could be attributed to the non-

SWC technique applied and soil was transported freely by water flow through rainfall.

This is in agreement with work of Peterson et al., (2002) who found the reduction of soil

loss in protected plots due to the decrease in soil erodibility and reduction of shearing by

flowing water. As recommended by Ullah et al., (2009) the proper management of the

sloppy lands is essential in order to conserve soil moisture and nutrients for crop

productivity which otherwise will be depleted due to water erosion.

The result obtained in this study can provide a good initial guide for the watershed

practitioners to plan what types of SWC measures to which area are appropriate to reduce
 47

soil erosion risk and to increase productivity. The results from this study revealed that the

soil loss increased from low to higher slope but under BA and BT treatments soil loss

was minimized while the highest soil loss was recorded in control (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4. 1: Average soil loss per slope and SWC techniques

Soil loss was positively correlated (R2 =0.99) with precipitation recorded during the

period of experimentation (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4. 2: Correlation between rainfall and soil loss

These could be attributed to the effect of runoff during rainy season. These findings

corroborate the findings of Araya et al., (2011) who reported that runoff increase as
 48

rainfall increases and consequently cause high soil loss. Taye et al., (2013) also indicated

that soil loss and high rainfall correlated positively in highland of Ethiopia.

4.8.3 Effects of SWC on chemical properties and beans production

4.8.3.1. Effect of land slope on Soil pH, CEC and OC

The soils pH, CEC, OC values were significantly affected by slope (P < 0.001) and

decrease as soil slope increases. The highest value of pH (6.63) was observed at low

slope while the lowest value of pH (4.43) was recorded at higher level of slope (Table

4.17).

Table 4. 17: Effect of land slope on Soil pH, CEC and OC

Slope level pH CEC (cmol kg-1) OC %

High 4.43c 19.46b 6.78c

Medium 5.23b 20.99b 7.27b
Low 6.63a 26.52a 8.70a
P value < 0.001 < 0.001 <0.001
LSD 0.2802 1.280 0.374
Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p<0.05

The highest value of CEC and OC respectively 26.52 cmol kg-1and 8.70 %, were

recorded in low slope (Table 4.17). Results of this study indicated that the lowest value of

pH, CEC and OC were obtained on higher slope. This could be attributed to the drainage

of basic cation through water streams generated from high slope to lower slope where are

accumulated and raise the value of the above mentioned parameters. pH, CEC and OC

values in the accumulation zone (low slope) that could be attributed to the presence of
 49

bases that supposed to have removed from the high and medium slope level. This finding

is supported by Zhang et al., (2007), who reported that soil chemical properties were

found to be minimal at the top positions as compared to the lower positions of sloppy

lands. Garcia et al., (1990) reported similar results and argued that the increase in soil pH

at the bottom slope could be attributed to the accumulation of bases that have been

eroded from the top slope position.

4.8.3.2. Soil pH, CEC, OC values under different SWC techniques

The different treatments significantly (P< 0.001) affected soil pH, CEC, OC, their highest

values were: 6.4, 30.5 cmol kg-1 and 8.9 % respectively which were observed in BA,

while the lowest values of those parameters were found in contour bund (CB) and strip

cropping (SC) Table 4.18.

Table 4. 18: Variation of pH, CEC and OC at different SWC techniques

Treatments pH CEC (cmol kg-1) OC (%)

BA 6.433a 30.54a 8.90a

BT 5.789b 25.06b 7.85b
C 4.433d 15.87d 6.60d
CB 5.398bc 19.60c 7.43bc
SC 5.092c 20.54c 7.15cd
Pvalue <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
LSD 0.3618 1.653 0.482
Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p<0.05

This study also revealed no significant differences between CB and SC. This implies that

the farmers could adopt SC which is not expensive compared to CB. These results are in
 50

agreement with Mihara (2001) who reported that strips cropping were effective and

economical measures to reduce soil erosion and soil nutrients losses. These were

confirmed by Sharma and Singh (2013) who reported contour bunds and strip cropping

efficient measures to control soil erosion in Indian soils.

4.8.3.3. Effects of slope level and SWC techniques on pH, CEC and OC

The effects of slope and SWC techniques significantly affected soil pH (P < 0.05), CEC

(P<0.001) and OC (P<0.001). The highest pH (8.23) was observed in interaction of low

slope (L) and BA treatments.

Table 4. 19: Effects of slope and SWC techniques on soil pH, CEC and OC

Slope Treatments pH CEC (cmol kg-1 ) OC (%)

level

H BA 5.15def 24.89cd 7.26cde

BT 4.65f 22.78cde 6.94de
C 3.5g 13.74h 6.28e
CB 4.367fg 17.33fgh 6.73de
SC 4.473fg 18.57efgh 6.70de
M BA 5.917cde 27.15bc 8.17bcd
BT 5.483cdef 21.09def 7.44cde
C 4.517fg 15.79gh 6.76de
CB 5.427cdef 20.19defg 7.09cde
SC 4.803ef 20.71defg 6.90de
L BA 8.233a 39.57a 11.27a
BT 7.233ab 31.31b 9.16b
C 5.283cdef 18.10efgh 6.76de
CB 6.40bc 21.28def 8.46bc
SC 6.00cd 22.34cdef 7.86bcd
P value 0.012 < 0.001 < 0.001
LSD 0.626 2.863 0.836
Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p<0.05
 51

The highest CEC value (39.5 Cmol (+) kg-1) was recorded at the interaction of low slope

and BA technique, whereas the lowest value for all treatments was observed in

interaction of high slope and CB technique (Table 4.19). Similarly, the OC also was

affected by interaction of slope and SWC techniques; the highest value (11.2%) was

recorded at low slope under BA technique (Table 4.19). The highest values of pH, CEC

and OC observed in low slope under BA treatment might be attributed to the high

concentration of base saturation at low slope and limited leaching of cation in bench

terracing. According to Chow et al., (1999), terraces are efficient in maintaining good

pH, OC, moisture content and CEC. This implies that bench terracing is better to improve

physical and chemical properties of soil and to reduce soil erosion.

The correlation noted between OC and CEC (R2=0.955), OC and pH (R2=0.9753) (Figs

4.3 and 4.4) explain the influence that one parameter has to another. The findings of this

study are in agreement with Curtis and Courson, (1981), who reported that CEC of a soil

is strongly affected by the amount of OM present in the soil.

Figure 4. 3: Correlation between Cation Exchange capacity and organic carbon

 52

Figure 4. 4: Correlation between organic carbon and pH

Kimmins, (1997) also confirmed that both clay and colloidal OM are negatively charged

and therefore can act as anions. As a result, these two materials, either individually or in

combination, have the ability to adsorb and hold positively charged ions (cations).

Consequently, soils with large amounts of SOM have higher CEC than soils low in OM.

Similarly, Quirine et al., (2007) argued that sandy soils low in organic matter have low

CEC (less than 3 cmol/kg) while soils high in organic matter generally have a much

higher CEC (greater than 20 cmol/kg).

4.8.3.4 Influence of land slope and SWC on soil nutrients and bean yield

Slopes levels significantly (p<0.001) affected the major soil nutrient (NPK), and bean

yield. The highest values of N, P, K, and bean yield were recorded in low slope plots

(0.33% of N, 17.26 ppm of P,0.19 cmol.kg-1of K and 500.7 kg/ha of beans) while the

lowest values were recorded in high slope plots (Table 4.20). Data from this study

showed an increasing tendency of soil nutrients (N, P, K), and bean yield down the slope.
 53

Table 4. 20: Soil nutrients and bean yield at different slope level

Slope level N (%) P(ppm) K(cmol.kg-1) Yield (kg/ha)

High 0.297c 14.59b 0.15c 346.00c

Medium 0.311b 15.11b 0.17b 438.70b
Low 0.334a 17.26a 0.19a 500.70a
P value <0.001 <0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
LSD 0.00642 0.72 0.0108 37.81
Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p<0.05

The increase of N, P, and K at low slope might be due to the downward movement of

nutrients with runoff water from the high slope and build up at the low slope position.

The soil erosion hazards might have decreased major plant nutrients (N, P, K) at the high

slope level and increase its status at low slope. This explains the highest value of bean

yield found at low slope. The results are in accordance with Khan et al., (2004) who

found the highest amount of P and K at bottom slope followed by mid slope while the

lowest amount were recorded at the top slope position. Similarly, Changere and Lal

(1997) reported having observed the highest bean yield in the lower slope and middle

land slope position.

The major soil nutrients (N, P, K), and bean yield were significantly (p<0.001) affected

by SWC techniques used in this study. The highest values of N, P, K and bean yield were

recorded in BA treatments accounting about 0.35 % of N, 18.26 ppm of P, 0.23 cmol.kg-1

of K, and 585.6 kg/ha of bean yield (Table 4.21).

 54

Table 4. 21: Soil nutrients and bean yield under SWC techniques

Treatments N (%) P(ppm) K(cmol.kg-1) Yield (kg/ha)

BA 0.35a 18.26a 0.23a 585.6a

BT 0.30c 16.05b 0.18b 483.3b
C 0.27d 13.74c 0.11c 292.2c
CB 0.31c 15.31b 0.16b 352.2c
SC 0.32b 14.92bc 0.17b 428.9b

P value < 0.001 < 0.001 <0.001 < 0.001

LSD 0.00829 0.93 0.0140 48.81
Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p<0.05

Compared to the control plots, and data recorded before experimentation the treatments

trials had changed the soil nutrients status and bean yield (Tables 4.13 and 4.21).

Table 4. 22: Parameters variation at the end of experimentation

pH OC MC N P K CEC
Properties % % % ppm cmol/kg cmol/kg
H Initial (i) 3.05 4.88 13.8 0.3 15.05 0.18 19.25
Final (f) 4.43 6.78 16.3 0.29 14.59 0.15 19.46
Δf-i 1.38 1.9 2.5 -0.01 -0.46 -0.03 0.21
t-test <0.001 0.017 0.004 0.008 <0.001 <0.001 0.163
M Initial(i) 4.51 6.4 14.3 0.31 16.29 0.19 20.68
Final (f) 5.23 7.27 16.9 0.311 15.11 0.17 20.99
Δf-i 0.72 0.87 2.6 0.001 -1.18 -0.02 0.31
t-test 0.002 <0.001 0.001 0.83 0.053 0.004 0.77
L Initial (i) 5.28 7.05 14.4 0.32 18.87 0.21 21.13
Final (f) 6.63 8.7 19.6 0.33 17.26 0.19 26.52
Δf-i 1.35 1.65 5.2 0.01 -1.61 -0.02 5.39
t-test <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 < 0.001 0.816 0.004
 55

On the other hand, the highest plants nutrients (N, P, K) and yield recorded in BA might

be attributed to the reduced nutrients loss due to limited soil erosion in terraced land.

The finding is supported by the results of the studies done in Kiambo (Kenya) that have

shown substantial increases in yield on land with “fanya juu” terraces compared to non-

terraced land (Ngigi, 2003). Similarly, Zhao, (1995) observed that terraces increased

yields by an average of 25%. The results from the Table 4.22 indicate that the amount of

major soil nutrients (NPK) decreased at the end of experimentation; this could be

attributed to high uptake of soil nutrients during the growing period of bean crop

production. In addition, the parameters variation was significantly (t<0.001) observed at

low slope than high and middle slope levels.

 56

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSION

The study aimed at evaluating the effect of some soil and water conservation techniques

on soil productivity and bean yield. To achieve this objective a land survey, field trials,

farmers’ interview and soil analysis in the laboratory were employed to gather data. The

results from survey indicated that all farmers recognize the negative impact of erosion on

soil productivity, 68% of farmers adopt SWC techniques. The majority of farmers (97%)

implement the techniques under the support of the Government and NGOs. The

predominant techniques practiced were agroforestry and contour bund. Poverty, lack of

required equipment, and limited knowledge were found to be the main limiting factor of

non adoption of SWC techniques.

The SWC techniques and slope affected soil physio-chemical properties, soil loss, and

bean grain yield. These were attributed to the differential content of clay, silt and sand

fraction on different slopes, and the ability of SWC techniques to limit erosion and

nutrients leaching. The similar effect of SC and CB treatments implies that farmers in

Nyamasheke District could adopt SC which is not expensive compared to CB.

 57

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings, bench terracing combined with agroforestry at low (<15%),

medium (15-30%) and high slope (> 30%) were better in improving soil properties; this

was by reducing soil loss and hence increased bean yield. Contour bund and strip

cropping were effective at low slope (<30%). Thus, this study recommends the use of

both techniques depending on slope level and the farmers’ choice. The bench terracing

and agroforestry also were effective at all slope level in improving soil productivity and

bean yield. To enhance the adoption of SWC techniques, the study recommends farmers

sensitization and technical support for the efficient use of SWC techniques.

Based on the finding, there is a need to conduct further research on analyzing the cost

effectiveness of recommended SWC techniques on soil fertility and grain bean yield or

other food crops production.

 58

REFERENCES

Abdul-Hanan, A., Ayamga, M. and Donkoh, S.A. (2014). Smallholder adoption of soil

and water conservation techniques in Ghana. African Journal of Agricultureal,

9(5): 539-546.

Adolph, B. (1996). How should the bunds be built? Negotiating technologies for soil and

water conservation in semi-arid South India. Bulletin de l'APAD, (11p).

Ahmed, H. (2002). Assessment of spatial variability of some physicochemical properties

of soils under different elevations and land use systems in the western slopes of

Mount Chilalo, Arsi. M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia. 111p.

Amsalu, A. and de Graaff, J. (2006). Farmers’ views of soil erosion problems and their

conservation knowledge at Beressa watershed, central highlands of Ethiopia.

Agriculture and Human Values, 23 (1) :, 99-108.

Amuyou, U.A., Eze, E.B., Essoka, P.A., Efiong, J. and Egbai, O.O. (2013) Spatial

Variability of Soil Properties in the Obudu Mountain Region of Southeastern

Nigeria, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 3 No. (15):

145-149.

Angima, S.D., Stott, D.E., O’Neill, M.K., Ong, C.K. and Weesies, G.A. (2003). Soil

erosion prediction using RUSLE for Central Kenyan Highland conditions. Journal

of Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 97:295-308.

Baize, D. (2000). Guide des analyses en pédologie: choix, expression, présentation,

interprétation. 2ième édition revue et augmentée. INRA, Paris, France. 257 pp.
 59

Bank (2011). Rwanda economy update., Seeds for higher growth. Kigali, Rwanda:

World Bank.

Barbier, E.B. (1990). The farm-level economics of soil conservation: the uplands of Java.

Land economics, 66 (2): 199-211.

Barungi, M. and Maonga, B.B. (2011). Adoption of soil management technologies by

smallholder farmers in Central and Southern Malawi. Journal of Sustainable

Development in Africa, 13 (3):, 28-38.

Beach, T. and Dunning, N.P. (1995). Ancient Maya terracing and modern conservation in

the Peten rain forest of Guatemala. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50 (2):

138-145.

Bidogeza, J.C., Berentsen, P., De Graaff, J. and Oude Lansink, A.G. (2008). Multivariate

Typology of Farm Households Based on Socio-Economic Characteristics

Explaining Adoption of New Technology in Rwanda. In 2007 Second International

Conference, August 20-22, 2007, Accra, Ghana (No. 52107). African Association

of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).

Bizimana, C. (2005). Assessment of the implementation process of the new land Policy.,

Land Net Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda.

Bizoza, A.R and de Graaff, J. (2012). Financial cost–benefit analysis of bench terraces in

Rwanda. Land Degradation & Development, 23 (2):, 103-115.

Bizoza, A.R. (2014). Institutions and the adoption of technologies: Bench Terraces in

Rwanda. In Challenges and Opportunities for Agricultural Intensification of the

Humid Highland Systems of Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 335-354). Springer

International Publishing.
 60

Black, C.A. (1965). Methods of Soil Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison,

Wisconsin, USA.

Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R. ( 2002). The nature and properties of soils, 13th Ed. Prentice-

Hall Inc., New Jersey, USA. 960p.

Bray, R.H. and Kurtz, L.T. (1945). Determination of total, organic, and available forms

of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sciences. 59: 39-45.

Brett, U., Greg. F., & Mark, C. (2005). Soil acidity and liming, Agfact AC.19, (3rd

edition), State of New South Wales.

Brick, A.A.S. and Mark, A. (2003). Traits associated with dry edible bean (Phaseolus

vulgaris L.) productivity under diverse soil moisture environments., Department of

Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA.

Bryson, J.C. (1981). Women and agriculture in sub‐Saharan Africa: Implications for

development (an exploratory study), Journal of Development Studies, Special

Issue: African Women in the Development Process, 17 (3):29-46.

Bucagu, C., Vanlauwe, B., Van Wijk, M.T. and Giller, K.E. (2013). Assessing farmers’

interest in agroforestry in two contrasting agro-ecological zones of Rwanda.

Agroforestry Systems, 87(1):, 141-158.

Bunting, A.H. (1961). Some problems of agricultural climatology in tropical Africa.

Geography, 46 (4): 283-294.

Byiringiro, F. and Reardon, T. ( 1996). Farm productivity in Rwanda: effects of farm

size, erosion and soil conservation investments. Agricultural Economics 15 (2)::

127–136.
 61

Cantore, N. (2011). The Crop Intensification Program in Rwanda: a sustainability

analysis, Kigali, Rwanda, www. rema.gov.rw/rema_doc/pei/Report_ODI_ AM.pdf,

accessed 15th August 2013.

CGIAR (2003). Water and People in Catchments, Challenge Program on Water and

Food. , Cali, Colombia.

Changere, A. and Lal, R. (1997). Slope position and erosion effects on soil properties and

corn production on a Miamian soil in Central Ohio. Journal of Sustainable

Agriculture 11 (1): 5-21.

Chow, T.L., Rees, H.W and Daigle, J.L. (1999). Effectiveness of terraces grassed

waterway systems for soil and water conservation: a field evaluation. Journal of

Soil and Water Conservation 54(3): 577-583.

Christianson, C., Mbegu, C.N., and Yigard, A. (1993). The hand of man: Soil

conservation in Kondoa eroded area, Tanzania. SIDA/RSCU Report No. 12.

Nairobi.

CIAT (1997). Development of climbing bean lines with tolerance to worm temperatures;

In bean program. Annual report , 1995. Cali, Colombia.

Clay, D.C. and Lewis, L.A. (1990), “Land use, soil loss, and sustainable agriculture in

Rwanda”. Human ecology. 18 ( 2): 147-161.

Cockroft, B. and Olsson, K. (2000). Degradation of soil structure due to coalescence of

aggregates in no-till, no-traffic beds in irrigated crops. Australian Journal Soil

Research 38: , 61-70.

Cook, R.L. and Ellis, B.G. (1987). Soil management: A world view of conservation and

production, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., U.S.A. Malabar, Florida. 413p.
 62

Cornelis, W.M., Nyssen, J., Govaerts, B., Bauer, H., Gebreegziabher, T. and Deckers, J.

(2011). Effects of conservation agriculture on runoff, soil loss and crop yield under

rainfed conditions in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Soil Use and Management, 27(3):,

404-414.

Curtis, P.E. and Courson, R.L. (1981). Outline of soil fertility and fertilizers, 2nd Ed.

Stipes Publishing Company, Champaign. 250p.

DDP (2005). District Development Plan of Nyamasheke, Rwanda .

Dow, A.I., Roberts, S. and Hintze, R. (1973). Fertilizer trials on irrigated beans in Central

Washington. Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. Circular 564.

Dudal, R and Decaers J. (1993). Soil organic matter in relation to soil productivity. pp.

377-380. In: Mulongoy J. and R. Marcks (Eds.). Soil Organic Matter Dynamics and

Sustainabilityof Tropical Agriculture. Wiley.

Duveskog, D. (2001). Water harvesting and soil moisture retention. A study guide for

Farmer Field Schools. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers. SIDA, Nairobi.

Elwell, H., and Stocking, M. (1976).”Vegetation and Erosion”: A Review. Scotish

Geographical Magazine No.92:Vol.1:,4-16.

Eylachew, Z. (1999). Selected physical, chemical and mineralogical characteristics of

major soils occurring in Chercher Hhighlands, Eeastern Ethiopia. Ethiopian

Journal of Natural Resource. 1(2): 173-185.

FAO (1978). Report on the FA O/UNEP expert consultation on methodology for

assessing soil degradation. Rome: FAO, 70 pp.

 63

FAO (2000). Manual on integrated soil management and conservation practices. FAO

Land and Water Bulletin 8., Rome, Italy: 230 pp.

Fatima, B., Neelofar, K. and Farhat, J. (2012). Role of women in agriculture., Asian

Journal of Home Science 7: 144-147.

Ferris, R.S.B., Gaidashova, S., Tuyisenge, J., Rucibigango, M., Mukabazirake, E.,

Kagiraneza, B., Ndirigwe, Gatarayiha, C. and Wanda K. (2002). Market survey of

the bBanana sub-sector in Rwanda., Consultancy report commissioned by ATDT-

CIAT, IITA-FOODNET, CRS and ISAR, September 2002.

Foth, H.D. (1990). Fundamentals of soil science, 8th Ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New

York, USA. 360p.

Franzluebbers, A.J. (2010). Principles of Soil Conservation and Management. Vadose

Zone Journal, 9 (1):, 199-200.

Gachene, K.C. (2003). Soil fertility and land productivity, a guide for extension workers

in the eastern Africa region. RELMA Technical Handbook Series 30, , Nairobi,

Kenya

Garcia, A., Rodriguez, B., Garcia, B., Gaborcik, N., Krajcovic, V. and Zimkova, M.

(1990, June). Mineral nutrients in pasture herbage of central western Spain. Soil,

grassland and animal relationship. In Proceedings of 13th general meeting of the

European Grassland. Banska Bystrica. Czechoslovakia.

Gee, G.W. and Bauder, J.W. (1986). Particle-size analysis. p. 383–411. In A. Klute (ed.).

Methods of soil analysis, part 1, physical and mineralogical methods (2nd edition).
 64

American Society of Agronomy, Agronomy Monographs 9(1), Madison,

Wisconsin, 1188 pp

Glenn, I. (1992). Sampling and Evidence of Extension Program Impact. Programe

Evaluation and Organizational Development, IFAS, University of Florida.

Goudreddy, B.S. (1995). Fodder trees p.46–48. In: Naadagouder B.S., Horst W.J., Kuhne

R. and Kang B.T. (ed) 1995. Nutrient use in Leucaena leucocephala and Cajanus

cajan in maize/cassava alley cropping on Terre de Barre, Benin. Alley farming

research and development. Proceedings of the International Conference on Alley

Farming 14–18 September 1992. Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 122–136

Green, R. (1978). The construction and management of bench terracing system in the hill

areas of Nepal. Ministry of Forest, Department of Soil and Water Conservation,

Kathmandu, Nepal. 69 pp.

Gupta, P.K. (2004). Soil, plant, water and fertilizer analysis. Shyam Printing Press,

Agrobios, India. 438p.

Hailu, W., Moges, A and Yimer, F. (2012). The Effects of ‘Fanya juu’Soil Conservation

Structure on Selected Soil Physical and& Chemical Properties: the Case of Goromti

Watershed, Western Ethiopia. Resources and Environment, 2 (4):, 132-140.

Hatch, T. (1981). Preliminary results of soil erosion and conservation trials under pepper

(Pipernigrum) in Sarawak, Malaysia. In: Soil Conservation: Problems and

Prospects. R.P.C. Morgan(ed.). John Wiley, Chichester, UK: 255-262.

HCDA (1996). Horticultural Crop Development Authority. Export Crop Bulletin.

Hess, P.R. (1971). A Text Book of Soil Chemicals Analysis. p. 255-300. John Murray,

London.
 65

Hutchinson, D.N. and Brown, F.E. (1979). The effect of acidity, organic matter, and

sesquioxide polymers on the permanent charge and pH-dependent cation exchange

capacity of the caribou loam soil., Life Sciences and Agriculture Experiment

Station Technical Bulletin, University of Maine.

Kahn, L. (2014). Beef Cattle Production and Trade, CSIRO Publishing.

Kassa, Y., Beyene, F., Haji, J and Legesse, B. (2013). Impact of integrated soil and water

conservation program on crop production and income in West Harerghe Zone,

Ethiopia. International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Analysis

1(4):111-120.

Kazemi, M.L., Dumenil, L.C. and Fenton, T.E. (1990). Effects of accelerated erosion on

corn yields of loess derived and till-derived soils in Iowa. Unpublished Technical

Report, p. 1–102., Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University.

Kennedy, C.W., & Arceneaux, A.E. (2006). The effect of harvest residue management

inputs on soil respiration and crop productivity of sugarcane. Journal of American

Society of Sugarcane Technology, 26: 125-136.

Khan F., Ahmad, W., Bhatti, A.U., Khattak, R.A and Shafiq, M. ( 2004). Effect of soil

erosion on chemical properties of some soil series in NWFP. Science Technology

and Development 23(4): 31-35.

Kimmins, J.P. (1997). Forest ecology: A foundation for sustainable management, 2nd

Ed., New Jersey. 596p.

Kornegay, J.L and Russell, N. (1996). The African Bean Exchange. Pattern of Sharing.

CIAT.
 66

Lal, R. (2001). Integrated Watershed Management in the Global Ecosystem. CRC Press,

FL.

Landon, J.R. (1991). Booker tropical soil manual: A Handbook for Soil Survey and

Agricultural Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Longman Scientific

and Technical, Essex, New York. 474p.

Lilienfein, J., Wilcke, W., Ayarza, M.A., Vilela, L., do Carmo Lima, S and Zech, W.

(2000). Chemical fractionation of phosphorus, sulphur, and molybdenum in

Brazilian savannah Oxisols under different land use. Geoderma, 96(1):, 31-46.

Lynch, J., Läuchli, A and Epstein, E. (1991). Vegetative growth of the common bean in

response to phosphorus nutrition. Crop Science 31: 380–387.

Marshall, T.J., and& Holmes, J. W. ( 1979). Soil Physics, Cambridge University Press

Mgbenka, R.N., Ozor, N., Igbokwe, E.M and Ebe, F. (2012). Soil and water conservation

capabilities among farmers and extension agents in eastern region of Nigeria.

African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(1):, 58-67.

Mihara, M., Ueno, T., Sang-arun, J. and Dokiya, Y. (2001). Effect of grass filter strips

management on reduction of soil loss from upland field, Poster presented in

Symposium no. 38, Paper no. 560, 17th WCSS, 14-21 August 2002, Thailand.

Miller, R.W. and Grardiner, D.T. (2001). Soils in our environment, 9th Ed. Prentice-Hall

Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 671p.

Miller, R.W. and Donahue, R.L. (1995). Soils in our environment, 7th Ed. Prentice Hall

Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 649p.

MINAGRI (1998). Strategic plan for food security in Rwanda., Ministry of Agriculture,

Kigali.
 67

MINAGRI (2004). Strategic plan for agricultural transformation in Rwanda. ,Ministry of

Agruculture, Kigali.

MINAGRI (2009). Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture in Rwanda –

Phase II (PSTA II). Ministry of Agriculture, Kigali.

MINECOFIN (2003). Vision 2020, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Kigali.

MINILENA (2004). National Land Policy, Ministry of Land, Environment and Natural

Ressources , Kigali-Rwanda

Mizuyama, T., Uchida, T., and Kimoto, A. (1999). Effect of hillside works on granite

slopes; terracing and planting. In: Ground and water bioengineering for erosion

control and slope stabilization. IECA, Mmanila, The Philippines: 190-196p..

Montanarella, L. (1999). Soil at the interface between agriculture and environment.

Agriculture, Environment, Rural Development: facts and figures–A challenge for

agriculture. Europian commission.

Morgan, R.P.C. (2009). Soil erosion and conservation. John Wiley and& Sons.

Mugendi, D.N., Nair, P.K.R., Mugwe, J.N., O’Neill, M.K. and Woomer, P.L. (1999).

Calliandra and Leucaena alley cropped with maize. Part 1: Soil fertility changes

and maize production in the sub-humid highlands of Kenya. Agroforestry Systems,

46: 39-50.

Mwakubo, S.M., Maritim, H.K. and Yabann, W.K. (2004). “Does soil conservation pay?

Evidence from Machakos and Kituei Districts, Kenya.” Asian Journal of Plant

Sciences 3(5): p 578–588.

 68

Nahayo, A., Ekise, I.E. and Akazanwenimana, L. (2013) Assessing the adoption Level of

Agroforestry Species in Nyabihu District Rwanda, International Journal of Basic

and Applied Sciences 2 (4) 139-149

Nelson, D.W. and Sommers, L.E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic

matter. Methods of soil analysis. Part, 3(3): 961-1010.

Ngigi, S.N. (2003). Rainwater Harvesting For Improved Food Security: Promising

Technologies in The Greater Horn Of Africa. Greater Horn Of Africa Rainwater

Partnership (GHARP), Kenya Rainwater Association (KRA), Nairobi, Kenya,

266p.

NISR and MINECOFIN (2012). Fourth Rwanda Population and Housing Census, Kigali,

Rwanda.

Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Moeyersons, J., Deckers, M. Haile, J., and & Lang, A. (2004).

Human impact on the environment in the Ethiopian and Eritrean highlands. , State

of the art-Science Reviews 64:273-320.

Obalum, S.E., Nwite, J.C., Oppong, J., Igwe, C.A and Wakatsuki, T. (2011). Variations

in selected soil physical properties with landforms and slope within an inland valley

ecosystem in Ashanti region of Ghana. Soil and Water Research, 6(2): , 73-82.

Ohuegbe, C. (1989). Women in Agriculture Program in Imo State. Paper presented to

World Bank Work-shop on Agricultural Education. Ibadan, Nigeria.

Okoba, B.O and De Graaff, J. (2005). Farmers' knowledge and perceptions of soil

erosion and conservation measures in the Central Highlands, Kenya. Land

Degradation & Development, 16(5):, 475-487.

 69

Oldeman, L.R. (1992). Global extent of soil degradation, International Soil Reference and

Information Centre, Wageningen, The Nertherlands, pp.19-36p

Oweis, T.Y. (2005). The Role of Water Harvesting and Supplemental Irrigation in

Coping with Water Scarcity and Drought in the Dry Areas. In Drought and Water

Crisis: Science, Technology, and Management Issues; Wilhite, D.A., Ed.; Taylor &

Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA; pp. 191-213

Page J.R., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R., Baker, D.E. and Roscoe, E.J.R. (1982). Methods

of soil analysis. II. Chemical and microbiology properties 2nd (eds.) Wisconsin,

USA.

Pal, A. and Pandey, S. (2014). Role of Glomalin in Improving Soil Fertility. International

Journal of Plant and Soil Science, 3(9): 112-129.

Pearce, R.A., Trlica, M.J., Leininger, W.C., Smith, J.L and Frasier, G.W. (1997).

Efficiency of grass buffer strips and vegetation height on sediment filtration in

laboratory rainfall simulations. Journal of Eenvironmental Qquality, 26(1):, 139-

144.

Peterson, J.R., Flanagan, D.C. and Tishmack, J.K. (2002). PAM application method and

electrolyte source effects on plot-scale runoff and erosion. Transactions of the

ASAE, 45(6): 1859-1867.

Poritchett, W.L and Fisher, R.F. (1987). Properties and management of forest soils, 2nd

Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 494p.

 70

Poudel, D.D., Midmore, D.J and West, L.T. (1999). Erosion and productivity of

vegetable systems on sloping volcanic ash-derived Philippine soils. Soil Science

Society of America Journal 63: 1366-1376.

Prunier, G. (1995) The Rwanda crisis1959-1994. History of genocide. Fountain Publishers

Ltd, Kampala, Uganda.

Quirine, K., Shaw, R. and Renuka, R. (2007) “Cation Exchange Capacity” Fact sheet.

Agronomy Fact Sheet Series. Dept. oOf Ccrop and Ssoil Sscience, College of

Agriculture and Llife Sscience. Co-operative Extention, Cornell University.

REMA .(2010) . Practical tools on soil and water conservation measures, Kigali ,Rwanda.

Rhoades, J.D. (1982). Cation exchange capacity. In: Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2.

Chemistry and mineralogical properties, Agronomy Monograph No. 9. (Edited by

Page, A.L., Miller, R.H. and Keeney, P.R.). American Society of Agronomy Inc.,

Madison, Wisconsin. 149-169 pp.

Rowell, D.L (1994). Soil science: Methods and & Applications. Addison Wesley

Longman Singapore Publishers (Pte) Ltd., England, UK. 350p.

Sanchez, P.A and Leakey, R.R.B. (1997). Land Use Transformation in Africa: Three

Determinants for Balacing Food Security with Natural Resource Utilization.

European Journal of Agronomy 7:15-23.

Sanchez, P.A., Palm, C.A., Davey, C.B., Szott, L.T and Russell, C.E. (1976). Trees as

soil improvers in the humid tropics. pp. 327-358. In: Cannell, M.G.R. and. Jackson,

J.E (Eds.). Attributes of Trees as Crop Plants. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology,

Huntingdon, England.
 71

Schuman, G.E., Spurner, R.G and Piest, R.F. (1973). Phosphorus losses from four

agricultural watersheds on Missouri Valley loess. Soil Science Society of America

Proceedings 37(3): 424-427.

Sharma, N.K and Singh, R.J. (2013). Agronomic Practices for Erosion Control, Pop.

Kheti, 1(3): 57-60.

Sheng, T.C. (2002). Bench Terrace Design Made Simple. Department of Earth Resources

Colorado State.

Shenkut, A.A and Brick, M.A. (2003) Traits associated with dry edible bean (Phaseolus

vulgaris L.) productivity under adverse soil moisture environments. Euphytica,

133: 339-347.

Sims, B.G. (1999). Fertility gradients in naturally formed terraces on Honduran hillside

farms. Agronomy Journal 91(2): 350-353.

Soares, J.L.N., Espindola, C.R and Pereira, W.L.M. (2005). Physical properties of soils

under intensive agricultural management. Scientia Agricola, 62(2), 165-172.

Stallings, J. H. (1964). Phosphorous and water pollution. Journal of Soil and Water and

Conservation. 22(6):228–231.

Stark, M., Garrity, D.P. and Jutzi, S.C. (1999). Ground and water bioengineering for

erosion control and slope stabilization. IECA, manila, The Philippines: 152-156.

Stocking, M.(1984). Erosion and soil productivity: a review. Rome: FAO, 102 pp

Tadesse, M., Lommen, W.J.M., Van der Putten, P.E.L. and Struik, P.C. (2001).

Development of leaf area and leaf number of micropropagated potato plants,

Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, 49: 15–32.

 72

Taye, G., Poesen, J., Wesemael, B.V., Vanmaercke, M., Teka, D., Deckers, J and

Haregeweyn, N. (2013). Effects of land use, slope gradient, and soil and water

conservation structures on runoff and soil loss in semi-arid Northern Ethiopia.

Physical Geography, 34(3):, 236-259.

Tekilu, B. (1992). Intensive training for soil laboratory technicians: Soil analysis on CEC,

exchangeable base and calcium carbonate. National Soil Research Center. Addis

Ababa. Ethiopia. 10p.

Tenge, A.J., De Graaff, J., Hella, J.P. (2005). Financial efficiency of major soil and water

conservation measures in West Usambara highlands, Tanzania, Applied geography,

25 (4): 348 - 366

Tesfaye, G and Debebe, W. (2013). Farmers’ perceptions’ and participation on

Mechanical soil and water conservation techniques in Kembata Tembaro Zone: the

Case of Kachabirra Woreda, Ethiopia, International Journal of Advanced

Structures and Geotechnical Engineering, 2 (4): 118-131

Teshome, A., de Graaff, J., Kassie, M. and Stroosnijder , L . (2012). Role of institutional

and socio-economic factors on adoption, dis-adoption and non- adoption of soil and

water conservation technologies: Empirical evidence from the North Western

Ethiopia highlands, Agro Environ 2012, Wageningen.

Thomas, D.B. (1997). Soil and Water Conservation Manual for Kenya. Soil and Water

Conservation Branch, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and

Marketing. Nairobi, Kenya:

Tisdale, S.L., Nelson, W.L., Beaton, J.D. and Havlin, J.L.( 1995). Soil fertility and

fertilizer, 5th Ed. Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi. 684p.

 73

Ullah, R., Lone, M. I., Ali, S and Hussain, S. (2009). Soil water variation under different

cropping patterns on sloppy lands in Punjab, Pakistan. Soil and Environment

(Pakistan), 28 (2):156-161.

UNEP (1999). Sustainable Management and Use of Natural Ressources.

http://www.unep.org/unep/sub l.htm. Accessed on 12/6/2014.UNEP, (2008).

Agricultural and land degradation in Rwanda, Kigali.

USDA (2001). Long-term agricultural management effects on soil carbon, Soil quality,

Agronomy technical note No. 12

Vanlauwe, B., Van Asten, P. and Blomme, G. (2013). Agro-ecological Intensification of

Agricultural Systems in the African Highlands. Routledge. 336 pp

Wakene, N. (2001). Assessment of important physicochemical properties of Dystric

Udalf (Dystric Nitosols) under different management systems in Bako area, western

Ethiopia. M.Sc.Thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia. 93p.

Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for

determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid

titration method. Soil Sciences. 37: 29-38.

Wenner, C.G. (1997) Soil conservation in Kenya: Soil and Water Conservation Branch,

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing, Kenya.

Wheaton, R.Z. and Monke, E.J. (2001). Terracing as a `Best Management Practice' for

controlling erosion and protecting water quality. Agricultural Engineering 114,

Purdue University.

White, R.E., (1997). Principles and practices of soils science: The soil is the natural

resource. Cambridge University Press, UK. 348p.

 74

Williams, J.D and Buckhouse, J.C. (1991). Surface runoff plot design for use in

watershed research. Journal of Range Management Archives, 44 (4):, 411-412.

WMO (1997). A comprehensive Assessment of the Fresh water Resources of the world,

Geneva, Switzerland, 125 pp.

Wolde-Aggrey, B. (1996). Twenty Years of soil conservation in Ethiopia. A personal

overview. SIDA/RSCU Technical Report No. 14. Nairobi.

Woldeamlak, B. and Stroosnijder, L. (2003). Effects of agro-ecological land use

succession on soil properties in the Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia.

Geoderma. 111: 85-98.

WRI (1996). World Ressources 1996-97: The Urban Environment. Available at:

http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=849 (Accessed on

14/6/2014).

Yamoah, C., Burleigh, J.R. and Malcolm, M.R. (1990). Application of expert systems to

the study of acid soils in Rwanda. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 30

(3): 203-218.

Yang, D., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Koike, T. and Musiake, K. (2003). Global potential soil

erosion with reference to land use and climate changes. Hydrological Pprocesses,

17(14): , 2913-2928.

Yemefack, M., Jetten, V.G., Rossiter, D.G. (2006). Developing a minimum data set for

characterizing soil dynamics in shifting cultivation systems. Soil and Tillage

Research 86(1): 84-98

 75

Yihenew, G. (2002). Selected chemical and physical characteristics of soils Adet

Research Center and its Testing Sites in North-Western Ethiopia. Ethiopian

Journal of Natural Resources. 4(2): 199-215.

Young, A, (1988). Tropical Soils and Soil Survey. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Zachary, E.M. and Petrovic, A.M. (2005). Effect of hill slope on nutrient runoff from

turf. Golf Course Manage, 109-113.

Zhang, Y., Tang, Y., Jiang, J., and Yang, Y. (2007). Characterizing the dynamics of soil

organic carbon in grasslands on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Science in China

Series D: Earth Sciences, 50(1): , 113-120.

Zhao, M. ( 1995). Impact of CO2 multiplication on the differentiation of physical zones

and the potential agricultural productivity in China. Journal of . Natural .

Resources. 10: 148–157.

 76

APPENDIXES

Appendix 1: QUESTIONNAIRE
I.GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of respondent:………………………………………………………….
Gender : Male ………………… Female…………………………………

District……………………...…..Village…………………………………….

How old are you?. [18-20], .[21-30] , .[31-45].,.[46-65] , > 65

Marital Status: Single:………Married:………Divorced ……………………

Widowed…………Separated…..
What is your level of education?

a) None------- b) Primary…………c) Secondary……… d) University

II. PHYSICAL FACTORS

1. Do you own the land you cultivate on ? a) Yes……… b) No………..

If no, what type of land tenure are you engaged in?
a) Public land…….b) shared lease….. c) Rented………

2. Your farm size (in ha)? a) < 0.5ha ….b) [0.5 – 1ha]……c) > 1ha………

3. What crop do you grow?

a) Vegetables……… b) Maize……..c) Irish potatoes……. d) Fruits………
e) Beans…

4. Where is you farm located?

a)Steep slope …….b)Low slope……c).Marshland…….d) Medium

5. Do you experience soil erosion problems in your farm? a) yes……. b) No…

If yes, what type of soil erosion do you have?
a) Sheet erosion………b) Rills…….c) Gullies………..d) Splash,…….

6. What do you think contributes to soil erosion?

a) Land slope…………….b) Vegetation removal………….c) Intensive cultivation……..
d) Rainfall……………..

7. Which are the effects of soil erosion?

a)Poverty… b)Land become out of cultivation,…. c)Low yield…
 77

d)Hunger…
8. Do you practice soil conservation measures in your farm? a) Yes……..b) No…

If no, what is the reason?

a)Poverty……. b) Limited knowledge……..c) Lack of equipments…d) Land
tenure………

If yes, what type of soil erosion measures do you practice in your farm?
a)Contour bund…….. b) Agroforestry…… c) Terracing……
d) strip cropping ……e) Fallow…………. f) Ditches ……g) Other……

And who support you? a) None…….b)Government……….c)ONGs ………..

9.Do you combine mechanical and biological measures ? Yes………No…….

If yes what type do you implement?.
a)Contour bund + Agroforestry
b)Terraces + Agroforestry
c)Other specify:……..

10. What advantages have you realized after adopting soil erosion control measures in
your farm?

a)Reduced soil loss…….b) Improved crop yield…c) Increased Soil fertility.

III.SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT

1. Is low soil fertility a constraint in your farm? Yes…….No…….

If Yes, what are the main causes of low soil fertility in your farm?
a)Soil erosion……b) Drought……….c) Erratic rainfall
d)Land shortage ……e) Lack of input use….

2. What is your suggestion to improve soil productivity in your farm?

a) Farmers sensitization until they adopt SWC techniques

b) Technical support in terracing and bunds construction
c) Farmers trainings and experience sharing
d) Provide incentive to the farmers
 78

Appendix 2: TEXTURAL TRIANGLE

 79

Appendix 3: Interpretation of soil chemical values (Landon, 1991)

Analyze & Unity Mean values Classification

CEC (cmol/kg of soil >40 Very high
25-40 High
15-25 Middle
5-15 Weak
<5 Very weak
% of base saturation(ration in % of >60 High
exchangeable bases and CEC ) 20-60 Middle
<20 Weak
Exchangeable bases ( cmol/kg of soil)
Calcium (Ca) >10 High
4-10 Middle
<4 weak
Magnesium (Mg) >4 High
1.5-3.0 Middle
<0.5 Weak
Potassium (K) >0.6 High
0.2-0.6 Middle
<0.2 Weak
Sodium (Na) >1 High
<1 Weak
Organic carbon (%) >10 High
4-10 Middle
<4 Weak
Total nitrogen (%) >0.5 High
0.2-0.5 Middle
<0.2 Weak
Available P in ppm >50 High
50-15 Middle
<15 Weak