Chronosequence analysis of two enclosure management strategies in degraded rangeland of semi-arid Kenya

Verdoodt, A., et al., 2009. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

The establishment of enclosures has become an important measure to combat land degradation in many of the world’s semi-arid rangelands. In view of the increased pressure exerted by this land reclamation strategy on the neighbouring agricultural lands, knowledge of the time required for restoring vegetation cover and soil health, and of the potential positive impact of an adapted management strategy, is highly required. This paper assesses the vegetation and soil rehabilitation in a 23-year chronosequence of two different enclosure management types. In the severely degraded, semi-arid Njemps Flats plain of the Lake Baringo Basin in Kenya communal enclosures characterised by high quality inputs and strict control, and private enclosures managed by individual farmers, were installed since the 1980s. Six communal enclosures (3-17 years since establishment) and six private enclosures (13-23 years since establishment) were selected. Vegetation cover was estimated along three 50 m transects set within each enclosure and in the adjacent open grazing area using the point-to-line transect method. Five 0.5 m2 quadrats systematically placed alongside each transect were sampled for herbaceous standing biomass and topsoil physical, chemical and biological analyses. Grass cover and herbaceous biomass production proved to be the most responsive biotic parameters under both management types, whereas the recovery of the forbs was unsuccessful. Under communal management, the biomass production fully recovered up to its optimal level as recorded in the neighbouring nature reserves. Within private enclosures however, the adopted management strategies seriously restricted biomass production to a significantly lower level. Soil quality generally recovered more slowly with time. Significant improvements compared to the open rangeland were recorded in topsoil bulk density, organic C and total N stocks, and microbial biomass C and N stocks of the communal enclosures. Unlike the communal enclosures, only topsoil bulk density and the microbial biomass C stock showed a significant difference in the private enclosures. With respect to C and total N stocks, and the microbial biomass N a non-significant improving trend was recorded. The level of chemical and biological soil quality obtained under both management types is still low and draws the attention to the importance of careful monitoring of grazing and grass cutting activities under both enclosure management strategies. The chronosequences further highlight the potential of some well-managed private enclosures, whereas intrinsic soil properties such as high alkalinity, as well as changes in management, limit the rehabilitation of some other private as well as communal enclosures.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-191-2
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    INT-2 The private enclosures, reseeded and managed by individual farmers with limited financial and technical means, are much smaller, with sizes smaller than 1 ha. Fencing is done using cut thorn bushes (Acacia and Prosopis sp.) and/or planted thorn cactus (Opuntia sp.).

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Biomass cover loss  Positive Biomass cover loss: dry herbaceous biomass production (Kg/ha), grass/forbs/sedges (% of total vegetation), Bare ground (%), litter (%), vascular plant seedlings (%)
    Loss of food production  Positive Productivity: dry herbaceous biomass production (Kg/ha), grass/forbs/sedges (% of total vegetation)
    Reduced soil quality  Positive Soil quality: 1. Physical fertility = sand/silt/clay (%). 2. Chemical fertility = bulk density, pH, CaCO3, electrical conductivity, exchangeable sodium percentage, Organic C (g/m), total N. 3. Biological fertility = microbial biomass N & C (g/m)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    The Njemps Flats range unit is located between 18450 and 08150 northern latitude and 358450 and 368300 eastern longitude in the Baringo District of the Eastern Rift Valley in Kenya

  • Country: Kenya
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created other |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Effectiveness determined by comparing to plots outside the enclosures Note that for all of the impacts although the interventions both had significant effects on some of the measures, for others they had no effect compared to outside the enclosures (e.g. vascular plants, sedges, forbs and for many soil quality parameters) Overall the communal were better than the private
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: N/A
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: N/A
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-191-1
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    INT-1 Communal enclosures, varying in size from 6 to 140 ha, are perimeter fenced using a solar-powered electric fence. After clearing of much of the existing undesirable vegetation, the land is prepared for planting by the construction of micro-catchments. A mixture of drought-resistant trees and grasses, such as the fast- growing exotic Prosopis and Leucaena tree species and the indigenous grasses Cenchrus ciliaris, Enteropogon macrostachyus and Eragrostis superba, have been selected for planting and seeding.

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of food production  Positive Productivity: dry herbaceous biomass production (Kg/ha), grass/forbs/sedges (% of total vegetation)
    Biomass cover loss  Positive Biomass cover loss: dry herbaceous biomass production (Kg/ha), grass/forbs/sedges (% of total vegetation), Bare ground (%), litter (%), vascular plant seedlings (%)
    Reduced soil quality  Positive Soil quality: 1. Physical fertility = sand/silt/clay (%). 2. Chemical fertility = bulk density, pH, CaCO3, electrical conductivity, exchangeable sodium percentage, Organic C (g/m), total N. 3. Biological fertility = microbial biomass N & C (g/m)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    The Njemps Flats range unit is located between 18450 and 08150 northern latitude and 358450 and 368300 eastern longitude in the Baringo District of the Eastern Rift Valley in Kenya

  • Country: Kenya
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created other |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Effectiveness determined by comparing to plots outside the enclosures Note that for all of the impacts although the interventions both had significant effects on some of the measures, for others they had no effect compared to outside the enclosures (e.g. vascular plants, sedges, forbs and for many soil quality parameters) Overall the communal were better than the private enclosure management
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: n/a
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic: