Layering of brush (invasive species) on bare areas, Mphorosane Leribe (Palesa Leoaneka)

Brush Layering (Lesotho)

Brush packs

Description

The technology requires removal of invaders as resources for layering. The technology enhances accumulation of silt and moisture storage in dry-lands due to increased organic matter content in the soil from the brush.

DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
1. It is applied on bare lands
2. Flowering stages of invaders should be taken into consideration before layering
3. functions; silt trap, moisture retention, as a factor of soil formation and medium for plant growth
4. Locally available materials such as invasive species
5. Improves land cover, land productivity and soil organic carbon
6. To land users, the technology is easy to implement and it has higher chances of reclaiming the marginal land. However, most of invasive species are used as source of fuel by the rural communities for cooking and heating in households. Many rural communities do not have electricity, gas or firewood as a source of fuel. Whenever people come across a heap of these invasive species, they vandalize it.

Location

Location: Lesotho highlands, Leribe District, Lesotho

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 28.52168, -29.20558

Spread of the Technology: applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

In a permanently protected area?: Nee

Date of implementation: 2019

Type of introduction
Overview of area constructed with brush layering (Palesa Leoaneka)
full details of a brush layering (Koetlisi Koetlisi)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use
Land use mixed within the same land unit: Nee

  • Grazing land
    • Semi-nomadic pastoralism
    • Improved pastures
    Animal type: cattle - non-dairy beef
    Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced? Ja
    Products and services: meat, transport/ draught
      SpeciesCount
      cattle - non-dairy workingn.a.

    Water supply
    • rainfed
    • mixed rainfed-irrigated
    • full irrigation
    Purpose related to land degradation
    • prevent land degradation
    • reduce land degradation
    • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
    • adapt to land degradation
    • not applicable
    Degradation addressed
    • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
    • soil erosion by wind - Et: loss of topsoil
    • physical soil deterioration - Pk: slaking and crusting, Pi: soil sealing
    • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bh: loss of habitats, Bq: quantity/ biomass decline, Bl: loss of soil life
    • water degradation - Hp: decline of surface water quality
    SLM group
    • integrated crop-livestock management
    SLM measures
    • vegetative measures - V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants, V4: Replacement or removal of alien/ invasive species
    • management measures - M5: Control/ change of species composition

    Technical drawing

    Technical specifications
    There is no criteria on how to construct the brush packs, the brush/invaders are uprooted from somewhere, whether within the same area or transported from another area, what is important is that any bare land within the catchment is applied this technology. The brush is simply placed on any area that has no vegetative cover, and stones are put on top of the brush so as to avoid being blown away by the wind. There is no specific design for this technology. As a result, there cannot be any technical drawing for this technology.
    Author: Koetlisi Koetlisi

    Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

    Calculation of inputs and costs
    • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: 0.25ha; conversion factor to one hectare: 1 ha = N/A)
    • Currency used for cost calculation: USD
    • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
    • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 4.6
    Most important factors affecting the costs
    The technology is a free one, anybody even a layman does implement it. Herders at cattle post do implement it. There are no costs incurred to implement it. The implementation as well as maintenance are least cost effective
    Establishment activities
    1. public gathering (Timing/ frequency: Any)
    2. brush control (Timing/ frequency: before flowering)
    3. brush layering (Timing/ frequency: Any)
    Establishment inputs and costs (per 0.25ha)
    Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
    Labour
    person-days 1.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
    Equipment
    muttock piece 1.0 16.0 16.0
    Total costs for establishment of the Technology 21.0
    Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 21.0
    Maintenance activities
    1. N/A (Timing/ frequency: N/A)
    Maintenance inputs and costs (per 0.25ha)
    Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
    Labour
    N/A N/A

    Natural environment

    Average annual rainfall
    • < 250 mm
    • 251-500 mm
    • 501-750 mm
    • 751-1,000 mm
    • 1,001-1,500 mm
    • 1,501-2,000 mm
    • 2,001-3,000 mm
    • 3,001-4,000 mm
    • > 4,000 mm
    Agro-climatic zone
    • humid
    • sub-humid
    • semi-arid
    • arid
    Specifications on climate
    Average annual rainfall in mm: 1200.0
    Lesotho highlands receive generally very good rains
    Name of the meteorological station: Bokong
    Lesotho is generally on temperate zones
    Slope
    • flat (0-2%)
    • gentle (3-5%)
    • moderate (6-10%)
    • rolling (11-15%)
    • hilly (16-30%)
    • steep (31-60%)
    • very steep (>60%)
    Landforms
    • plateau/plains
    • ridges
    • mountain slopes
    • hill slopes
    • footslopes
    • valley floors
    Altitude
    • 0-100 m a.s.l.
    • 101-500 m a.s.l.
    • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
    • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
    • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
    • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
    • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
    • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
    • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
    Technology is applied in
    • convex situations
    • concave situations
    • not relevant
    Soil depth
    • very shallow (0-20 cm)
    • shallow (21-50 cm)
    • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
    • deep (81-120 cm)
    • very deep (> 120 cm)
    Soil texture (topsoil)
    • coarse/ light (sandy)
    • medium (loamy, silty)
    • fine/ heavy (clay)
    Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
    • coarse/ light (sandy)
    • medium (loamy, silty)
    • fine/ heavy (clay)
    Topsoil organic matter content
    • high (>3%)
    • medium (1-3%)
    • low (<1%)
    Groundwater table
    • on surface
    • < 5 m
    • 5-50 m
    • > 50 m
    Availability of surface water
    • excess
    • good
    • medium
    • poor/ none
    Water quality (untreated)
    • good drinking water
    • poor drinking water (treatment required)
    • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
    • unusable
    Water quality refers to: both ground and surface water
    Is salinity a problem?
    • Ja
    • Nee

    Occurrence of flooding
    • Ja
    • Nee
    Species diversity
    • high
    • medium
    • low
    Habitat diversity
    • high
    • medium
    • low

    Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

    Market orientation
    • subsistence (self-supply)
    • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
    • commercial/ market
    Off-farm income
    • less than 10% of all income
    • 10-50% of all income
    • > 50% of all income
    Relative level of wealth
    • very poor
    • poor
    • average
    • rich
    • very rich
    Level of mechanization
    • manual work
    • animal traction
    • mechanized/ motorized
    Sedentary or nomadic
    • Sedentary
    • Semi-nomadic
    • Nomadic
    Individuals or groups
    • individual/ household
    • groups/ community
    • cooperative
    • employee (company, government)
    Gender
    • women
    • men
    Age
    • children
    • youth
    • middle-aged
    • elderly
    Area used per household
    • < 0.5 ha
    • 0.5-1 ha
    • 1-2 ha
    • 2-5 ha
    • 5-15 ha
    • 15-50 ha
    • 50-100 ha
    • 100-500 ha
    • 500-1,000 ha
    • 1,000-10,000 ha
    • > 10,000 ha
    Scale
    • small-scale
    • medium-scale
    • large-scale
    Land ownership
    • state
    • company
    • communal/ village
    • group
    • individual, not titled
    • individual, titled
    Land use rights
    • open access (unorganized)
    • communal (organized)
    • leased
    • individual
    Water use rights
    • open access (unorganized)
    • communal (organized)
    • leased
    • individual
    Access to services and infrastructure
    health

    poor
    good
    education

    poor
    good
    technical assistance

    poor
    good
    employment (e.g. off-farm)

    poor
    good
    markets

    poor
    good
    energy

    poor
    good
    roads and transport

    poor
    good
    drinking water and sanitation

    poor
    good
    financial services

    poor
    good
    Comments

    Unlike most highlands in Lesotho, this area is most privileged due to Lesotho Highlands Development Authority interventions

    Impacts

    Socio-economic impacts
    land management
    hindered
    simplified

    Quantity before SLM: Degraded land
    Quantity after SLM: Restoration significant
    Layering restores bare areas

    Socio-cultural impacts
    SLM/ land degradation knowledge
    reduced
    improved

    Quantity before SLM: Poor
    Quantity after SLM: Increased

    Ecological impacts
    soil moisture
    decreased
    increased

    Quantity before SLM: Wilting point
    Quantity after SLM: Field capacity
    Moisture content not measured

    soil cover
    reduced
    improved

    Quantity before SLM: NDVI 0.1
    Quantity after SLM: NDVI 0.5
    Not measured but estimated from landsat

    soil organic matter/ below ground C
    decreased
    increased

    Quantity before SLM: 1%
    Quantity after SLM: 1.01%
    Might improve with

    vegetation cover
    decreased
    increased

    Quantity before SLM: NDVI 0.1
    Quantity after SLM: NDVI 0.5
    This technology has improved vegetation cover where it has been applied.

    drought impacts
    increased
    decreased

    Quantity before SLM: wilting point
    Quantity after SLM: prolonged field capacity
    Brush works more or less like mulch.

    Off-site impacts
    water availability (groundwater, springs)
    decreased
    increased

    Quantity before SLM: Ground water not recharged
    Quantity after SLM: Ground water mostly recharged
    Several seasonal water sources enhanced

    Cost-benefit analysis

    Benefits compared with establishment costs
    Short-term returns
    very negative
    very positive

    Long-term returns
    very negative
    very positive

    Benefits compared with maintenance costs
    Short-term returns
    very negative
    very positive

    Long-term returns
    very negative
    very positive

    according to land users, the technology is easy to implement

    Climate change

    Other climate-related consequences
    Snow cover in some areas in the highlands

    not well at all
    very well
    Answer: not known

    Adoption and adaptation

    Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
    • single cases/ experimental
    • 1-10%
    • 11-50%
    • > 50%
    Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
    • 0-10%
    • 11-50%
    • 51-90%
    • 91-100%
    Number of households and/ or area covered
    40
    Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
    • Ja
    • Nee
    To which changing conditions?
    • climatic change/ extremes
    • changing markets
    • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

    Conclusions and lessons learnt

    Strengths: land user's view
    • It requires no inputs
    • It needs less equipment
    • It does not need periodic monitoring and evaluation
    Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
    • It can be demonstrated to a lot of people at the same time
    • It is less time consuming
    • It can be implemented without government funds
    Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
    • Locally available material liable to vandalism intensive extension
    Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
    • community participation extension service enforcement

    References

    Compiler
    • Matoka Moshoeshoe
    Editors
    Reviewer
    • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
    • William Critchley
    Date of documentation: Maart 26, 2019
    Last update: Aug. 16, 2020
    Resource persons
    Full description in the WOCAT database
    Linked SLM data
    Documentation was faciliated by
    Institution Project
    Key references
    • N/A: N/A
    Links to relevant information which is available online
    This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International