This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Grass reseeding technology [Kenya]

Reseeding

technologies_2288 - Kenya

Completeness: 94%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Department of Range and Wildlife Sciences, South Eastern Kenya University (SEKU) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/01/2016

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

Projet lutte  contre l‘erosion, recuperation et mise en valeur des terres degradées; Adaptation au changement climatique (Projet EKF)
approaches

Projet lutte contre l‘erosion, recuperation et mise en … [Burkina Faso]

Une approche intégrée et multipartite au Sud Ouest du Burkina Faso, basée sur l’aménagement des bassins versants et sur la gestion durable des terres avec un fort accent sur la participation locale. Elle réalise des mesures physiques et biologiques de lutte contre l’érosion, d’adaptation au changement climatique et exécute des …

  • Compiler: Rebecka Ridder

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Grass reseeding is a sustainable land management practice aimed at rehabilitating degraded grazing pastures and provide livestock feed. This is mainly done using indigenous perennial grass species.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Grass reseeding technology is a sustainable land management practice especially among the pastoral and agro-pastoral communities inhabiting the arid and semi-arid rangelands of the world. Seed bed preparation involves clearing of invasive bush patches and creation of furrow micro-catchments across the slope using an ox-driven plough (traditional) or shallow and light ploughing using a tractor (modern) . Grass seeds are sown along the furrow micro-catchments created directly in the existing but degraded grazing land and are covered with light soil because the indigenous grass seeds are very small in size. This will support faster emergence of grass seedlings with least resistance. Slope should be generally flat or very gentle slope (<5%) to reduce the speed of run-off, thus prevent soil erosion and consequently the washing away of the sown grass seeds. Eroded and deposited seeds will eventually lead to uneven establishment of pasture, mainly concentrated downslope. Minimal soil disturbance by ox-plough or tractor facilitates root penetration of the seedlings and also helps breaking the soil hard-pan formed by continuous hoof action by grazing animals.
Micro-catchments created promotes in-situ rain-water harvesting, thus prolong availability of water for emerging seedlings. The main purpose for this technology is to rehabilitate degraded natural pastures and provide a continuous source of livestock feed especially during lean periods. Use of indigenous grass species is advocated for better results e.g. successful establishment and subsequent development. Ecological impacts of this technology include better soil coverage and reduced soil erosion. In addition to rehabilitating degraded natural pastures and improving pasture quality and quantity for livestock production, grass reseeding technology has additional socio-economic impacts notably improving rural livelihoods. This is through sale of hay and grass seed and excess milk in the local market, additional sources of income.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Kenya

Region/ State/ Province:

Eastern

Further specification of location:

Kibwezi

Comments:

Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALS) in Kenya

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • during experiments/ research

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing land:
  • Nomadism
  • Semi-nomadism/ pastoralism
  • Ranching

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 2
Specify:

Bimodal rainfall pattern (March-May) and (October-December)

Livestock density (if relevant):

On average 2-3 cattle, 7-8 goats, 2 sheep per household

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • pastoralism and grazing land management
  • minimal soil disturbance
  • water harvesting

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Comments:

Practiced among several agropastoral and pastoral households in the arid and semi-arid lands

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
structural measures

structural measures

  • S4: Level ditches, pits

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pc: compaction
  • Pi: soil sealing
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bh: loss of habitats
  • Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Author:

Kevin Mganga

Date:

18/05/2017

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

15-20 cm deep and 10-15 cm wide furrow micro-catchments across the slope. Spacing between furrows is 15-20 cm and depends mostly on plant species. Seeds are sown along the microcatchments intentionally built to harvest rainwater. Flat or very gentle (<5%) slope to reduce the speed of run-off.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

Hectare

Specify currency used for cost calculations:
  • US Dollars
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

5

4.4 Establishment activities

Activity Type of measure Timing
1. Creation of furrow micro-catchments with ox-plough Agronomic Before onset of the rains
2. Sowing (seed placement and covering with soil) Agronomic Before onset of the rains
3. Gapping (reseeding gaps with poor establishment and cover) Vegetative After establishment

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour Casual and Household labour person-days 4.0 5.0 20.0 100.0
Equipment Hiring ox-driven plough person-days 4.0 100.0 400.0 100.0
Plant material Seeds kgs 5.0 10.0 50.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 470.0

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Type of measure Timing/ frequency
1. Gapping (i.e. reseeding bare areas (patches) with poor germination and cover) Vegetative Seasonal
Comments:

Gapping is done to ensure uniform plant cover

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour Casual and household labour person-days 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Equipment Ox-driven plough person-days 1.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Plant material Seed kg 1.0 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 115.0

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Seed availability in the 'informal markets' i.e. between farmers and farmer groups, research organisation, influences the cost of grass seed. This is mainly determined by the preceding rainy season.

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

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
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

700.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

Highly variable in space, time and season

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Meteorological Station - South Eastern Kenya University

Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • 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
Altitudinal zone:
  • 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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • convex situations
Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitude 900 m above sea level
Slope angle - flat 0-2% and gentle 3-5 % slopes

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • 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)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • low (<1%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Seasonal flactuation depending on rainfall

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • medium
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Due to intensive utilisation of natural pastures, notably due to overgrazing, indigenous pasture species are depleted and replaced by less preferred invasive plant species. However, reseeded pastures reverses this trend by re-introducing various species the indigenous pastures which can naturally co-exist and reduce competition with other herbaceaous plant species, thereby increases biodiversity.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
Market orientation of production system:
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
Off-farm income:
  • 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • poor
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
  • animal traction
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Age of land users:
  • youth
  • middle-aged

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

  • < 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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:
  • communal/ village
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • communal (organized)
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • communal (organized)
  • individual
Comments:

Communal land use right - e.g. common grazing land, reserved and seasonal grazing areas (large scale)
Individual land use right - e.g. individual pasture establishment within individual owned land
Communal water use rights - e.g. watering point, river, lake, stream, community water reservoir, boreholes
Individual water use rights - e.g. individual tap water, roof water catchment

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

fodder production

decreased
increased

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased

Ecological impacts

Soil

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

buffering/ filtering capacity

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Reseeded areas improve the soil hydrological properties by reducing impact of rain drops thus reducing soil disturbance and increasing water infiltration capacity. Consequently, run-off and sediment production, an index of soil erosion, is greatly reduced.

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change
Season Type of climatic change/ extreme How does the Technology cope with it?
annual rainfall decrease well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • 10-50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 50-90%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Nee

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Diversification of sources of livestock forage especially during the dry season (fodder reserves)
Diversification of source of income through sale of grass hay and seeds
Improving the environment i.e. rehabilitating degraded grazing land
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reliable source of livestock forage especially during periods of drought
Diversification of source of income through sale of grass hay and seeds
Improving the environment i.e. rehabilitating degraded grazing land
Climate change mitigation through carbon (C) sequestration

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Successful establishment is dependant on amount, distribution and duration (rainy days) of rainfall in the area Improved rainwater harvesting and storage technologies
Seed availability - quantity and quality Large scale production of good quality indigenous seed to supply the pastoral and agropastoral communities at a subsidized price
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Rainfed and climatic (rainfall dependent) Improved rainwater harvesting and storage technologies
Seed availability - quantity and quality Large scale production of good quality indigenous seed to supply the pastoral and agropastoral communities at a subsidized price
Low uptake/interest among the youth, students Sensitization of the youth as a source of income (business)

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, DM Nyariki. 2015. Competition indices of three perennial grasses used to rehabilitate degraded semi-arid rangelands in Kenya. The Rangelands Journal 37: 489-495

Available from where? Costs?

The Rangeland Journal website, US Dollars $25

Title, author, year, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, DM Nyariki. 2015. Combining sustainable land management technologies to combat land degradation and improve rural livelihoods in semi-arid lands in Kenya. Environmental Management 56: 1538-1548

Available from where? Costs?

Environmental Management Journal website, US Dollars $38

Title, author, year, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, MM Nyangito, DM Nyariki, AW Mwang’ombe. 2015. The choice of grass species to combat desertification in semi-arid Kenyan rangelands is greatly influenced by their forage value for livestock. Grass and Forage Science 70: 161-167.

Available from where? Costs?

Grass and Forage Science Journal website, US Dollars $38

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Competition indices of three perennial grasses used to rehabilitate degraded semi-arid rangelands in Kenya

URL:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/rj/RJ15023

Title/ description:

Combining sustainable land management technologies to combat land degradation and improve rural livelihoods in semi-arid lands in Kenya

URL:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-015-0579-9

Title/ description:

The choice of grass species to combat desertification in semi-arid Kenyan rangelands is greatly influenced by their forage value for livestock

URL:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gfs.12089/abstract

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules