Technologies

Grass reseeding [Kenya]

Reseeding

technologies_2288 - Kenya

Completeness: 90%

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:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Kevin Mganga', 'user_id': '3292', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 50, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1213, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Department of Range and Wildlife Sciences, South Eastern Kenya University (SEKU) - Kenya', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Yes

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?

No

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

Combating erosion, recovery and enhancement of degraded land and climate change adaptation (EKF Project)
approaches

Combating erosion, recovery and enhancement of degraded land … [Burkina Faso]

The approach applied in this project is an integrated and multi-stakeholder approach in the South West of Burkina Faso, based on watershed management and sustainable land management with a strong emphasis on local participation. It carries out physical and biological measures against erosion, adaptation to climate change and various activities …

  • 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 pastures and providing livestock feed. This is mainly carried out with indigenous perennial grass species.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Grass reseeding is a sustainable land management practice especially appropriate for pastoral and agro-pastoral communities inhabiting the arid and semi-arid rangelands of the world. Seedbed preparation involves clearing of invasive bush patches and creation of furrows across the slope using an ox-plough (traditional) or shallow and light ploughing using a tractor (modern). Grass seeds are sown along the furrows which are created directly in the degraded grazing land. The seeds are lightly covered with soil because the indigenous grass seeds are very small. This encourages faster emergence of grass seedlings. The slope should be generally flat or very gentle (<5%) to reduce the speed of runoff, thus prevent soil erosion and consequently the washing away of the 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 surface hardpan formed by continuous hoof action.
Furrows constitute a form of in-situ moisture conservation, capturing rainwater where it falls, thus increasing availability of water for emerging seedlings. The main purpose of 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 e.g. Eragrostis superba, Cenchrus ciliaris, Enteropogon macrostachyus and Chloris roxburghiana is advocated for better establishment and subsequent development. Ecological impacts of this technology include improved soil cover and reduced soil erosion. In addition to rehabilitating degraded natural pastures and improving quality and quantity for livestock production, grass reseeding has additional socio-economic impacts, thus benefiting rural livelihoods. This is through the sale of hay and grass seed and surplus milk in the local market, which provide supplementary 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

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

Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALS) in Kenya.
Practiced among several agropastoral and pastoral households in the arid and semi-arid lands

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • fodder crops - grasses
Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:
  • Nomadism
  • Semi-nomadic pastoralism
  • Ranching
Animal type:
  • goats
  • sheep
  • cattle
Comments:

Use of indigenous grass species e.g. Eragrostis superba, Cenchrus ciliaris, Enteropogon macrostachyus and Chloris roxburghiana is recommended

Number of growing seasons per year: 2
Bimodal rainfall pattern (March-May) and (October-December).
Livestock density: On average 2-3 cattle, 7-8 goats, 2 sheep per household

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

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

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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/png', 'preview_image': '/media/62/3/623b9232-23e5-49d6-b56c-ae94c4683486.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/d6/0/d60cd89d-e660-4f80-8312-bf820d430e5f.png', 'template': 'raw'}
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

15-20 cm deep and 10-15 cm wide furrows across the slope. Spacing between furrows is 15-20 cm and depends mostly on plant species. Seeds are sown along the furrows intentionally built to capture and hold rainwater. Flat or very gentle (<5%) slope to reduce runoff.

Author:

Kevin Mganga

Date:

18/05/2017

4.2 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:
  • USD
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

5

4.3 Establishment activities

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

4.4 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
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 470.0

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

Gapping is done to ensure uniform plant cover

4.6 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
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 115.0

4.7 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?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

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 used 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 the impact of raindrops thus reducing soil disturbance and increasing water infiltration capacity. Consequently, runoff, and sediment production - an index of soil erosion, are 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 increase or decrease 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

  • 11-50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 51-90%

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increased quantities 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 dependent on amount, distribution and duration (rainy days) of rainfall in the area. Improved rainwater capture 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

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/01/2016

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 online information

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