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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Low-input farming, facilitated by symbiotic microorganisms, helps sustain production while protecting the environment. In particular, inoculation with bacteria such as Rhizobium contributes to enhancing legume productivity and improving harvest quality.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Rhizobial inoculum is a natural cost-effective biological product known for its enduring impact in the soil over several years. In Tunisia, Rhizobium inoculation of legumes has been used in different agro-climatic zones within sub-humid, upper semi-arid, semi-arid and upper arid climates. Most of the soils in these regions exhibit slightly alkaline pH, significant active limestone content, low levels of organic matter, and are prone to water and wind erosion due to their shallow nature.
This agricultural practice enhances the nutrient content of legumes such as beans, chickpeas, and lentils, thereby improving their growth, yield and resistance to disease and the adverse effects of climate change. It also contributes to soil fertility by stimulating the soil's microbial biomass, making it more resilient to erosion and degradation. Legumes, when integrated into cereal cropping systems, offer a unique advantage as they form symbiotic associations with soil bacteria (i.e Rhizobium).
Inoculation becomes necessary when specific indigenous bacterial populations are absent, insufficient in number or inefficient. Once the efficient Rhizobium strains required for the species to be cultivated have been isolated from the root nodules, the pure bacteria are multiplied and seeded in a sterile substrate (peat) in 400-gram bags prepared aseptically in the laboratory of the National Agronomic Research Institute of Tunisia, which is responsible for producing and marketing these biofertilizers which are then applied at the plot level, at the farmer’s premises, by coating seeds with the inoculum just before sowing, introducing Rhizobium strains into the plant-soil ecosystem. The inoculum uses an adhesive that sticks the Rhizobium to the seed and feeds it until it infects the plant. This seed coating operation is performed in a shaded area, for sowing within a few hours. Semi-sowing can be accomplished using automatic or semi-automatic seeders mixed with basic fertilizers.
Rhizobia are sensitive to various abiotic stresses, in particular drought and high temperatures, which have a negative effect on their efficiency and survival. For this reason, one or two supplementary irrigations are necessary in the absence of rain. Finally, farmers must adhere to good land management practices such as crop rotation, crop association, and rational fertilization in order to maintain the sustainability of the effect of inoculation.
The impacts of Rhizobium inoculation on legumes include the promotion of healthy and fertile soil, increased crop productivity, more resilient cropping systems in response to climate change, and sustainable cereal production, thereby ensuring food security.
Farmers across different regions have adopted the practice and are convinced by its effectiveness on their soils and crops.

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:

Tunisia

Region/ State/ Province:

Sidi Bouzid

Further specification of location:

Borj El Ifa

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

Comments:

A secured farm

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• mitigate climate change and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Cropland

• Annual cropping
• Tree and shrub cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - barley
• cereals - maize
• fodder crops - grasses
• legumes and pulses - peas

Annual cropping system:

Fallow - maize/sorghum/millet intercropped with legume

Tree and shrub cropping - Specify crops:

• olive
• pome fruits (apples, pears, quinces, etc.)

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Is intercropping practiced?

Yes

Is crop rotation practiced?

Yes

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:

• Ranching

Animal type:

• cattle - dairy
• sheep

Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced?

Yes

Products and services:

• meat
• milk

Species:

cattle - dairy

Count:

28

Species:

sheep

Count:

15

Settlements, infrastructure

• Settlements, buildings
• Energy: pipelines, power lines

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• integrated soil fertility management
• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
• A5: Seed management, improved varieties

management measures

• M2: Change of management/ intensity level

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

chemical soil deterioration

• Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
• Cp: soil pollution

physical soil deterioration

• Pc: compaction
• Pu: loss of bio-productive function due to other activities

biological degradation

• Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
• Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
• Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
• Bl: loss of soil life
• Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

The technical specifications include:

In the laboratory:
- isolation of bacteria based on the legume ;
- aseptic preparation of 400 g bags;
- multiplication and seeding in peat bags.

At plot level
-
-
-

Author:

Hanen Arfaoui, Amira Hachana and Imen Hemissi (INRAT)

Date:

05/2023

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

Tunisian dinar

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

3.1

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

500.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

INGC/projet ProSol

Comments:

Under the ProSol project, seeds are provided to farmers at no cost.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Forage maize, cheese production, legumes, cereals, cattle breeding, arboriculture
Contractualized production (CMA)

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

The impact of this technology is assessed against a backdrop of research projects and experimental plots.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

There is no information on off-site impacts.

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

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Effects of soil variability on the diversity of rhizobia nodulating pea (Pisum sativum L.) in Tunisia, Amira HACHANA, Imen HEMISSI, Chayma ChAMMAKHI, Amir SOUISSI, Manel BOURAOUI , Neila ABDI, Hanen ARFAOUI and Bouaziz SIFI. 2021

Available from where? Costs?

National Agronomic Research Institute of Tunisia

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Diagnostic de la diversité des souches de Rhizobium leguminosarum nodulant le pois (Pisum sativum L.) et leurs interactions avec la microflore rhizosphérique dans différentes zones bioclimatiques de la Tunisie, Amira Hachana, 2021

Available from where? Costs?

National Agronomic Research Institute of Tunisia

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Effect of Some Rhizobium Strains on Fenugreek Growth and Biological Control of Sclerotinia Stem Rot of Fenugreek Caused by Sclerotinia trifoliorum, Hemissi Imen, Hachana Amira, Arfaoui Hanen, 2021 Acta Scientific Agriculture, Vol 5(5): 37-45. ISSN: 2581-365X

Available from where? Costs?

National Agronomic Research Institute of Tunisia

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Inoculation with phosphate solubilising Mesorhizobium strains improves chickpea (Cicer aritenium L.) growth performance under phosphorus deficiency, Hemissi Imen, Abdi Neila, Bargaz Adnane, Bouraoui Manel, Yassine Mabrouk, Mouldi Saidi and SIFI Bouaziz, 2015

Available from where? Costs?

National Agronomic Research Institute of Tunisia

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Fichier technique de la fixation symbiotique de l'azote Légumineuse/ Rhizobium, FAO, 1983

URL:

https://books.google.tn/books?id=Q14_9-QKkXIC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title/ description:

Études écologiques et fonctionnelles de symbioses entre rhizobia et légumineuses. Thèse de doctorat, Ala Eddine Cherni, 2019

URL:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:120285

Title/ description:

Etude du potentiel bénéfique des souches de Rhizobium pour Medicago truncatula: symbiose, solubilisation du phosphate et lutte contre la verticilliose. Thèse de doctorat, Youssra Miloud, 2018

URL:

https://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/24549/1/Youssra%20MILOUD.pdf

Title/ description:

Effets de la fertilisation azotée, de l‘inoculation par Rhizobium sp. et du régime des pluies sur la production de la biomasse et la teneur en azote du pois chiche, L‘taief B., Sifi B., Zaman-Allah M., Hajji M., Lachaal M., 2009, Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 13: 537-544.

URL:

https://popups.uliege.be/1780-4507/index.php?id=4745

Title/ description:

Characterization of rhizobia nodulating chickpea in Tunisia, Mohamed Aouani, Ridha Mhamdi, Moez Jebara, Noelle Amarger, 2001

URL:

https://hal.science/hal-00886148/document

Title/ description:

Patterns for Pea Rhizobium symbiosis efficiency response to pedological and varietal variations in Tunisia, Rhizosphere, Amira Hachana, Imen Hemissi, Amir Souissi, Boulbaba L'Taief, Neila Abdi, Manel Bouraoui, Rahmah N.Al-Qthanin, Hanen Arfaoui, Bouaziz Sifi, 2O21

URL:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2020.100304