Technologies

Legume inoculation with Rhizobium [Tunisia]

technologies_6678 - Tunisia

Completeness: 86%

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:

HLEL Dorsaf

National Field Crops Institute

Tunisia

SLM specialist:

HEMISSI Imen

National Agronomic Research Institute of Tunisia

Tunisia

SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Amira Hachana', 'user_id': '202681', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6376, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Tunisia (GIZ Tunisia) - Tunisia', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6376, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Tunisia (GIZ Tunisia) - Tunisia', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6376, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Tunisia (GIZ Tunisia) - Tunisia', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6376, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Tunisia (GIZ Tunisia) - Tunisia', '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

2. Description of the SLM Technology

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

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. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

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

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, 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

agronomic measures

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

management measures

  • M2: Change of management/ intensity level

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

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

physical soil deterioration

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

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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/png', 'preview_image': '/media/8b/5/8b56bd29-ac75-403d-9793-49424a8b1070.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/61/a/61a97f44-d282-41cc-add9-8dc975014c05.png', 'template': 'raw'}
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
Indicate size and area unit:

1 ha

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

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

25

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Plowing Mid-October to early November
2. Seedbed preparation Mid-October to early November
3. Seed preparation December (seeding day)
4. Pre-seeding weed management (trifluralin) December
5. Seeding December
6. Addition of DAP fertilizer (50 Kg/ha)

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

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Irrigation after seeding ( if there is no rain or rain is delayed)
2. Post-seeding weed management (Simazine) Before survey
3. Fungal treatment (Anthracnose and Botrytis) Depending on when symptoms first appear
4. Insecticide treatment (Aphids) Depending on when symptoms first appear

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
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.

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):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

on surface

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

for agricultural use only (irrigation)

Water quality refers to:

surface water

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • high
Habitat diversity:
  • medium
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

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • rich
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Age of land users:
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly

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)?
  • large-scale

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

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

crop production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

A 25-30% increase in grain yield

crop quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Higher seed protein content
Improved 100-grain weight

risk of production failure

increased
decreased
Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased

farm income

decreased
increased

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Information and awareness-raising days

Ecological impacts

Soil

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
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
Season increase or decrease How does the Technology cope with it?
seasonal rainfall wet/ rainy season decrease well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

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

very positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

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

very positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

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

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improved productivity
Reduced chemical inputs
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improves soil structure (enhances the biodiversity of degraded soil)
Crop biodiversity through the introduction of legumes into farming systems in areas exposed to (climatic, biotic) risks.

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?
Access to biofertilizers Farmer information days
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Biofertilizers are not as widely available on the market (they are still managed at an institutional level). Introduction of biofertilizers into a large-scale production chain

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • interviews with land users

One farmer was interviewed.

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

Three specialists were interviewed.

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation
When were the data compiled (in the field)?

04/04/2023

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

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules