Consortium for the Integrated Management of Soils in Central America

A. Castro1, M. Rivera1, O. Ferreira1, J. Pavn2, E. Garca3, E. Amzquita4, M. Ayarza4, E. Barrios5, M. Rondn6, N. Pauli7, M. E. Baltodano8, B. Mendoza9, L.A. Wlchez10, N. Johnson11, S. Cook12 and I.M. Rao1
The main objective of this CPWF funded project was to determine the key principles behind the social acceptance and biophysical resilience of QSMAS by defining the role of the management components of the system and QSMAS' capacity to sustain crop production and alleviate water deficits on steeper slopes with high risk of soil erosion. Activities included the evaluation of QSMAS performance compared to the traditional slash-and-burn system, in the reference site (Honduras) and the validation sites (Nicaragua and Colombia). Here we describe four basic principles and a brief technical explanation of their impacts, and the science behind those principles that support the recommendation of QSMAS as an option to achieve a number of social, agricultural and environmental benefits in rainfed systems of the sub-humid tropics.

Quesungual Slash and Mulch Agroforestry System (QSMAS) is a smallholder production system with a group of technologies for the sustainable management of soil, water and nutrients in drought-prone areas of hillsides agroecosystems of the sub-humid tropics. QSMAS is practiced by resource-poor smallholders in southwest Honduras (Central America), where the system has been successfully disseminated due to its benefits, including resilience even to extreme climatic events such as El Nio (1997) and hurricane Mitch (1998). QSMAS integrates local and technical knowledge and provides resource-poor farmers an alternative to replace the non-sustainable, environmentally unfriendly slash and burn (SB) traditional production system.

The four basic principles

No slash & burn
Management (partial, selective, and progressive slash-and-prune) of natural vegetation.

& the science behind them

IMPACTS of the PRINCIPLES: Soil-plant-atmosphere continuum: Reduced impact of raindrops, reduced runoff and soil losses through erosion, increased infiltration and water holding capacity, reduced evaporation and increased use of green water, and improved crop water productivity. Soil physical quality: Improved soil aggregation and therefore improved soil structure. Soil chemical-biological quality: Improved soil organic matter, soil biological activity, source of nutrients and fertilizer use efficiency; and minimized risk for crop failure. Green house gases (GHG): Reduced carbon emissions.
The above can be summarized as increased C synthesis and accumulation, accelerated nutrient cycling and accumulation, improved crop water productivity in a resilient production system, thereby enhancing support for system, livelihoods in rural areas.
80 70 60

Runoff (mm h-1)

Soil loss (t ha )

Continual deposition of biomass from trees, shrubs and weeds, and through crop residues.

50 40 30 20

2007 LSD= ns 2006 LSD= 1.08 2005 LSD= 6.59

Available water (m3 m-3)

-1

Permanent soil cover

40

Slash and Burn

0.16
LSD0.05= 0.026

30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30

QSMAS
0.14

Secondary Forest

Slash and Burn QSMAS Secondary Forest

DMS 0.05 = 6.2

0.12

QSMAS
10 0

Secondary Forest

0.10 0.00

Infiltration (mm h-1)

Slash and Burn

DMS 0.05 = 6.6

-40

GWP (kg CO2 equivalents ha y )

Change in nutrient status (mg kg-1)

Change in SOM (%)

Minimal disturbance of soil

Erosion: QSMAS protects soil by markedly reducing soil losses (~7.5 times in two years) compared to SB system.
0.5 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 -40
Total N Available P

Soil water: QSMAS improves dry season adaptation of crops through higher soil water availability together with reduced runoff and increased infiltration compared to SB.
50000 Slash and Burn QSMAS Secondary Forest
-1 -1

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9

Slash and Burn QSMAS Secondary Forest

40000

30000

20000

No tillage, direct seedling, and reduced soil disturbance during agronomic practices.

Slash and Burn QSMAS Secondary Forest

Slash and Burn QSMAS Secondary Forest

10000

Soil quality: QSMAS improves soil nutrient status and soil organic matter (SOM) content (0-20 cm soil depth) compared to SB system (after one year).
2000 1800

GHG emission: QSMAS reduces the risk (42%) for global warming potential (GWP) compared to slash and burn (SB) system (20 year scenario).
Honduras (2007): value of environmental services

Efficient use of fertilizer

Maize Common beans

1600

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

Appropriate application (type, amount, location) of fertilizers.

Slash and Burn

QSMAS -F

QSMAS +F

Honduras (2005-06): Productivity is higher in QSMAS than in SB system (-F = no fertilizer).

QSMAS also provides environmental services: Increase of soil quality and resilience Increase of water quality and availability Recuperation of degrading soils Mitigation of greenhouse gas fluxes Improved C capture Conservation of biodiversity Mitigation of impact related to natural disasters and/or climate change

Grain yield (kg ha )

-1

US$ 2,240 per hectare

considering: (i) Soil and water (runoff, infiltration, water holding capacity, and soil losses) attributes; and (ii) C capture (soil organic carbon)

Experience over three years of onfarm participatory validation in Nicaragua (Somotillo) and Colombia (Surez) suggests that QSMAS will be readily accepted and adopted by smallholders in similar agroecosystems (sub-humid tropics). It also received strong support from local authorities and policy makers.

Suitability of QSMAS for adoption by small farmers:

1.6 1.4 1.2

Maize Common bean
DMS0.05= ns DMS0.05= 0.43

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

I know there is still much to be improved and learned, but we already took the most important step that is not to use burning burning G. Aguilar, Nicaraguan farmer practicing QSMAS

Grain yield (t ha )

Validation plots nearby Salvajina dam, Surez, Cauca, Su rez, Colombia (Jan. 2008)

Honduras: Reference site for QSMAS

-1

Nicaragua (2005-06): QSMAS improved net income (83%) compared to SB system.

Slash and Burn

QSMAS

Nicaragua and Colombia: Validation sites

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This project is partially founded by the Challenge Program on Water and Food of CGIAR. It is co-executed by the Integrated Management of Soil consortium (MIS) in Central America including INTA and UNA, Nicaragua; ESNACIFOR, UNA and FAO, Honduras; and CIAT - Honduras, Nicaragua and Colombia; Inter-institutional consortium for sustainable agriculture in hillsides (CIPASLA), Colombia; and National University of Colombia - Palmira. We thank E. Humphreys, J. Rubiano, M. Fisher, N. Asakawa, C. Benavides, G. Borrero, J.G. Cobo, L.F. Chvez, J. Galvis, M. del P. Hurtado, M. Quintero, J. Quintero, J. Ricaurte, M.T. Trejo, R. Vivas, A. lvarez, O. Ayala, E. Melo and D. Vsquez for their contributions to this work. INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS: (1) CIAT-Colombia; (2) Instituto Nicaragense de Tecnologa Agropecuaria (INTA), Nicaragua; (3) CIAT-Honduras; (4) Corporacin Colombiana de Investigacin Agropecuaria (CORPOICA), Colombia; (5) EMBRAPA, Brazil; (6) International Development Research Center (IDRC), Canada; (7) University of Western Australia; (8) CIAT-Nicaragua; (9) Universidad Nacional de Agricultura (UNA), Nicaragua; (10) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Honduras; (11) CPWF-Theme 2 (Water and People in Catchments); (12) CPWF-Basin Focal Project Coordination, Colombia.