Effect of indigenous stone bunding (kab) on crop yield at Mesobit‐Gedeba, North Shoa, Ethiopia

Abstract

Stone bunding (kab) is an age-old local conservation practice at Mesobit-Gedeba. This study was conducted to assess the effect of this indigenous practice on crop yield. We compared original ground slope, terrace width, and slope position of the terraced area. The effect of slope width and slope position were found significant (p < 0Á05) for both grain and biomass yields of the terraced sites. The mean grain and biomass yields decreased as the original ground slope of the terraced site increased. Both grain and biomass yields decreased with the width of the inter-terrace area. Significant differences (p < 0Á05) in mean grain and biomass yields were observed between the three slope positions. They decreased as one moved up the slope within the interterrace area. In general, the study indicated that indigenous stone bunding has a positive effect on sorghum yield. Future studies should address different locations and crops and ways of integrating indigenous stone bunding with the current conservation programmes of the region.

Impact of stone bunds on temporal and spatial variability of soil physical properties: A field study from northern Ethiopia

“…SB design varies in the different regions of Ethiopia. In Gumara Maksegnit, watershed SBs are low compared with other studies (e.g., Alemayehu et al, ). Especially in degraded or silted stage (after 2–3 years without maintenance), the local SBs, locally, turn to small terraces that may indicate marks of overspill at some spots.…”

“…They increase bulk density (BD) in erosion zones and decrease it in depositional areas (Challa, Abdelkadir, & Mengistu, ). As BD is closely related to the saturated soil hydraulic conductivity K sat , changes of this parameter also influence infiltration and runoff processes, soil water dynamics, and subsequently crop development (Alemayehu, Yohannes, & Dubale, ). A study by Alemayehu et al () in Eastern Tigray investigated the impact of integrated watershed management that included also SWC structures such as SBs, trenches, and runoff collection ponds on runoff and erosion.…”

Effects of level soil bunds and stone bunds on soil properties and its implications for crop production: the case of Bokole watershed, Dawuro zone, Southern Ethiopia

“…Soil samples were collected from purposively selected croplands/plot with LSBs (aged 4, 6 and 9 years), SBs (aged 4, 6, and 8 years) and nonterraced (adjacent to each LSB and SB). The specific sampling sites were selected based on criteria: closeness of treated and nonterraced croplands (not too far from each other) [11]; age of the structure (4 -9 years); number of inter-structure plots per treated cropland (more than or equal to 5); similarity of treated and adjacent-nonter- raced croplands in certain management and natural set up. Croplands with LSBs were selected from upper watershed whereas croplands with SBs were selected from lower watershed because of the structures dominance.…”

“…The sorting action of erosion removes large proportions of the clay and humus from soil, leaving behind the less productive coarse sand, gravel, and in some case even stones, impairing the quality of the remaining topsoil [4][5][6][7][8]. The removal of this organic matter affects soil properties including texture, structure, nutrient availability and biological activity [5,6] and makes soil more susceptible to further erosion as its aggregates becomes less stable [9] thus, negatively affecting crop production [1,[8][9][10][11]. In Ethiopia, measurements from experimental plots and micro-watersheds showed the annual soil loss from croplands is about 42 t·ha -1 ·year -1 [12].…”

Conservation and production impacts of soil and water conservation practices under different socio-economic and biophysical setting: a review

“…Especially what makes evaluation of SWC performance on crop and soil properties challenging is the absence of baseline data before implementing SWC practices especially in developing countries. In general, impact evaluations of SWC practices suffered from a number of methodological problems that may have led to under-or over-estimation of the productivity impacts of the SWC technologies For example, most researchers studied the impact of SWC at watershed scale in which conserved and non conserved watershed adjacent to each other were compared to see the effect of SWC on soil loss, fertility and crop yield (Solomon, 2016;Biele, 2014;Alemayehu et al, 2006;Worku et al, 2012;Mihrete, 2014). This method seems to have a potential error to give clear picture of SWC impact.…”