Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:25:39.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION OF TEPHROSIA SPECIES AND PROVENANCES FOR SOIL FERTILITY IMPROVEMENT AND OTHER USES USING FARMER CRITERIA IN EASTERN ZAMBIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2005

PARAMU L. MAFONGOYA
Affiliation:
Zambia-ICRAF Agro-forestry Project, P.O. Box 510089, Chipata, Zambia
ELIAS KUNTASHULA
Affiliation:
Zambia-ICRAF Agro-forestry Project, P.O. Box 510089, Chipata, Zambia

Abstract

In eastern Zambia, farmers prefer direct seeded improved fallow species like Tephrosia vogelii to other species because of the reduced labour requirement for establishment. Since relying on two locally available provenances of T. vogelii could become ecologically unsustainable, due to pest and disease outbreaks, a wider range of usable direct seeded Tephrosia provenance material is desirable. A farmer participatory evaluation of Tephrosia candida provenances for their effectiveness as improved fallows and provision of construction materials and fuel wood was conducted. Using an indigenous board game called bao, 68 farmers rated the four provenances and five control species/provenances for these benefits. The T. candida provenances were rated high for soil fertility improvement. First year T. candida post-fallow performance showed that maize yields could be obtained that were comparable with yields following Tephrosia vogelii provenances. According to farmers' ratings, T. candida provenances could provide better fuel wood and light construction materials than T. vogelii, although they were not considered to be as good as Sesbania sesban and Senna siamea. Tephrosia candida provenances have the potential to be tested by many farmers on-farm. Farmers' methods of screening trees can complement scientific predictors, and their early integration into the selection and design of agro-forestry systems can improve relevance and adoption.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)