Conservation Agriculture as an Alternative for Soil Erosion Control and Crop Production in Steep-slopes Regions Cultivated by Small-scale Farmers in Motozintla, Mexico

R. ROMERO-PEREZGROVAS^{1, 2,} and S. CHEESMAN^{1, 3}

¹International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 Mexico, D.F., Mexico

²Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Celestijnenlaan 200 E, 3001 Leuven, Belgium

³ETHZurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Eschikon 33, 8315 Lindau (ZH), Switzerland

Cite this paper

R. ROMERO-PEREZGROVAS and S. CHEESMAN. Conservation Agriculture as an Alternative for Soil Erosion Control and Crop Production in Steep-slopes Regions Cultivated by Small-scale Farmers in Motozintla, Mexico. World Journal of Agricultural Research. 2014; 2(6A):18-24. doi: 10.12691/WJAR-2-6A-4

Abstract

Agricultural activities in steep-slope regions of the world have been increasing in recent years. When annual crops are produced in these regions, high soil erosion rates become a constant threat. An extended body of literature proposes reforestation or plantations with perennial crops as potential solutions. However, such approaches fail to meet the needs of the small-scale farmers who rely on annual crops to produce the lion’s share of their food. Another commonly used measure to tackle erosion is the construction of physical barriers – a solution that demands substantial investment, for both implementation and maintenance. Analternative solution is conservation agriculture (CA), which is a cropping system based on three principles: 1) minimal soil disturbance; 2) crop rotations and/or intercropping, and 3) permanent soil cover through crop residue management. Using longitudinal statistical analysis this research – based on survey data (154 observations) collected in 1994 and 2008 within two ejidos of Motozintla in the state of Chiapas, Mexico – found that under CA, maize (Zea mays) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) yields remained at minimum consistent, and in some cases increased over time. Maize yields reached 3.3 ton ha^-1, whilst bean reached 262 kg ha^-1. Maize yields were also consistently higher than the long-term state's average (1987-2012) of 2.3 ton ha^-1. Moreover, 90% of the farmers perceived that CA improved soil fertility and 99% observed that CA effectively controlled erosion. The traditional system in these two ejidos presented a number of enabling characteristics for facilitating CA implementation: no mechanisation was being utilized, intercropping was already a common practice, and the main competitor for crop residue use (ruminants) could eventually be substituted for other livestock such as pigs. This research provides evidence to demonstrate that long-term adoption of CA in a steep-slope region can help to control soil erosion whilst allowing farmers to produce their staple crops.

Keywords

chiapas, farmer perception, survey data, longitudinal statistical analysis, maize, beans, yield, adoption enabling characteristics

Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

[1]	Altieri, M. A., Funes-Monzote, F. R., and Petersen, P. (2012). Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32(1), 1-13.
[2]	Amsalu, A., & De Graaff, J. (2007). Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecological Economics, 61(2), 294-302.
[3]	Brouder, S. M., & Gomez-Macpherson, H. (2014). The impact of conservation agriculture on smallholder agricultural yields: A scoping review of the evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 187, 11-32.
[4]	Chauhan, B. S., Singh, R. G., & Mahajan, G. (2012). Ecology and management of weeds under conservation agriculture: a review. Crop Protection, 38, 57-65.
[5]	CONEVAL. (2010). Multidimensional Poverty Measurement. CONEVAL.
[6]	Erenstein, O. (2003). Smallholder conservation farming in the tropics and sub-tropics: a guide to the development and dissemination of mulching with crop residues and cover crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 100(1), 17-37.
[7]	Erenstein, O., & Iñiguez, P. C. (1997). The adoption of conservation tillage in a hillside maize production system in Motozintla, Chiapas (Vol. 97, No. 1). CIMMYT.
[8]	Farooq, M., Flower, K. C., Jabran, K., Wahid, A., & Siddique, K. H. (2011). Crop yield and weed management in rainfed conservation agriculture. Soil and Tillage Research, 117, 172-183.
[9]	Friedrich, T., Kienzle, J., & Kassam, A. (2012). A new paradigm for sustainable intensification and its implications for agricultural mechanization. In Rural Development. International Conference of Agricultural Engineering-CIGR-AgEng 2012: agriculture and engineering for a healthier life, Valencia, Spain, 8-12 July 2012. (pp. P-0416). CIGR-EurAgEng.
[10]	Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., & Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field crops research, 114(1), 23-34.
[11]	INEGI. (2007), Censo Agropecuario. INEGI.
[12]	INEGI. (2009), Censo Economico. INEGI.
[13]	Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2007). Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food policy, 32(1), 25-48.
[14]	Lal, R. (1990). Soil erosion in the tropics: principles and management. McGraw Hill.
[15]	Lal, R., & Stewart, B. A. (Eds.). (2013). Principles of sustainable soil management in agroecosystems. CRC Press.
[16]	Locke, M. A., Reddy, K. N., & Zablotowicz, R. M. (2002). Weed management in conservation crop production systems. Weed Biology and management, 2(3), 123-132.
[17]	Lutz, E., Pagiola, S., & Reiche, C. (1994). THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SOIL CONSERVATION: THE FARMERS'VIEWPOINT. The World Bank Research Observer, 9(2), 273-295.
[18]	Moyer, J. R., Roman, E. S., Lindwall, C. W., & Blackshaw, R. E. (1994). Weed management in conservation tillage systems for wheat production in North and South America. Crop Protection, 13(4), 243-259.
[19]	Nuijten, M. (2003). Family property and the limits of intervention: The Article 27 reforms and the PROCEDE programme in Mexico. Development and Change, 34(3), 475-497.
[20]	Romero-perezgrovas, R., Verhulst, N., De La Rosa, D., Hernández, V., Maertens, M., Deckers, J., & Govaerts, B. (2014). Effects of Tillage and Crop Residue Management on Maize Yields and Net Returns in the Central Mexican Highlands Under Drought Conditions. Pedosphere, 24(4), 476-486.
[21]	Ruxton, G. D. (2006). The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student's t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test. Behavioral Ecology, 17(4), 688-690.
[22]	Shaxson, T. F., Hudson, N. W., & Sanders, D. W. (1989). Land husbandry: a framework for soil and water conservation (pp. 1-64). Soil and Water Conservation Society.
[23]	SEMARNAT. (2012), Los Suelos de Mexico. SEMARNAT
[24]	Stevenson, J. R., Serraj, R., & Cassman, K. G. (2014). Evaluating conservation agriculture for small-scale farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 187, 1-10.
[25]	Tuan, V. D., Hilger, T., MacDonald, L., Clemens, G., Shiraishi, E., Vien, T. D., and Cadisch, G. (2014). Mitigation potential of soil conservation in maize cropping on steep slopes. Field Crops Research, 156, 91-102.
[26]	Verhulst, N., Govaerts, B., Sayre, K. D., Sonder, K., Romero-Perezgrovas, R., Mezzalama, M., & Dendooven, L. (2011). Conservation agriculture as a means to mitigate and adapt to climate change, a case study from Mexico. Designing agricultural mitigation for smallholders in developing countries.
[27]	Zar, J. H.(1999) Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edn, Prentice Hall.