The Net benefits of silky oak (Grevillea robusta) for small farmers in Musanze District, Rwanda
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.14.05.100Keywords:
Grevillea robusta, Net benefits, Small farmers, RwandaAbstract
This study was conducted in Musanze district, Rwanda, to evaluate the net benefits of silky oak (Grevillea robusta) production for small farmers. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to 100 households distributed in four villages. The cost-benefit ratio was used as a decision-making tool. A diameter tape and a Haga altimeter were used to measure the DBH and height of grevillea and other dominant agroforestry tree species. Results indicate that 66 % of laborers were family members, gaining 625 Rwf per person day with grevillea production (US$ 0.61, with 4-8 hours of work per day. Also, results show that farmers earn 57,950 Rwandan Francs (Rwf) per hectare per year (US$ 57.48 from grevillea products (stakes, poles, charcoal, and timber), whereas the mean investment in grevillea production is 54,200 Rwf ha-1 year-1 (US$ 53.76. The net farm income is 3,225 Rwf (US$ 3.2 ha-1 year-1. The net benefit from grevillea product is affected by poor farmer data record as the majority of67% of respondents has not attended any formal education. However, farmers gain additional benefits of US$ 628, US$ 298, and US$ 224ha-1 year-1 from potatoes, maize, and bean, respectively, depending on their crop choice during intercropping with grevillea. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.06, which highlights the modest profitability of growing grevillea on the farm. In addition, soil erosion control, soil fertility increase, landslide prevention, shade provision, microclimate improvement, and biodiversity conservation were reported as ecosystem services of grevillea on the farm. Growth performance of grevillea (diameter at breast height, tree height, and volume) is analyzed in all four villages. The study shows that growing grevillea is profitable for smallholder farmers via tree products and farm benefits, including ecosystem services aspects.
Downloads
References
Albaugh JM, Dye P J, King JS (2013) Eucalyptus and water use in South Africa. International Journal of Forestry Research, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/852540 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/852540
Armengot L, Ferrari L, Milz J, Velásquez F, Hohmann P, Schneider M (2020) Cacao agroforestry systems do not increase pest and disease incidence compared with monocultures under good cultural management practices. Crop Protection 130: 105047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2019.105047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2019.105047
Bucagu C, Vanlauwe B, Van Wijk MT, Giller KE (2013) Assessing farmers' interest in agroforestry in two contrasting agro-ecological zones of Rwanda. Agroforest Syst 87(1): 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9531-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9531-7
Ceccon E, Sánchez I, Powers JS (2015) Biological potential of four indigenous tree species from the seasonally dry tropical forest for soil restoration. Agroforest Syst 89(3): 455-467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9782-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9782-6
De Giusti G, Kristjanson P, Rufino MC (2019) Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation practice in smallholder farming: Evidence from Kenya. Climatic Change 153(3), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02390-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02390-0
FAO (2012) Manual for building tree volume and biomass allometric equations from field measurement to prediction, accessed at https://www.fao.org/3/i3058e/i3058e.pdf
Gush MB (2017) The potential of Vachellia kosiensis (Acacia kosiensis) as a dryland forestry species in terms of water use, growth rates, and resultant water-use efficiency. Southern Forests 79(3): 227-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2989/20702620.2016.1254913
Hoffmann H, Uckert G, Reif C, Müller K, Sieber S (2015) Traditional biomass energy consumption and the potential introduction of firewood efficient stoves: Insights from western Tanzania. Regional Environmental Change, 15(7): 1191-1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0738-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0738-1
Kalinganire A (1996) Performance of Grevillea robusta in plantations and on farmsunder varying environmental conditions in Rwanda. Forest Ecol Manag 80: 279-285 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(95)03613-X
Kiyani P, Andoh J, Lee Y, Lee D K (2017) Benefits and challenges of agroforestry adoption: A case of Musebeya sector, Nyamagabe District in the southern province of Rwanda. Forest Sci Technol 13(4): 174-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2017.1392367 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2017.1392367
Li L, Sun J H, Zhang F S, Li X L, Yang S C, Rengel Z (2006) Wheat/Maize or Wheat/Soybean Intercropping I. Yield Advantage and Interspecific Interactions on Nutrients. Field Crop Res 71: 123-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00156-3
Liu W, Wu J, Fan H, Duan H, Li Q, Yuan Y, Zhang H (2017) Estimations of evapotranspiration in an age sequence of eucalyptus plantations in subtropical china. PloS One, 12(4), e0174208-e0174208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174208 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174208
Matusso Mateus Materusse J (2014) Effects of maize (Zea mays L.) – soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) intercropping patterns on yields and soil properties in two contrasting sites of Embu and Meru counties, Kenya. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.7178
MINAGRI (2018) Strategic Plan for Agriculture Transformation 2018-24.
Mugunga CP (2009) Growth and quality of Grevillea robusta provenances in Ruhande Arboretum, Butare, Rwanda. Rwanda Journal, 17(1): 130-137.
Nahayo A, Ekise I E , Niyigena D (2013) Assessment of the contribution of Non-Timber Forest Products to the improvement of local people's livelihood in Kinigi Sector, Musanze District, Rwanda. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management 6(6): 698-706. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v6i6.13 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v6i6.13
NairPk Ramachandran, Vimala Nair, B Mohan Kumar, and Julia M Showalter (2010) Carbon Sequestration in Agroforestry Systems. Elsevier 108: 75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(10)08005-3
Ndayambaje JD, Mohren GM J (2011) Fuelwood demand and supply in Rwanda and the role of agroforestry. Agroforest Syst 83(3): 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9391-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9391-6
Njenga M, Mahmoud Y, Mendum R, Iiyama M, Jamnadass R, de Nowina K R, Sundberg C (2016; 2017) Quality of charcoal produced using micro gasification and how the new cook stove works in rural Kenya. Environmental Research Letters 12(9): 95001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7499 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7499
Nouioui I, Ghodhbane-Gtari F, Montero-Calasanz M D C, Göker M, Meier-Kolthoff J P, Schumann P, Rohde M, Goodfellow M, Fernandez M P, Normand P, Tisa L S, Klenk H, Gtari M (2016) Proposal of a type strain for Frankia alni (Woronin 1866) von Tubeuf 1895, emended description of Frankia alni, and recognition of Frankia casuarinae sp. nov. and Frankia elaeagni sp. nov. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 66(12): 5201-5210. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.001496 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.001496
Orwa C, Mutua A, Kindt R, Jamnadass R, Simons A (2009) Agroforestree data base: a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0. World Agroforestry Centre, Kenya. Accessed via the smartphone App version
Rahman S A, Jacobsen J B, Healey J R, Roshetko J M, Sunderland T (2017) Finding alternatives to swidden agriculture: Does agroforestry improve livelihood options and reduce pressure on the existing forest? Agroforest Syst 91(1): 185-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9912-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9912-4
Sollen-Norrlin M, Bhim Bahadur G, and Naomi L, Jane R (2020) Agroforestry Benefits and Challenges for Adoption in Europe and Beyond. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland) 12 (17): 7001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177001
Staton T, Breeze TD, Walters RJ, Smith J, Girling RD (2021) Productivity, biodiversity trade-offs, and farm income in agroforestry versus an arable system. Ecological Economics 191: 107214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107214
Valdivia C, Barbieri C, Gold M A (2012) Between forestry and farming: Policy and environmental implications of the barriers to agroforestry adoption. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 60(2): 155-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01248.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01248.x
Wong MTF, Akyeampong E, Nortcliff S, Rao M R, Swift R S (1995) Initial responses of maize and beans to decreased concentrations of monomeric inorganic aluminum with the application of manure or tree prunings to an oxisol in Burundi. Plant Soil 171(2): 275-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00010282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00010282
Zdruli P, Lal R, Cherlet M. Kapur S (2017) New World Atlas of Desertification and Issues of Carbon Sequestration, Organic Carbon Stocks, Nutrient Depletion and Implications for Food Security. In: Carbon Management, Technologies, and Trends in Mediterranean Ecosystems. Springer International Publishing. pp. 13-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45035-3_2
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Rene Niyomfura, Gerald Kapp, Canisius Patrick Mugunga, Jean de Dieu Niyomugabo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License CCBY that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
