MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2128865907 · doi:10.18174/27785

Fertile ground? : soil fertility management and the African smallholder

2007· dissertation· en· W2128865907 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael Misiko

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesWageningen University and ResearchEuropean CommissionInternational Development Research Centre
Mots-clésSoil fertilitySoil managementLivelihoodSoil qualityParticipatory action researchAgroforestryGeographyBusinessAgricultureSoil waterEconomicsEnvironmental scienceEconomic growth

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Keywords: smallholder farmers, soil fertility, experimentation, "inconvenience", realist.The focus in this thesis is to form a view of how well soil fertility research performs within the ever shifting smallholder contexts. This study examined application of agro-ecological knowledge for soil fertility management by smallholder farmers, with the view to enhancing the utility of research among resource-deprived farmers of westernKenya.A realist methodological approach to the study of soil management was applied. It is shown that soil fertility management operates under the assumption that consequences (soil management) are to be explained not just by contextual states (in this case farmer knowledge) but by "mechanisms" of decision making and soil management that need to be uncovered. Knowledge is nothing unless it engages with real soil management processes.Between 2003 and 2005, participatory experimentation, monitoring and evaluation of technologies and concepts were explored. Those experiments involved: (i) cereal-legume rotations; (ii) screening new soyabean varieties for selection among smallholders; (iii) organic resource quality concepts and biomass transfer; and(iv) mineralfertiliser response. Farmers' practices following these experiments were investigated, with particular focus on their underlying justifications and livelihood objectives.Participating farmers selected experimental plots to ensure that the soils were representative in terms of type, fertility status and history of cultivation. These farms were classified as infertile during the participatory soil characterisation. Farmers deliberately selected the infertile plots to "see if the new technologies worked", and as part of their wider objective. These experimental plots were researcher-designed.Researcher notions of organic resource quality was interpreted and amended by farmers based on existing knowledge, experiences and cultural constructs. For instance, Tithonia was perceived as a "hot resource" that could be added to composts to increase the "speed of cooking". Amendments to this concept, and to new soil fertility management technologies, were based on "ordinary" applications and reflected perceptions of inconvenience; meaning especially labour constraints, land shortage, uncertain yield and economic returns. Alternative (i.e. not-for-soil-fertility-management) uses of the different technologies were prominent. For example, legume varieties with utility beyond soil fertility management were preferred which resulted in readily observable gains when applied under variable local conditions. Those local conditions demanded the use of mineral (P) fertiliser in the successful implementation of the cereal-legume rotation scheme or adoption of newpromiscuoussoyabeanvarieties. Farmers selected varietiesprimarily on the basis of yield, rate of growth and appearance.Poor yields when mineral fertiliser was not applied, or unsteady crop responses after its use, cost - coinciding with priority expenditures and association with particular technologies such as hybrid maize - complicated the use of fertiliser.Limited understanding of fertiliser functionality, soil nutrients or soil fertility mechanisms is clarified in terms of the context-mechanism-outcome paradigm of "realist" explanation. The farmer paradigm refers mainly to context and outcomes, which we interpret as a kind of positivism. On the one hand, scientists' focus on mechanisms (to the apparent exclusion of context and outcome) does not match the highly variable local social, physical and economic contexts made more difficult by poor (implementation of) policy. Both farmers and researchers, it is argued, need to enhance their capacity to modify their knowledge sets by engaging in well-designed joint research drawing on the context-mechanism-outcome configuration. Experimentation is seen as one way to expand farmers' knowledge sets on soil fertility and to make mechanisms (e.g. nutrient availability) more visible, so that farmers can engage in soil fertility improvement activity in ways that are both more effective and more meaningful.This thesis also concludes that to increase the utility of research requires a shiftfrom component research to research at subsystem or whole-farm system level to address broader household objectives. The chances of sustainable application of scientific innovations by smallholders will be greatly enhanced if field research embraces and embeds social science methods of engaging the farmer sustainably as a partner in technology development and not simply as a client.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,014

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,005
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,248
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations33
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchTravaux en français237 207