MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283721643 · doi:10.3389/fsoil.2022.905664

Investigating Farmer Perspectives and Compost Application for Soil Management in Urban Agriculture in Mwanza, Tanzania

2022· article· en· W4283721643 on OpenAlex
Shefaza Esmail, Maren Oelbermann

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Soil Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicUrban Agriculture and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersTanzania Commission for Science and TechnologyUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsCompostFood securitySoil fertilityManureAgricultureSoil qualitySoil managementSnowball samplingEnvironmental scienceUrban agricultureProductivityGeographyBusinessAgricultural scienceAgroforestryAgronomySoil waterMathematicsEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

African countries are urbanizing at a rapid rate. Research on urban agriculture may be key to ensuring urban food and soil security. This study aimed to evaluate pathways for integrated soil fertility management using a mixed methods approach to consider both social perspectives and soil quality in the city of Mwanza, Tanzania. The social component of urban agriculture was explored using semi-structured interviews with urban farmers (n=34), through judgement and snowball sampling. Qualitative analyses showed that urban farmers range in age and gender, as well as in experiences and cultivation practices, though all use hand tools. Farmers reported reliance on rainy seasons for cultivating. However, farmers also raised concerns about a changing climate and unpredictability of rain, which impacts crop productivity. Most interviewed farmers (82%) would like to improve their soils, and many use manure as an amendment stating that animal manure is the best way to improve soil. Additionally, most urban farmers (62%) have not tried any form of food waste compost but responded positively to try it if they had access and were taught how to use it. For the second aspect of this study a field trial was conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of organic and inorganic amendments on soil quality and crop productivity over the short-term. The results from the field trial determined that organic amendments (poultry manure and food waste compost) improved soil water holding capacity by 14 to 19% and enhanced microbial biomass 1.7 to 4 times compared to treatments with inorganic nitrogen fertilizer. Crop productivity with organic amendments was comparable to that in treatments with nitrogen fertilizer. We conclude that urban agriculture is an integral aspect of Mwanza City, and the application of organic amendments improves urban soil quality compared to the application of inorganic fertilizer, which has implications for urban soil security, land use planning, and food sovereignty in developing countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it