ChapterPDF Available

Parklands, pasturelands, paddy rice fields, and coffee gardens as existing or potential agricultural socio-ecological production landscapes

Authors:
  • Nature and Livelihoods

Abstract and Figures

For conservation of biological diversity to be holistic, the diverse types of ecosystem and ecological communities occurring in a given landscape or country should be part of the conservation portfolio. Eastern Uganda has low protected-area coverage compared to other regions of the country. From the viewpoint of biodiversity conservation, the region is unique as it contains a vegetation belt (the Sudano-Sahelian photochorion) that is not adequately represented in Uganda’s protected areas probably has the most extensive and diverse wetlands in the country. Sustenance of the biodiversity in this region depends on conservation in farmlands. This study describes some of the ways in which conservation on farmlands in this region can be achieved in parklands, pasturelands, paddy rice fields, and coffee gardens, these being the main agroecosystems that have high potential to combine the goals of biodiversity conservation and agriculture-based livelihood. This case study is based on literature review and direct observation. Parkland and pastureland agroecosystems are considered existing Socio-ecological production landscapes (SEPLs), while paddy rice fields and gardens of shade coffee are regarded as potential.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 12. Parklands, pasturelands, paddy rice fields, and coffee gardens as
existing or potential agricultural socio-ecological production landscapes
William Olupot
Source: UNU-IAS & IR3S/UTIAS 2016, Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in
Africa. United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Tokyo, pp. 91-100
© United Nations University
ISBN (Hardcopy): 978-92-808-4569-3
ISBN (eBook): 978-92-808-4564-8
Full publication available from:
http://satoyama-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SEPLS-in-Africa_FINAL_lowres_web.pdf
91Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in Africa
Summary
For conservation of biological diversity to be holistic, the diverse types of ecosystem and ecological communities
occurring in a given landscape or country should be part of the conservation portfolio. Eastern Uganda has
low protected-area coverage compared to other regions of the country. From the viewpoint of biodiversity
conservation, the region is unique as it contains a vegetation belt (the Sudano-Sahelian photochorion) that
is not adequately represented in Uganda’s protected areas probably has the most extensive and diverse
wetlands in the country. Sustenance of the biodiversity in this region depends on conservation in farmlands.
This study describes some of the ways in which conservation on farmlands in this region can be achieved in
parklands, pasturelands, paddy rice elds, and coffee gardens, these being the main agroecosystems that
have high potential to combine the goals of biodiversity conservation and agriculture-based livelihood. This
case study is based on literature review and direct observation. Parkland and pastureland agroecosystems are
considered existing Socio-ecological production landscapes (SEPLs), while paddy rice elds and gardens of
shade coffee are regarded as potential.
Keywords: Parklands, Pasturelands, Rice paddies, Shade coffee, Agroecosystems
CHAPTER 12: UGANDA
Parklands, pasturelands, paddy rice elds,
and coffee gardens as existing or
potential agricultural socio-ecological
production landscapes
William Olupot
Nature and Livelihoods
P.O. Box 21669, Kampala, Uganda
Email address: wolupot@gmail.com
12.1 Natural and social
background
A large amount of biodiversity occurs outside
protected areas. In 1989, it was estimated that
approximately 50% of the world’s terrestrial area
is under agriculture, approximately 20% under
commercial forests, and another 25% occupied
by human settlements including cities, towns,
and villages (Western & Pearl 1989). Only 5% was
unmanaged or uninhabited land. Most species
were reported to occur in land that is managed
for agriculture, forestry, and human settlements.
In addition to protecting the integrity of parks,
therefore, it has been pointed out that efforts
to conserve biological diversity must include
agricultural, forest, and other managed ecosystems
(Pimentel et al. 1992).
Success in that effort depends on making
biodiversity an integral component of production
at local levels. Nature and Livelihoods NGO has
initiated these efforts in eastern Uganda (Figure
1). This region has the least protected area estate
92 Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in Africa
Chapter 12: Existing or potential agricultural SEPLS in Uganda
in the country. The likelihood of efforts to integrate
biodiversity conservation into agriculture in this
region has promise for four farming types: parklands,
pasturelands (pastoral areas), paddy rice elds, and
coffee gardens. Parkland farming and livestock
grazing are traditional systems in which biodiversity is
an integral component of production. In this respect,
they can be considered as existing agricultural
Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes (SEPLs)
(Satoyama Initiative 2013). Paddy rice farming and
coffee growing are relatively new systems that
unintentionally benet certain native species or have
high potential to do so.
Figure 1: Map of eastern Uganda showing drainage and other features
Source: Prepared for Nature and Livelihoods by the GIS Section of the Wetlands Management Department,
Ministry of Water and Environment, Kampala
93Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in Africa
Chapter 12: Existing or potential agricultural SEPLS in Uganda
Parkland farming and livestock keeping are practiced
in the drier northern areas of the region, which lie
within the Sudano-Sahelian vegetation belt. Parkland
farming is a dryland cropping system in which trees
are left in gardens when virgin areas are opened up for
cropping (Boffa 1999; Lovett & Haq 2000). In Uganda,
the main crops grown under this agroecosystem are
millet, sorghum, cassava, groundnuts, and peas. It
usually includes leaving strips of uncultivated land
between elds. Areas reserved for livestock grazing
are usually seasonally ooded grass swamps.
Upland areas dominated by rocky soils were, until
recent years, reserved for livestock grazing. Paddy
rice is grown in shallow swamps, usually in the
wetter areas to the south of the region, though rice
growing also occurs in the drier swamps to the north.
Rice is cultivated in pure stands. Rice farming was
introduced into Uganda in 1904 (Bigirwa 2005, cited
in Odogola 2006). Thereafter, growing was limited
until the establishment of the irrigated Kibimba and
Doho rice schemes in 1966 and 1976 respectively
(Odogola 2006). The wetlands of eastern Uganda are
the main rice-producing area of the country (Haneishi
et al. 2013). Rice is grown primarily by subsistence
farmers as a commercial crop. Shade coffee (Coffea
arabica) of a commercial variety was rst planted in
Uganda around 1900 (Brown & Hunter 1913). The
main arabica coffee farming areas in eastern Uganda
around the slopes of Mt. Elgon, where it is cultivated
by smallholder farmers.
Cocoa (Theobroma cacao) farming is another
agricultural practice in this region that has inherent
potential to support biodiversity conservation when
well managed. Such potential has been demonstrated
(Rice & Greenburg 2000; Scroth & Harvey 2007).
However, cocoa farming is not further discussed
in this paper as it is still a relatively new practice in
Uganda even though cocoa was introduced into the
country in 1901 (Brown & Hunter 1913).
12.2 Functions and values of
existing agricultural SEPLs
12.2.1 Globally demonstrated benets
The importance of integrating biodiversity
conservation into agriculture has been little
demonstrated. However, available information
points to substantial livelihood benet. Although
farming benets certain indigenous species, those
species also contribute to agricultural production.
Pest, weed, and soil fertility control are thought to be
some of the most important services of biodiversity in
agroecosystems. Agricultural production is reported
to be correlated with biodiversity in agroecosystems,
within limits: as the biodiversity increases, so does
agricultural production (Luo, Fu & Traore 2014). In
coffee gardens, it has been shown by Classen et al.
(2014) that exclusion of pest predators (birds and
bats) reduced fruit set and inclusion of pollinators
(bees and butteries) increased the weight of coffee
berries. For mosaic agroecosystems, beekeeping is
reported to depend heavily on the biodiversity of
uncropped pasturelands (Blair 2015). Even weeds
are reported to be useful. Despite their negative
competitive effect on crops, arable weeds have been
reported to support various species of benecial
insects, especially crop pollinators, and high weed
diversity is considered favorable in maintaining and
regulating the microbial diversity of the soil as well as
in reducing the effects of harmful weeds (Marshall et
al. 2003). In parklands, natural trees left in plantings
can also serve to improve soil fertility, for example
as demonstrated for Faidherbia albida parklands.
Parklands also supply edible fruit (Boffa 1999). In wet
pastures, native shes and other aquatic organisms
account for a large share of residents’ intakes of
animal protein, micronutrients, and essential fatty
acids, especially for poor households (FAO 2004).
Ways in which these farming practices benet
biodiversity can be illustrated with a few of numerous
examples. For rice elds, much of the available
documentation comes from Asian countries (Kurihara
1989; Bambaradeniya & Amerasinghe 2003;
Edirisinghe & Bambaradeniya 2006). The rice eld
ecosystem is potentially one of the most sustainable
forms of agriculture that can contribute to sustaining
rich biodiversity. In coffee agroecosystems, the
requirement for shading of arabica coffee bushes
affords an opportunity to elements of native
biodiversity to survive in an otherwise degraded
landscape. Unlike unshaded coffee, shade coffee
has been documented to support, for example,
conservation of arthropods, amphibians, resident
and migratory birds, and mammals (Tejeda-Cruz
et al. 2010). Many of the supported species would
normally be dependent upon tropical forest. Pastures
sustain native biodiversity by retaining native
grasses, herbs, and shrubs, while parklands promote
the maintenance of indigenous tree species richness
and thereby act as reserves of native biodiversity
(Fifanou et al. 2011).
94 Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in Africa
Chapter 12: Existing or potential agricultural SEPLS in Uganda
12.2.2 Demonstrated and potential
benets of native biodiversity to local
livelihoods
(a) Control of harmful species such as pests and
weeds
This is a service that potentially exists in all agricultural
types described in this paper. This study is not aware
of documented evidence from Uganda that relates
to this service.
(b) Pollination service
This service would be important mainly for parklands,
pasturelands, and coffee gardens. However, crops
dependent on this service and the main pollinators
in Uganda need to be identied.
(c) Soil nutrient supply and retention
This service would be cross-cutting for the four
agroecosystems. Tree retention in plantations in
parklands (Photo 1), promoting heterogeneity
of rice elds, and low-impact grazing of pastures
have potential to facilitate this service. Anecdotal
observations suggest that cropping of seasonal
wetlands is degrading (Photo 2) lands that would
normally support livestock. In non-seasonal wetlands,
accumulation of rich black soils has promoted
emergence of a booming rice industry (Photo 3).
Photo 1: Example of parkland cropping. Parkland remnants
like this can be bases for revitalization of the parkland farming
system. Photo taken in Toroma County in Katakwi district
Photo credit: William Olupot
Photo 2: Wet pastures in the northerly areas (Teso Subregion)
of eastern Uganda. Retention of grass swamps for pasture as
opposed to cropping benets biodiversity and is probably the
only livelihood practice that is sustainable in the long term for
these landscapes. Photo is of a major wetland draining into
Lake Bisina.
Photo credit: William Olupot
Photo 3: Paddy rice agroecosystem. Kibimba and Doho Rice
Schemes support a stunning array of species, particularly
the avifauna. Other rice farmlands have potential to support
biodiversity in a similar way if appropriate measures are taken to
integrate biodiversity conservation into rice farming
Photo credit: William Olupot
Depending on the species, shade trees in coffee
gardens (Photo 4) may contribute to maintaining
good soil conditions in this system.
95Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in Africa
Chapter 12: Existing or potential agricultural SEPLS in Uganda
Photo 4: Coffee garden agroecosystem with shade trees on
the slopes of Mt. Elgon. If managed properly, the practice of
including native trees in plantations has potential to sustain
a cross-section of native biodiversity, particularly species that
promote berry yield.
Photo credit: Paul Okullo
(d) Food provision
Native trees left in parklands and pasturelands
provide this service (Olupot 2015). A recent study
by Nature and Livelihoods has shown that fruits
from parklands and wooded pastures contain
certain essential nutrients that occur in limited
quantity in certain agricultural fruit (Olupot &
Omujal 2015). Wet pastures are a source of sh, and
both parklands and wooded pastures are a source
of edible mushrooms that contribute to the food
security of people in these areas. In Kibimba Rice
Scheme, a dam created to support the irrigated
paddies has become a source of sh for the local
people (Personal Observation).
(e) Forage and water retention value
The wetlands of the northern part of this region are
mainly grass swamps. As such, they are an important
source of both water and pasture for livestock.
Experience gained by Nature and Livelihoods while
working in this region points to wetland reservation
for this service as opposed to cropping has
contributing to the sustenance of the native aquatic
and oral diversity in this area.
(f) Amenity value
Irrigated rice paddies and wet pastures have a high
amenity value owing to abundance of birds and a
beautiful scenery. However, these esthetic values
have not been promoted for recreation to the level
that they might be.
12.3 Challenges and responses
12.3.1 Challenges
(a) General
Increasing human populations and changing societal
values and practices in Uganda are leading to loss
of traditional practices that sustained biodiversity in
parklands and pasturelands, while rice and coffee
farming are new practices that have high potential
but have no built-in mechanisms to conserve
biodiversity.
(b) Use of agrochemicals
In many types of agroecosystem around the
world, the use of agricultural chemicals including
pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers has been
demonstrated to be harmful to biodiversity, and
in some cases has resulted in extinction of certain
species (USDA 1969; Reid & Miller 1989). In addition
to reducing biodiversity, they pollute the water
and soil environments (Luo, Fu & Traore 2014).
Such pressures and their impacts have largely not
been documented in Uganda. For agroecosystems
considered in this paper, chemical application has
been reported for the irrigated paddies (Namaalwa
et al. 2013) but not for other farming systems.
(c) Heavy livestock grazing
Evidence of heavy livestock grazing and its impact
has not been documented in the pasturelands of
eastern Uganda; yet such evidence is needed to
guide local people towards sustainable practices.
Anecdotal observations of bare patches in grazed
areas however suggest occurrence of this practice.
Elsewhere, heavy livestock grazing and trampling
have been shown to reduce rare plant species,
especially palatable ones (West 1993; Holden
1992). From the viewpoint of livestock production,
heavy grazing results in gradual reduction of fresh
grass yield, grass species composition, and quality
96 Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in Africa
Chapter 12: Existing or potential agricultural SEPLS in Uganda
of forage (Zhang et al. 2002). Intensive grazing
pressure on rangelands has been reported to lead
to poor biomass production for both livestock and
wildlife over many years (Blench & Sommer 1999).
(d) Burning of pastures
Pasture burning is a common practice in grass
swamps and also occurs in papyrus swamps to
a lower level during the dry season. Nature and
Livelihoods’ working experience is that unplanned,
uncoordinated burning results in severe shortage
of pasture during the dry season, leading to loss
of condition and increased mortality of livestock,
but this effect remains to be demonstrated through
systematic investigation. Effects of burning on
biodiversity are also pronounced. Several rare tree
and shrub species (such as African ebony, Diospyros
mespiliformis which furnishes edible fruit, and
the knob wood, Zanthoxylum chalybeum, which
residents value highly as for medicine and spice)
have been severely depleted by wildres occurring
during dry seasons.
(e) Farming of marginal areas
Population growth appears to be driving arable
farming into marginal areas with low soil fertility and
hence not suitable for cropping. Such areas were
traditionally reserved for livestock grazing (Photo 5).
Direct negative impacts of claiming marginal areas
for cropping are becoming apparent. For example, in
addition to resulting pasture shortage, water scarcity
for both people and livestock was reported during
Nature and Livelihoods’ survey of the status of gray-
crowned cranes in the wetlands of this region in 2014
(Olupot 2014). In one case, it forced a community
to restore wetland that they had converted to rice
elds back to native grass cover. This action resulted
in increased availability of water but had by that time
not fully restored the lost pastures, as the wetlands
were still dominated by sedges and other grasses
not palatable to cattle.
(f) General change in societal values and
overexploitation of biodiversity
Reduced appreciation of the food provision value of
native plants is leading to loss of trees traditionally
left in gardens through parkland farming. The trees
are being lost to commercial charcoal and timber
production. Loss of uncultivated eld borders
(hedgerows, shelterbelts) is also ongoing. In wooded
pastures, there is an increasing trend of woody
cover loss and use of destructive methods (such
as application of chemicals to mounds) to control
termites. In paddy rice elds, the necessity of clearing
all trees from paddies that goes with rice growing has
led to loss of nesting and roosting grounds for birds.
Non-consideration of soil conservation is leading
to a progressive loss of soil fertility in rice elds,
as evidenced by emergence of infertile soils along
wetland edges years after cropping. Killing of birds
also occurs in paddies outside the irrigated schemes
(Olupot 2014) and in wetlands of the drylands,
various pressures include overstocking and cropping
leading to undesirable impact on sh, pasture, and
water provision services.
(g) Monocultural tendency
Rice growing is the only monocultural practice among
the agroecosystems described in this paper and is
expanding. Although its effect on biodiversity and
livelihoods has yet to be demonstrated in Uganda,
studies from elsewhere are informative. According to
these studies, widespread clearing of fringing natural
habitat and indiscriminate use of broad-spectrum
biocides leads to the destruction of natural enemies,
causing a resurgence of primary and secondary
pests and development of insecticide-resistant pest
populations (Bambaradeniya & Amerasinghe 2003;
Luo, Fu & Traore 2014).
Photo 5: A cultivated wetland/upland interface along the shore
of Lake Bisina. Soil on such interfaces is usually infertile and their
cultivation neither benets biodiversity nor livelihoods. Water is
visible near the top right corner of the picture.
Photo credit: William Olupot
97Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in Africa
Chapter 12: Existing or potential agricultural SEPLS in Uganda
(h) General non-integration of biodiversity into
farming practices
Although there are many opportunities to integrate
biodiversity into farming, such efforts are still
limited in Uganda. Traditional farming practices
such as maintaining uncultivated eld borders and
leaving native trees in cropped areas are not being
retained. New practices that have potential to do so
in rice paddies are little encouraged. In rice elds,
the only ongoing effort to integrate biodiversity
into agriculture, though still limited, is that by the
rice schemes (Kibimba and Doho). The proprietors
of these schemes discourage hunting of birds and
other wildlife. In coffee gardens, the only response is
an effort by local CBOs to popularize tree planting.
However, this is primarily for stabilization of the
landslide-prone soil soil (Kato et al. 2015) rather
than for integrating native biodiversity into coffee
farming.
12.3.2 Responses to the challenges
Nature and Livelihoods has been documenting
challenges and opportunities to determine avenues
for integrating biodiversity conservation into
farming in these agroecosystems. This has only just
started. We are not aware of any other organization
engaged in such, or systematically integrating
native biodiversity into livelihood effort in these
agroecosystems. As a step toward addressing the
challenge of loss of traditional values attached
to biodiversity, we recently analyzed nutritional
values and conducted high-value market product
formulation trials for 10 types of native edible fruits
collected from the parklands and wooded pastures.
The results indicate superior values for some of the
essential nutrients compared to fruits commonly
grown in the same areas, and a high potential for
use of native fruits in producing products such as
jam, juice, and wine (Olupot & Omujal 2015). This
information is expected to support awareness
raising and community education efforts, thereby
reinforcing the traditional practice of leaving native
trees on farmlands and wooded pasturelands where
they grow naturally.
12.4 Recommendations
Parklands and pasturelands are existing SEPLs that
should be revitalized. Paddy rice elds and coffee
gardens are farmlands that have high potential to be
SEPLs if biodiversity considerations are integrated
into livelihood effort in these agroecosystems. Priority
actions for engagement of the local communities
include addressing threats at all scales (e.g., burning
in rangeland, demand for charcoal leading to loss
of trees in parklands, increased erosive power of
water in paddies at landscape and regional scales,
and high demand for more arable land, leading to
clearing of marginal areas at microscales). Actions
also include enlightening farmers with respect
to benets realized at microscales (e.g., food
provision, pest control value, and pollination value of
biodiversity in gardens) as well as those that occur at
the landscape scale (e.g., income from tourism, soil
erosion control value of heterogeneous habitat in rice
paddies). From the standpoint of existing knowledge
of these farming practices, the following are some
of the specic actions that should be implemented,
arranged in no particular order:
i) Biodiversity inventory and documentation of use
values. As for protected areas, documentation of
biodiversity in SEPLS is needed to guide actions.
Unlike protected areas where assessment of
use values of individual species may not be as
urgent, such is required for farmland SEPLs,
as these form the main basis for motivating
landowners to sustain at least a cross section
of indigenous plant and animal populations.
Such assessments should include determination
of non-extractive values that can be realized at
local levels; for example, aesthetic values.
ii) An effort to identify organisms that can serve as
a focus of action (e.g., pests, pollinators, weeds,
keystone or link species, threatened, and
endangered species) in each agroecosystem.
iii) Documenting benecial and of needlessly
destructive practices.
iv) Awareness raising and education to counter
the perception that all wild species are harmful
to agriculture. For example, insects, fungi, and
other organisms that are pests of humans and
crops make up less than 1% of the species in a
given location (Pimentel et al. 1992).
v) Research to reinforce existing good practices
and traditional values locally attached to
biodiversity; for example, those that promote
retention of species of high socioeconomic value
such as those that provide food or medicines,
improve soil fertility, or serve as sources of
nectar and pollen.
98 Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in Africa
Chapter 12: Existing or potential agricultural SEPLS in Uganda
vi) Promoting integrated pest management to curb
overuse of insecticides, reducing their toxic
impact on biodiversity as well as on human
health. The philosophy of maintaining a mosaic
of habitats within each agroecosystem should
also be promoted by demonstrating its effect on
soil fertility and the benecial effect of species
such as natural predators and parasitoids of
crop pests.
vii) Promoting sound soil management practices
such as retaining crop residues, use of cover
crops, diversication of crops in gardens,
intercropping, use of shelter belts, use of
livestock manure, and agroforestry particularly
in parklands. These practices would serve as a
disincentive for farming of marginal areas that
sustain wildlife and remove parkland trees for
short-term nancial gain.
viii) In pasturelands, promoting pasture management
that prevents overgrazing and wildres, and
retain native bushes in balance with grass
cover. Farmers need to be educated about
the damaging effect of unsustainable practices
on forage stocks and consequently livestock
production. They also need to be sensitized.
Research is needed to generate information that
can support this.
ix) Conducting educational activities to counter
unsustainable farming and resource exploitation
practices that have depleted woody and other
natural vegetation buffering wetlands and
uplands. In places where they have been lost,
these can be restored through revegetation. As
soils of wetland edges in this region are typically
infertile in this region, this revegetation of such
sites would not constitute loss of farmland.
x) Restoring, in manageable densities native
trees that naturally occur in wetlands but have
been eliminated by rice growing. Such trees
would support particularly avian fauna, many
species of which appear harmless to rice.
xi) Establishing uncultivated buffers of natural
vegetation along courses of rivers such as
Namatala, Manafwa, Malaba, and Mpologoma
to regulate water speed that in turn reduces
erosion and to supports functions such as water
retention in the wetland for various livelihood
purposes.
xii) Discouraging indiscriminate exclusion of wildlife
and its overhunting for food through education
of local communities and relevant policies.
xiii) Promoting, through farmer education and
provision of seedlings diversication of native
trees in shade coffee gardens.
xiv) Conducting research to assess the potential of
other agroecosystems to serve as SEPLs; systems
such as cocoa elds and sugar-cane plantations.
In one area expansion of sugar-cane growing
has indirectly promoted restoration of lost
populations of species such as guinea fowl for
which the crop has provided suitable breeding,
foraging, and roosting habitat (Gilbert Isabirye-
Basuta, personal communication).
Acknowledgement
The author thanks the GIS section of the Wetlands
Management Department, Ministry of Water and
Environment, Kampala for preparing the map. Some
of the insights about rice paddies were developed
during mapping of threats to and status assessment
of grey crowned cranes in the wetlands of this region
nanced by the North Carolina Zoo through the
International Crane Foundation/Endangered Wildlife
Partnership. The author is grateful for this support.
References
Bambaradeniya, CNB & Amerasinghe, FP 2003,
Biodiversity associated with rice eld agroecosystem
in Asian countries: A brief review, Working paper
63, Colombo, Shri Lanka, International Water
Management Institute, viewed 30 January 2016,
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Working_
Papers/working/WOR63.pdf.
Boffa, JM 1999, Agroforestry parklands in sub-
Saharan Africa, FAO conservation guide 34, FAO,
Rome, viewed 29 December, 2015, http://www.fao.
org/docrep/005/x3940e/x3940e00.htm.
Blair, J 2015, Beekeepers bank on biodiversity in
pasturelands, viewed 4 January 2016, http://www.
albertafarmexpress.ca/2015/04/16/beekeepers-
bank-on-biodiversity-in-pasture-lands/.
99Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in Africa
Chapter 12: Existing or potential agricultural SEPLS in Uganda
Blench, R & Sommer, F 1999, Understanding
rangeland biodiversity, Overseas Development
Institute, Portland House, Stag Place, London SW1E
5DP, viewed 29 December, 2015, http://www.odi.
org/resources/docs/2531.pdf.
Brown, E & Hunter, HH 1913, Planting
in Uganda: Coffee, Para Rubber, Cocoa,
viewed 30 December, 2015, https://archive.
org/stream/plantinginuganda00browrich/
plantinginuganda00browrich_djvu.txt.
Classen, A, Peters, MK, Ferger, SW, Helbig-Bonitz,
M, Schmack, JM, Maassen, G, Schleuning, M, Kalko,
EKV, Bo¨hning-Gaese, K & Steffan-Dewenter, I 2015,
Complementary ecosystem services provided by
pest predators and pollinators increase quantity and
quality of coffee yields’, Proceedings of the Royal
Society B, vol. 281, pp. 20133148.
Edirisinghe, JP & Bambaradeniya, CNB 2006, ‘Rice
elds: some ecosystem rich in biodiversity’, Journal
of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka, vol.
34, no. 2, pp. 57-59.
Fifanou, VG, Ousmane, C, Gauthier, B & Brice, S 2011,
‘Traditional agroforestry systems and biodiversity
conservation in Benin (West Africa)’, Agroforestry
Systems, vol. 82, pp. 1-13.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2004,
Aquatic biodiversity in rice elds, viewed 29
December, 2015, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3841e.
pdf.
Haneishi, Y, Okello, SE, Asea, G, Tsuboi, T, Maruyama,
A, Takagaki, M & Kikuchi, M 2013, ‘Exploration of
rainfed rice farming in Uganda based on a nationwide
survey: Evolution, regionality, farmers and land’,
African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 8, no.
25, pp. 3318-3329.
Holden, C 1992, ‘A call for action on the Alala’,
Science, pp. 256:1136.
Kato, SS, Okot-Okumu, J, Okullo, P & Obua, J
2015, ‘Assessing community-based organizations’
inuence on trees and grass planting for forest, soil
and water management around Mt. Elgon National
Park in Uganda’ Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, pp.
1-12, DOI: 10.1080/14728028.2015.1102094.
Kurihara, Y 1989, ‘Ecology of some rice elds in
Japan as exemplied by some benthic fauna, with
notes on management’, International Revue der
Gesamten Hydrobiologia, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 507-
548.
Lovett, PN & Haq, N 2000, ‘Evidence for anthropic
selection of the shea nuts tree (Vitellaria paradoxa)’,
Agroforestry Systems, vol. 48, pp. 273-288.
Luo, Y, Fu, H, & Traore, S 2014, ‘Biodiversity
Conservation in Rice Paddies in China: Toward
Ecological Sustainability’, Sustainability, vol. 6, pp.
6107-6124.
Marshall, EJP, Brown, VK, Boatman, ND, Lutman,
PJW, Squire, GR, Ward, LK 2003, ‘The role of weeds
in supporting biological diversity within crop elds’,
Weed Research, vol. 43, pp. 77-89.
Namaalwa, S, Van dam, AA, Funk, A, Ajie, GS &
Kaggwa, RC 2013, ‘A characterization of the drivers,
pressures, and ecosystem functions and services of
the Namataala wetland, Uganda’, Environmental
Science & Policy, vol. 34, pp. 44-57.
Odogola, W 2006, Final survey report on the status
of rice production, processing and marketing in
Uganda, viewed 29 December, 2015, http://www.
mofa.go.jp/mofaj/.
Olupot, W 2014, Mapping Threats to Grey Crowned
Cranes in Eastern Uganda: Results of a Rapid Survey
for Conservation Action, viewed 10 February, 2015,
https://www.ewt.org.za/newsletter%20articals/
nov2014/Mapping_Threats_to_Grey_Crowned_
Cranes_in_Eastern_.pdf.
Olupot, W 2015, ‘Socio-ecological production
landscape denition and issues assessment–a case
of Uganda’s drylands’, in Enhancing knowledge
for better management of socio-ecological
production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS)
(Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review vol.1), UNU-
IAS and IGES (eds.), United Nations University
Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability,
Tokyo, pp. 79-89, viewed 5 January, 2016,
http://satoyama-initiative.org/en/satoyama-
initiative-thematic-review-vol-1/.
Olupot, W & Omujal, F 2015, ‘Experimenting on
production of high value market products from
edible wild fruits’, Nature and Livelihoods Technical
Report no. 5.
100 Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in Africa
Chapter 12: Existing or potential agricultural SEPLS in Uganda
Pimentel, D, Stachow, U, Takas, DA, Brubaker, HW,
Dumas, AR, Meaney, JJ, O’Neill, JAS, Onsi, DE &
Corzilius, DB, 1992, ‘Conserving biological diversity
in agricultural/forestry systems’, BioScience, vol. 42,
pp. 354-362.
Reid, WV & Miller, KR 1989, ‘Keeping options alive:
the scientic basis for conserving biodiversity’,
World Resources Institute, Washington DC,
viewed 29 December 2015, http://pdf.wri.org/
keepingoptionsalive_bw.pdf.
Rice, R & Greenburg, R 2000, ‘Cacao cultivation and
the conservation of biological diversity’, Ambio, vol.
29, pp. 167-173.
Satoyama Initiative, 2013. Strategy for the
International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative.
Viewed 22 February 2015, http://satoyama-initiative.
org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IPSI-Strategy.
pdf.
Scroth, G & Harvey, CA 2007, ‘Biodiversity
conservation in cocoa production landscapes: an
overview’ Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 16, pp.
2237-2244.
Tejeda-Cruz, C, Silva-Rivera, E, Barton, JR &
Sutherland, WJ 2010, ‘Why shade coffee does not
guarantee biodiversity conservation’, Ecology and
Society, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 13.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1969. A national program of research for
bees and other pollinating insects and insects
affecting man. USDA, State Universities, and
Land Grant Colleges, Washington DC, viewed 30
December 2015, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/
pt?id=coo.31924003032327.
West, NE 1993, ‘Biodiversity of rangelands’, Journal
of Range Management, vol. 46, pp. 2-13.
Western, D & Pearl, MC (eds) 1989, Conservation
for the Twenty-rst Century, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Zhang B, Yao Y, Cheng W, Zhou C, Lu Z, Chen
X, Alshir K, ErDowlet I, Zhang L, & Shi Q 2002,
‘Human-Induced Changes to Biodiversity and
Alpine Pastureland in the Bayanbulak Region of the
East Tienshan Mountains’, Mountain Research and
Development, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 383-389.
... The nutrient concentration in a food is then compared to the recommended concentration of a given nutrient in a healthful diet. Using the food composition data base, Rampersaud (2007) [10] was able to classify 100% fruit juices of apple, grape, pink grapefruit, white grapefruit, orange, pineapple and prune by their nutrient density using methods like nutrient for calorie, calorie for nutrient and ratio of recommended to restricted (RRR) nutrient., nutrient for calorie. Pink grapefruits were found to contain the highest nutrient density score with this ranking being fairly consistent. ...
... The study was conducted in the Teso subregion of eastern Uganda. Teso sub region lies within the dryland socio-ecological production landscape [10] stretching from Southwestern to North-eastern Uganda. A socioeconomic survey earlier conducted showed that this region is rich in WEF [11]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Based on a nationwide survey of rice growing households, this paper explores how rainfed rice cultivation evolved in Uganda, how diverse it is in different regions of the country, what categories of farmers have adopted it, and how it has been integrated into their traditional cropping patterns. We find that the diffusion of rainfed rice cultivation accelerated at around the turn of this century when upland New Rice for Africa (NERICA) was introduced in the agro-ecological zones receiving annual rainfall of 1000 mm or more. The growth rate of area under rainfed rice cultivation from 2000 to 2009 was 14% year-1 in the lowest zone and as high as 31% year-1 in the highest zone. Rice was grown predominantly by smallholders. Farmers growing rainfed rice, upland and lowland alike, cultivated on average 2 ha of farm land, of which one-third (0.6 ha) was planted to rice, and the sizes of cultivated area and rice planted area of around 70% of farmers were below these averages. In terms of land tenure systems, rice was a crop of more importance in areas where the traditional customary tenure systems still remained, and the incidence of leasehold land tenure was higher for rice cultivation than for other crops.
Article
Full-text available
Assessing community-based organizations’ influence on trees and grass planting for forest, soil and water management around Mt. Elgon National Park in Uganda Kato Stonewall Shaban, James Okot Okumu, Okullo Paul and Obua Joseph ABSTRACT Mt. Elgon ecosystem is one of the most important watersheds in the East African region rich in biodiversity but extremely fragile and vulnerable to degradation effects such as landslides and soil erosion with heavy negative impact on local peoples’ livelihoods. Farmers carry out tree and grass planting in an effort to manage forest, soil, and water. In 2013, we assessed the influence of community-based organizations (CBOs) on on-farm trees and grass planting around Mt. Elgon National Park (MENP) with the aim of determining its impacton the community forestry strategy. Data were collected from 364 households in 52 villages and entered in MS excel. R statistical environment was used to perform Redundancy Analysis and Hierarchical Clustering of planted species outside forest, among other analysis. The presence of functional community-based organizations (F1,119 = 9.08, p < 0.001), respondents training (F1,119 = 2.28, p < 0.028), and landholding (F1,119 = 1.99, p < 0.048) was found to significantly influence trees and grass planting around MENP. It is recommended that more CBOs be formed to increase community participation and effectiveness in on-farm trees and grass planting in order to increase environmental services benefits.
Article
Full-text available
Rice paddies are artificial wetlands that supply people with food and provide wildlife with habitats, breeding areas, shelters, feeding grounds and other services, and rice paddies play an important part in agricultural ecological systems. However, modern agricultural practices with large-scale intensive farming have significantly accelerated the homogenization of the paddy field ecosystem. Modern agriculture mostly relies on chemically-driven modern varieties and irrigation to ensure high production, resulting in the deterioration and imbalance of the ecosystem. Consequently, outbreaks of diseases, insects and weeds have become more frequent in paddy fields. This paper describes the current situation of rice paddy biodiversity in China and analyzes the community characteristics of arthropods and weedy plants. Meanwhile, we discuss how biodiversity was affected by modern agriculture changes, which have brought about a mounting crisis threatening to animals and plants once common in rice paddies. Measures should be focused to firstly preventing further deterioration and, then, also, promoting restoration processes. Ecological sustainability can be achieved by restoring paddy field biodiversity through protecting the ecological environment surrounding the paddy fields, improving paddy cropping patterns, growing rice with less agricultural chemicals and chemical fertilizers, constructing paddy systems with animals and plants and promoting ecological education and public awareness.
Article
Full-text available
Wild animals substantially support crop production by providing ecosystem services, such as pollination and natural pest control. However, the strengths of synergies between ecosystem services and their dependencies on land-use management are largely unknown. Here, we took an experimental approach to test the impact of land-use intensification on both individual and combined pollination and pest control services in coffee production systems at Mount Kilimanjaro. We established a full-factorial pollinator and vertebrate exclosure experiment along a land-use gradient from traditional homegardens (agroforestry systems), shaded coffee plantations to sun coffee plantations (total sample size = 180 coffee bushes). The exclusion of vertebrates led to a reduction in fruit set of ca 9%. Pollinators did not affect fruit set, but significantly increased fruit weight of coffee by an average of 7.4%. We found no significant decline of these ecosystem services along the land-use gradient. Pest control and pollination service were thus complementary, contributing to coffee production by affecting the quantity and quality of a major tropical cash crop across different coffee production systems at Mount Kilimanjaro.
Article
Namatala wetland near the town of Mbale in the Eastern region of Uganda is a papyrus wetland that is subject to conversion for agriculture (mainly rice farming) and pollution by wastewater. The main goal of this study was to analyze the ecosystem functions and services of Namatala wetland and their drivers of change, and to suggest directions for sustainable use. Data on climate, hydrology, water quality, population and land use were collected. Stakeholder workshops were organized at national and local levels to identify stakeholder interests in the wetland and conflicts. The institutional context for management of Namatala wetland was analyzed. A qualitative assessment of the ecosystem services was performed. All results were integrated into a DPSIR network showing the drivers of change, impact on ecosystem services and possible responses for management. Results show that the communities around Namatala wetland strongly depend on the wetland ecosystem for provisioning services. A spatial gradient in ecosystem services was observed. The upper, converted part of the wetland is more important for provisioning services while the lower, more intact wetland supports regulating and habitat ecosystem services. The institutional framework is complex due to the involvement of several ministries at the national level and several levels of decentralized, local government. Horizontal and vertical coordination of policy implementation is weak. There are diverging perceptions among stakeholders about the priority issues in wetland management. Resource users worry about water and land use conflicts, while local and national government agencies are more concerned about agricultural encroachment and biodiversity loss. There are also differences in interpretation of land ownership between the national wetland policy and local customary arrangements. For sustainable management of Namatala wetland, there is a need for more horizontal and vertical coordination in wetland policy implementation, application of sustainable agriculture and integrated water and nutrient management techniques, and continued monitoring, research and capacity building to support adaptive management.