Perennial grain cropping systems could address a number of contemporary agroecological problems, including soil degradation, NO 3 leaching, and soil C loss. Since it is likely that these systems will be rotated with other agronomic crops, a better understanding of how rapidly perennial grain systems improve local ecosystem services is needed. We quantified soil moisture, lysimeter NO 3 leaching, soil labile C accrual, and grain yields in the first 2 yr of a perennial grain crop under development [kernza wheatgrass, Thinopyrum intermedium (Host) Barkworth & D.R. Dewey] relative to annual winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under three management systems. Overall, differences between annual and perennial plants were much greater than differences observed due to management. In the second year, perennial kernza reduced soil moisture at lower depths and reduced total NO 3 leaching (by 86% or more) relative to annual wheat, indicating that perennial roots actively used more available soil water and captured more applied fertilizer than annual roots. Carbon mineralization rates beneath kernza during the second year were increased 13% compared with annual wheat. First-year kernza grain yields were 4.5% of annual wheat, but second year yields increased to 33% of wheat with a harvest index of 0.10. Although current yields are modest, the realized ecosystem services associated with this developing crop are promising and are a compelling reason to continue breeding efforts for higher yields and for use as a multipurpose crop (e.g., grain, forage, and biofuel).

SUMMARYThe large diversity of farms and farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa calls for agricultural improvement options that are adapted to the context in which smallholder farmers operate. The socio-ecological niche concept incorporates the agro-ecological, socio-cultural, economic and institutional dimensions and the multiple levels of this context in order to identify which options fit best. In this paper, we illustrate how farming systems analysis, following the DEED cycle of Describe, Explain, Explore and Design, and embedding co-learning amongst researchers, farmers and other stakeholders, helps to operationalize the socio-ecological niche concept. Examples illustrate how farm typologies, detailed farm characterization and on-farm experimental work, in combination with modelling and participatory approaches inform the matching of options to the context at regional, village, farm and field level. Recommendation domains at these gradually finer levels form the basis for gradually more detailed baskets of options from which farmers and other stakeholders may choose, test and adjust to their specific needs. Tailored options identified through the DEED cycle proof to be more relevant, feasible and performant as compared to blanket recommendations in terms of both researcher and farmer-identified criteria. As part of DEED, on-farm experiments are particularly useful in revealing constraints and risks faced by farmers. We show that targeting options to the niches in which they perform best, helps to reduce this risk. Whereas the conclusions of our work about the potential for improving smallholders' livelihoods are often sobering, farming systems analysis allows substantiating the limitations of technological options, thus highlighting the need for enabling policies and institutions that may improve the larger-scale context and increase the uptake potential of options.

No abstract

No abstract

SUMMARYDevelopment actors, including the African Union, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa and bilateral donors, promote a technology-driven sustainable intensification of agriculture as a way to feed a growing world population and reduce rural poverty. A broader view of smallholder agriculture in the context of rural livelihoods suggests that technological solutions alone are unlikely to meet these goals. Analysis of the solution space for agricultural interventions in a high potential area of southern Mali shows that intensification can lift most farm households out of extreme poverty and guarantee their food self-sufficiency. However, the most effective options do not fit the usual definition of sustainable intensification, increasing production per unit land while protecting the natural environment. Cropland expansion combined with the good yields seen in on-station experiments can nearly eliminate extreme poverty, while the biggest impact may come from taking advantage of peak seasonal prices for crops like groundnut. Other profitable alternatives can include meat production with small ruminants or sales of milk from cows. However, off-farm employment opportunities like gold mining outperform currently attainable agricultural options in terms of profitability. Options for rural households should fit within the households’ socio-ecological niches and respond to their priorities in order to be successful. Given the relatively low impact of (sustainable) intensification technologies alone, a rethinking of the role of agricultural research in development is needed in order to align interventions with farmer priorities and meet development goals.