Soils in the block are moderately deep to deep. Soil depth restriction was not important in this block. Restrictions were apparent in less than 10% of the sites sampled and found to be present mainly around clusters 4, 8, 9 and 13.
The second most common vegetation type was grasslands. Some remnant forests are also seen around cluster 7, 10, and 11 which are all located in the centre of the block. The woody vegetation found in these forests has not been assessed since outsiders are not allowed inside these areas, for cultural reasons. The Kaimosi forest, which is located in the proximity of cluster 16 is the only forest left in the area. A classification of the primary current land use showed the following:
Figure 4.3. Land-use map of the Middle Yala Block (why a map if there is not variation within the block area???
Generally the woody vegetation is broadleaf and evergreen (Table 4.4). An assessment of the trees in the landscape shows that of the 160 sampled plots only 53 (33%) had trees in the vicinity. Clusters for which more than half of the sampled plots had trees in the vicinity were 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 14.
Table 4.4. Woody vegetation type (% of plots with vegetation types present)
Broadleaf
|
Needle leaf
|
Allophytic
|
Evergreen
|
Deciduous
|
68.1
|
0.0
|
3.1
|
53.1
|
3.1
|
The following species were seen in the landscape: Eucalyptus spp., Pinus patula, Bischovia spp., Croton macrostachyus, Cupressus lusitanica and Bridelia micranthus. Eucalyptus is mainly planted for timber and construction whereas the other species are planted for shade, boundary demarcation and fuel wood. Fruit trees in the area are mainly Mango (Mangifera indica), Avocado (Persia Americana) and Paw paw (Carica papaya). There appears to be a culture of planting trees in the southern part of the block, which the project should build upon. However, the majority of the farmers are planting Eucalyptus seedlings and there is therefore a need for diversification of the woody vegetation. This can be achieved through training and nursery establishment in the targeted microcatchments.
The shrubby vegetation is generally less than 1m in height. Of the sampled plots, 67% have vegetation in the range of 0.03 to 0.8m, whereas 11% of the plots do not have any shrubby vegetation present. Hence, 23% of the plots have shrubby vegetation larger than 0.8m.
In this area the majority of the farms are privately owned (94%). No farms
are located on communal land, whereas nine farms are situated on government land. Land-use appears stable as owners of 46 % of the surveyed plots report that has not changed since 1990; 40% of the farms did not know whether land use has changed or not. Only 14% of the farmers reported that land use on their farms has changed since 1990.
Soil erosion and conservation measures
Soil erosion is visible overfor about half of the survey area: 41% of the sampled plots showed visible signs of sheet erosion and 5% showed active rill erosion (Table 4.5). One farm experienced gully erosion.
Sheet erosion is widely observed in clusters 1, 2, 7, 10 and 13; however, only 20 farms have established soil and water conservation measures: 11 vegetative and 9 structural. Of the 63 plots
experiencing sheet erosion, only 19 have soil and water conservation structures in place: 9 vegetative and 9 structural. Of the plots experiencing rill erosion (7) only one farmer has established measures to control erosion and runoff. The high presence of soil erosion and the low numbers of soil and water conservation measures should be one of the key-entry points in this block.
Table 4.5. Percent of plots showing different types of
erosion in each cluster.
Cluster
|
None
|
Sheet
|
Rill
|
Gulley
|
1
|
40
|
60
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
30
|
70
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
80
|
10
|
10
|
0
|
4
|
60
|
40
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
40
|
10
|
50
|
0
|
6
|
60
|
40
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
20
|
60
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
80
|
20
|
0
|
0
|
9
|
90
|
10
|
0
|
0
|
10
|
10
|
80
|
10
|
0
|
11
|
70
|
20
|
0
|
0
|
12
|
60
|
20
|
0
|
0
|
13
|
30
|
70
|
0
|
0
|
14
|
60
|
40
|
0
|
0
|
15
|
60
|
40
|
0
|
0
|
16
|
50
|
40
|
0
|
10
|
Table 4.6. Summary of baseline parameters
Cluster
|
Texture
|
Slope (%)
|
Woody vegetation cover*
|
Soil depth restriction
(%)
|
Soil erosion (%)
|
Household size
|
1
|
Silty clay
|
6.5
|
Low
|
0
|
60
|
6.9
|
2
|
Clay
|
7.1
|
Low
|
0
|
70
|
6.2
|
3
|
Silty clay
|
8.1
|
Low
|
0
|
10
|
8
|
4
|
Silty clay
|
9.2
|
Low
|
0
|
40
|
5.2
|
5
|
Clay
|
4.3
|
Low
|
0
|
10
|
5.3
|
6
|
Clay to Clay Loam
|
7.0
|
Low
|
0
|
40
|
6.9
|
7
|
Clay
|
10.0
|
Low
|
0
|
60
|
7.1
|
8
|
Silty clay
|
7.3
|
Low
|
0
|
20
|
6.7
|
9
|
Clay
|
3.5
|
Low
|
0
|
10
|
8
|
10
|
Clay
|
5.6
|
Low
|
0
|
80
|
6.1
|
11
|
Silty clay
|
4.8
|
Low
|
0
|
20
|
6.8
|
12
|
Silty clay
|
7.5
|
Low
|
0
|
20
|
6.6
|
13
|
Silty clay
|
12.9
|
Moderate
|
0
|
70
|
6
|
14
|
Clay
|
7.3
|
Low
|
0
|
40
|
7.4
|
15
|
Clay loam
|
9.6
|
Low
|
0
|
40
|
5.8
|
16
|
Silty clay
|
8.2
|
Low
|
0
|
40
|
5.3
|
-
* Low: <15%; Moderate: 15 to 65%, High: > 65%
.