, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp 215–228 | Cite as

Tropical sugar beet land evaluation scheme: development, validation and application under Kenyan conditions

  • Nicodemus M. Mandere
  • Andreas Persson
  • Stefan Anderberg
  • Petter Pilesjö


In Kenya the government is promoting diversification of crops to embrace high value crops and drought resistant crop varieties in efforts to reduce poverty in rural areas. Sugar beet is one of the crops considered as an option in this context and it is therefore important to increase knowledge about the potentials in the country for cultivating this crop. Sugar beet trials conducted in Nyandarua and Butere Mumias Districts of Kenya have shown that the crop yields are comparable to those obtained in traditional sugar-beet cultivation regions of Europe. Since sugar beet yield is affected by climate and soils, the results of Nyandarua and Butere Mumias sugar beet trials are not adequate to propose that comparable yields can be obtained elsewhere in the country and other tropical regions. Physical land evaluations assessing the potentials and constraints for sugar beet production are therefore essential. The objectives of this study was to develop a Tropical Sugar Beet Land Evaluation Scheme (TSBLES) that can aid assessment of the suitability of different areas in the tropics for sugar beet cultivation; and to test this scheme for an assessment of suitable sugar beet zones and land areas in Kenya. The development of the scheme was based on various literature sources and expert judgment on sugar beet requirements, and a Tropical Sugar Beet yield prediction Model. The TSBLES accounts for physical conditions of land i.e. climatic, edaphic and topographic conditions. According to the assessment results 27% of the land area in Kenya is suitable for sugar beet cultivation. Of this area, 5% is highly suitable, another 5% is moderately suitable and 17% is marginally suitable. Most of the highly suitable land area is concentrated in Rift Valley, Central and Nyanza provinces. The Rift Valley has the highest share of the suitable land area.


Tropical agriculture Sugar beet Agricultural GIS analysis Sugar beet land requirement Kenya 



We acknowledge that this article was made possible due to contributions from a number of persons and organizations. We thank, Flemming Yndgaard for assisting with data and for constructive inputs during the whole write up process. We thank Kenneth Fredlund and Staffan Nilsson for their inputs during the TSBLES development and also for reviewing the manuscript and giving comments that were used to refine the article. We thank Petter Pilesjö for preparing for us the slope data and for his inputs during the concept building of the paper. We thank Syngenta Seeds Company, Sweden for funding this research project.


  1. Biancardi, E., Campbell, G. L., Skaracis, N. G., & Biaggi, D. M. (Eds.). (2005). Genetic and breeding of sugar beet. Enfield, NH, USA: Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Blomquist, J., Hellgren, O., & Larsson, H. (2003). Limiting and promoting factors for high sugar yield in Sweden. In INRA, IIRB & ITB (Eds.), Sugar beet growth and growth modeling. Advances in sugar beet research, IIRB. (5), 19–32.Google Scholar
  3. Bouma, J., van Lanen, H. A. J., Breeuwsma, A., Wösten, H. J. M., & Kooistra, M. J. (1986). Soil survey data needs when studying modern land use problems. Soil Use and Management, 2(4), 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braimoh, A. K., & Vlek, P. L. G. (2004). Land evaluation for maize based on fuzzy set and interpolation. Environmental Management, 33(2), 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bydekerke, L., Van Ranst, E., Vanmechelen, L., & Groenemans, R. (1998). Land suitability assessment for cherimoya in southern Ecuador using expert knowledge and GIS. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 69(1998), 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron, S., Hijmans R. J., Parra J., Jones, P., & Jarvis A. (2006). WORLDCLIM. Accessed 15 June 2008.
  7. Cooke, A. D., & Scott, K. R. (Eds.). (1995). The sugar beet crop: Science into practice. UK: Chapman and Hall, University Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Doorenbos, J., & Kassam, A. H. (1979). Yield response to water. irrigation and drainage paper 33. FAO, Rome. Cited from Landon R. J., 1984. Booker tropical soil manual. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Draycott, A. P., & Christenson, D. R. (2003). Nutrients for sugar beet production: Soil–plant relationships. Washington, DC: CABI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunham, R. J. (1995). Water use and irrigation. In D. A. Cook & R. K. Scott (Eds.), The sugar beet crop. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Fabeiro, C., Martin de Santa Olla, F., Lopez, R., & Dominguez, A. (2003). Production and quality of the sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cultivated under controlled deficit irrigation conditions in a semi-arid climate. Agriculture Water Management, 62(3), 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO. (1997a). Sugar beet. In: Last accessed on 31 Dec 2008.
  13. FAO. (1997b). Slope class dominant soil in Kenya. Accessed 15 June 2008-06-15.
  14. FAO and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (1976). A framework for land evaluation. FAO soils bulletin 32. FAO, Rome Accessed 15 June 2008.
  15. Geita, W. (2004). Tropical sugar beet production challenges and opportunities. Journal of the Swedish Seed Association, 1–2(2004), 17–19.Google Scholar
  16. Groenemans, R., Van Ranst, E., & Kerre, E. (1997). Fuzzy relational calculus in land evaluation. Geoderma, 77(1997), 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gummerson, R. J. (1986). The effect of constant temperatures and osmotic potentials on the germination of sugar beet. Journal of Experimental Botany, 37(179), 729–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harland, I. J. (1995). By products. In A. D. Cooke & K. R. Scott (Eds.), The sugar beet crop: Science into practice. UK: Chapman and Hall, University Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Ilaco, B. V. (1981). Agricultural compendium for rural development in the tropics and sub-tropics. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Cited from Landon R. J., 1984. Booker tropical soil manual. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Landon, J. R. (Ed.). (1984). Booker tropical soil manual: A handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. New York: Longman Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Lee, T-Z., Wu, C-H., & Wei, H-H. (2008). KBSLUA: A knowledge-based system applied in river land use assessment. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(2008), 889–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loman, G. (1986). The climate of a sugar beet stand: Dynamics, impact on the crop and possibilities of improvement. A Ph.D. thesis, The Royal University of Lund Sweden, Department of Geography.Google Scholar
  23. Mandere, N., Wolfsegger, C., Wallman, P., Svenson, M. G. E., Yndgaard, F., Fredlund, K., Olsson, L., & Anderberg, S. (2008). Tropical sugar beet yield prediction model—TSBM: Applied to ranging soils and weather conditions in Nyandarua district, Kenya. Submitted to Field Crops Research.Google Scholar
  24. Mandere, N. M., Anderberg, S., Armah, F. A., & Elimqvist, B. (2009). Determinants, income and perception of sugar beet adoption in the Nyandarua District of Kenya. Geojournal (submitted).Google Scholar
  25. Milford, G. F. J., Pocock, T. O., Jaggard, K. W., Biscoe, P. V., Armstrong, M. J., Last, P. J., et al. (1985). Analysis of leaf growth in sugar beet. IV. The expansion of leaf canopy in relation to temperature and nitrogen. The Annals of Applied Biology, 107(1985), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries Development. (2004). Strategy for revitalizing agriculture 2004–2014. Nairobi, Kenya: Government Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. (2002). National action programme: A framework for combating desertification in Kenya, in the context of the United Nation convention to combat desertification. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  28. Ministry of Finance and Planning. (2002). Nyandarua district development plan 2002–2008: Effective management for sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. Nairobi: Government Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rossiter, D. G. (1996). A theoretical framework for land evaluation (with discussion). Geoderma, 72(1996), 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scott, R. K., & Jaggard, K. W. (1992). Crop growth and weather: Can yield forecast be reliable?: Proceedings of the IIRB 55th winter congress, IIRB, Brussel, (pp. 169–180).Google Scholar
  31. Sui, D. Z. (1992). A fuzzy GIS modelling approach for urban land evaluation. Computers, Environment and Urban System, 16(1992), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Uçan, K., & Gencoğlan, C. (2004). The effect of water deficit on yield components of sugar beet. The Turkish Journal of Agricuture and Forestry, 28(2004), 163–172.Google Scholar
  33. Van Lanen, H. A. J., Hack-ten Broeke, M. J. D., Bouma, J., & de Groot, W. J. M. (1992). A mixed qualitative/quantitative physical land evaluation methodology. Geoderma, 55(1992), 37–54.Google Scholar
  34. Yang J., Xue,Y., Hu, Y., Chen Z., Chen, Q. (2007). Land evaluation method based on simplified fuzzy classification association rules. Computer society.Google Scholar
  35. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(1965), 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ziadat, F. M. (2007). Land suitability classification using different sources of information: Soil maps and predicted soil attributes in Jordan. Geoderma, 140(2007), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicodemus M. Mandere
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andreas Persson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stefan Anderberg
    • 1
  • Petter Pilesjö
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)Lund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystems AnalysisLund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.Lund University’s Centre for Geographical Information SystemsLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations