Farmer preferences and legume intensification for low nutrient environments

Part of the Developments in Plant and Soil Sciences book series (DPSS, volume 95)


Improved varieties of legumes adapted to nutrient deficiency have the potential to improve food security for the poorest farmers. Tolerant varieties could be an inexpensive and biologically smart technology that improves soils while minimizing fertilizer costs. Yet other technologies that improve productivity and appear to be biologically sound have been rejected by farmers. To translate benefits to smallholder farmers, research on low-nutrient tolerant genes and crop improvement must keep farmer preferences and belief systems in the forefront. We review farmer participatory research on legume-intensification and soil fertility management options for smallholder farmers in Africa, including recent results from our work in Malawi and Kenya. We suggest that indeterminate, long-duration legumes are the best bet for producing high quality residues, compared to short-duration and determinate genotypes. This may be due to a long period of time to biologically fix nitrogen, acquire nutrients, photosynthesize and grain fill. Also, the indeterminate nature of long-duration varieties facilitates recovery from intermittent stresses such as drought or pest pressure. However, indeterminate growth habit is also associated with late maturity, moderate yield potential and high labour demand. These traits are not necessarily compatible with smallholder criteria for acceptable varieties. Malawi women farmers, for example, prioritized early maturity and low-labour requirement, as well as yield potential. To address complex farmer requirements, we suggest the purposeful combination of species with different growth habits; e.g. deep-rooted indeterminate long-duration pigeonpea interplanted with short-duration soyabean and groudnut varieties. On-farm trials in Malawi indicate that calorie production can be increased by 30% through pigeonpea-intensified systems. Farmers consistently indicate strong interest in these systems. In Kenya, a 55% yield increase was observed for a doubled-up pigeonpea system (a double row of pigeonpea intercropped with three maize rows) compared to traditional, low density intercrops. However, the need for improved pigeonpea varieties with high intercrop suitability, including reduced early branching, was highlighted by a farmer preference study in the same area. These examples illustrate the potential for participatory research methodologies to drive biophysical research in farmer-acceptable directions.


Woman Farmer Intercrop System Cowpea Variety Indeterminate Growth Habit Pigeonpea Variety 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ae N, Arihara J, Okada K, Yoshihara T and Johansen C 1990 Phosphorus uptake by pigeon pea and its role in cropping systems of the Indian subcontinent. Science 248, 477–480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. African Development Bank 1999 Improvement pigeon pea in Eastern and Southern Africa: project completion report No. 12, ICRISAT, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
  3. Ahmed M M, Rohrbach D D, Gono L T, Mazhangara E P, Mugwira L, Masendeke D D and S Alibaba 1997 Soil fertility management in communal areas of Zimbabwe: Current practices, constraints and opportunities for change. Results of a diagnostic survey. Southern Eastern Africa Region Working Paper No. 6. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.Google Scholar
  4. CARE International 1998 Malawi Participatory Livelihood Assessment Exercise (Synthesis Report). CARE, Lilongwe, Malawi, mimeo. 75 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Chambers R and Ghildyal B P 1985 Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers: The farmer-first-and-last model. Agricul. Admin. 20, 1–30.Google Scholar
  6. Defoer T, De Groote H, Hilhorst T, Kante S and Budelman 1998 Participatory action research and quantitative analysis for nutrient management in southern Mali: A fruitful marriage. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 71, 215–228.Google Scholar
  7. Ferguson A 1994 Gendered science: a critique of agricultural development. Am. Anthro. 96, 540–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischler M, David S, Farley C, Ugen M and Wortmann C 1996 Applying farmer participatory research methods to planning agricultural research: Experiences from Eastern Africa. J. Farm. Syst. Research-Extension 6, 37–54.Google Scholar
  9. Ghassali F, Cocks P S, Osman A E, Gintzburger G, Christiansen S, Semaan A and Leybourne M 1999 Rehabilitation of degraded grasslands in North Syria: Use of farmer participatory research to encourage the sowing of annual pasture legumes. Expl. Agric. 35, 489–506.Google Scholar
  10. Heong K L and Escalada M M 1999 Quantifying rice farmers’ pest management decisions: Beliefs and subjective norms in stem borer control. Crop Protect. 18, 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ICRISAT 1998 Improvement of pigeonpea in Eastern and Southern Africa: Project completion report, December, 1998. P.O. Box39063, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
  12. Katayama K, Ito O, Matsunaga R, Adu-Gyamfi J J, Rao T P, Anders M M and Lee K K 1995 Nitrogen balance and root behavior in four pigeonpea-based intercropping systems. Fertil. Res. 42, 315–319.Google Scholar
  13. Kanyama-Phiri G Y, Snapp S S, Kamanga B and Wellard K 2000 Towards Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Malawi: Incorporating participatory approaches in agricultural research. Managing Africa’s Soils No. 11. IIED, UK. 27 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Kitch L W, Boukar O, Endondo C and Murdock L L 1998 Farmer acceptability criteria in breeding cowpea. Expl. Agric. 34, 475486.Google Scholar
  15. Kolli D R and Bantilan M C S 1997 Gender-related impacts of improved agricultural technologies: Identification of indicators from a case study. Gender, Techn. Devel. 1, 372–393.Google Scholar
  16. Okali C, Sumberg J E and Reddy K C 1994 Unpacking a technical package: Flexible messages for dynamic situations. Expl. Agric. 30, 299–310.Google Scholar
  17. Sahn D E, Van Frausum Y and Shively G 1992 The adverse nutrition effects of taxing export crops in Malawi. Cornell Food and Nutrition Policy Program, Working paper No. 29. Washington, D.C., USA 31 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Snapp S S 1998A Soil nutrient status of smallholder farms in Malawi. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 29, 2571–2588.Google Scholar
  19. Snapp S S 1998B Phosphorus and sustainability of sub-Saharan Africa smallholder farms. In Phosphorus in Plant Biology: Regulatory Roles in Molecular, Cellular, Organismic and Ecosystem Processes. Eds. JP Lynch and J Deikman. pp. 59–72. American Society of Plant Physiologists, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Snapp S S, Aggarwal V D and Chirwa R M 1998A Note on phosphorus and genotype enhancement of biological nitrogen fixation and productivity of maize/bean intercrops in Malawi. Field Crops Res. 58, 205–212.Google Scholar
  21. Snapp S S, Mafongoya P L and Waddington S 1998B Organic matter technologies to improve nutrient cycling in smallholder cropping systems of Southern Africa. Agric., Eco. Envir. 71, 187–202.Google Scholar
  22. Snapp S S 1999 Mother and baby trials: A novel trial design being tried out in Malawi. Target Newsletter 17, 8.Google Scholar
  23. Sperling L, Loevinsohn M E and Ntabomvura B 1993 Rethinking the farmer’s role in plant breeding: Local bean experts and on-station selection in Rwanda. Expl. Agric. 29, 509–519.Google Scholar
  24. Syamasonta M B 1990 A review of `pops’ research in Zambia. In Proceedings of the fourth regional groundnut workshop forGoogle Scholar
  25. Southern Africa, 19–23 March, 1990, Arusha, Tanzania. pp. 17–21, ICRISAT.Google Scholar
  26. Versteeg M N and Koudokpon V 1993 Participative farmer testing of four low external input technologies, to address soil fertility decline in Mono Province (Benin). Agric. Systems 42, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Willey R W, Mohammed N and Morse S 1997 Factors affecting compensation in intercropping when one component fails. Trop. Agric. 74, 313–316.Google Scholar
  28. Witcombe J R 1999 Do farmer-participatory methods apply more to high potential areas than to marginal ones. Outlook Agric. 28, 43–49.Google Scholar
  29. Wortmann C S, Lunze L, Ochwoh V A and Lynch L 1995 Bean improvement for low fertility soils in Africa. African Crop Sci. J. 3, 469–477.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HorticultureMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.ICRISATLilongweMalawi
  3. 3.Principal Scientist AgronomyICRISATNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations