|
|
Agroforestry interventions for improving livelihoods of subsistence farm households in the hills of Nepal
| Publication Type | Journal Article |
| Year of Publication | 2003 |
| Authors | Neupane, R, P.; Thapa, G, B. |
| Journal Title | Mountain agriculture in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region: Proceedings of an International Symposium held in Kathmandu, Nepal on 21-24 May, 2001 |
| Pagination | 127-129 |
| Key Words | agroforestry; clay fraction; community development; development; projects; farming systems; home gardens; irrigated soils; marginal farms; multipurpose trees; nitrogen; phosphorus; potassium; sand fraction; silt fraction; soil fertility; soil; organic mat |
| Abstract | The potential role of agroforestry in promoting sustainable livelihoods in marginal mountain farms under the agroforestry project initiated by the Nepal Agroforestry Foundation was investigated. The study involved three hill Village Development Committee areas, viz., Kumpur, Salang, and Nalang in Dhading district. Eighteen soil samples collected from project and non- project areas in Kumpur and Nalang were analysed for various soil properties such as pH, organic matter (OM), total nitrogen (N), available phosphorus (P), available potassium (K), and sand, silt, and clay textural classes. Bari (rainfed upland) soils from project areas had higher amounts of OM, N, silt and clay than non- project soils, and khet (irrigated land) soils from project areas had higher amounts of OM, N, P, and K. Tabulated data showed that the cropping intensity was higher in bari parcels closer to homesteads (gharbari) parcels than those at a distance. The parcels located near homes had higher yields than those located farther away. The concentration of agroforestry species was higher in parcels located closer to the farmhouse. The average numbers of fodder trees, shrubs, fruit trees, and grasses planted and protected on bari were significantly higher for the project than non-project plots. Similarly, the number of firewood and bamboo species belonging on project land were significantly higher than for non-project land. |
| |
|
|
