Browsing by Author "Massawe, Boniface"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Bringing evidence to bear for negotiating tradeoffs in sustainable agricultural intensification using a structured stakeholder engagement process(Taylor & Francis, 2021) Winowiecki, Leigh Ann; Bourne, Mieke; Magaju, Christine; Neely, Constance; Massawe, Boniface; Masikati, Patricia; Vågen, Tor-Gunnar; Musili, Faith; Nabi, Muhammad; Nguyo, Anthony; Seid, Hadia; Hadgu, Kiros; Shoo, Aikande; Tembo, Howard; Chipatela, Floyd; Chesterman, Sabrina; Hughes, Karl; Temu, Emmanuel; Kimaro, Anthony Anderson; Sinclair, FergusSustainable agricultural intensification (SAI) has the potential to increase food security without detrimental effects on ecosystem services. However, adoption of SAI practices across sub-Saharan Africa has not reached transformational numbers to date. It is often hampered by lack of context-specific practices, sub-optimal understanding of tradeoffs and synergies among stakeholders, and lack of approaches that bring diverse evidence sources together with stakeholders to collectively tackle complex problems. In this study, we asked three interconnected questions: (i) What is the accessibility and use of evidence for SAI decision making; (ii) What tools could enhance access and interaction with evidence for tradeoff analysis; and (iii) Which stakeholders must be included? This study employed a range of research and engagement methods including surveys, stakeholder analysis, participatory trade-off assessments and co-design of decision dashboards to better support evidence-based decision making in Zambia, Tanzania and Ethiopia. At the inception, SAI evidence was accessible and used by less than half of the decision makers across the three countries and online dashboards hold promise to enhance access. Many of the stakeholders working on SAI were not collaborating and tradeoff analysis was an under-utilized tool. Structured engagement across multiple stakeholder groups with evidence is critical.Item Dynamics of fractionated rhizosphere soil P and plant P uptake under maize/P-mobilizing legumes intercropping in strongly weathered soil of Tanzania(Taylor & Francis, 2021) Sugihara, Soh; Kawashita, Tomomi; Shitindi, Mawazo; Massawe, Boniface; Tanaka, HaruoIntercropping with cereal and phosphorus (P)-mobilizing leguminous crops is a traditional agricultural practice in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is essential to evaluate the effect of intercropping (i.e., rhizosphere sharing) on fractionated rhizosphere soil P dynamics under the various soil P conditions and legumes, to improve the soil-plant P dynamics in this region. This study aimed to identify the effect of rhizosphere sharing of maize (MZ)/P-mobilizing legumes intercropping on fractionated rhizosphere soil P dynamics and plant P uptake under different P fertilization rates in strongly weathered cropland soil of Tanzania. We conducted 60-day MZ and P-mobilizing legumes intercropping pot experiments under different P-fertilized conditions (0, 50, and 100 kg P ha−1) with two legumes (pigeon pea (PP) and groundnut (GN)) by using three different root-separation treatments (no separation (NS) for rhizosphere sharing, nylon mesh separation (MS), and complete separation (CS)), to compare the effect of rhizosphere sharing in one pot. We evaluated the Hedley-fractionated P of rhizosphere soil and plant P uptake in each pot. We found that both P-efficient legumes did not clearly decrease the less labile P (NaOH-P) of rhizosphere soil in no P treatment, while these clearly decreased the less labile P in 100 kg P ha−1 treatment. It indicates that P-efficient legumes can solubilize the fertilized P but not native less labile P of the soil. The NS treatment increased the labile P of rhizosphere compared with CS by solubilizing the fertilized P, except for MZ/GN intercropping at 50 kg P ha−1. Relative to CS, MZ/PP intercropping increased the total plant P uptake per pot (20%–40%) under P-fertilized conditions, whereas MZ/GN intercropping decreased it (17%) at 50 kg P ha−1 or showed no change at 100 kg P ha−1. MZ/PP intercropping improved P fertilizer recovery efficiency, whereas MZ/GN intercropping did not. Enhanced P use efficiency through intercropping with P-mobilizing legumes is dependent on P-solubilizing characteristics of each P-mobilizing legume