left: Google Earth image of strip farming
practice in the Karapınar area
Location: Konya, Karapınar
Turkey
Approach area: 150.00 km2
Type of Approach: traditional/indigenous
Adopting of the strip cropping-fallow-strip cropping system
Focus: on conservation only
by farmers, with support from local SWC specialists and state WOCAT database reference: A_TUR002en
Related technology(ies): Strip Farming
agricultural organisations.
(QT TUR02)
Compiled by: Mehmet Zengin, University
Aim/objectives: To prevent soil erosion by wind and enhance crop yield. Basically altered of Selcuk, Faculty of Agriculture
fallow strips serve the retention of soil particles and minimize wind erosion. Plant strips in Date: -
Crop Production
combination of cerela strips further decrease the wind speed.
Methods: Planning and implementation of strip technology. To sow cereals as strips of 50
m wide perpendicular to wind direction, behind it fallow again plant strip. So wind speed
decrease and soil loss is minimized.
Stages of implementation: Every year this method is applied on October. Fallow and cereal
strips are changed each year.
Role of stakeholders: The state agricultural organisations plan and implement the stable
plant strips according prevalent wind speed. The local SWC specialists determine the
direction and width of the strips according the crop types. They also supervise the
implementation. Farmers are expected to implement the strips, following the direction and
width of strips and to asess crop yield.
Problem, objectives and constraints
Problems
Lack of technical knowledge.
Aims/Objectives
To enable land users to conserve the soil from wind erosion
Constraints addressed
technical
Constraint
Treatment
Farmers can not give the benefits of measures
since lack of knowledge
more rigorous information should be given
Participation and decision making
Stakeholders / target groups
Approach costs met by:
SLM specialists / agricultural advisors land users, groups
government (Planning,
applying, material)
20%
local community / land user(s)
(implementation of the
approach)
80%
Total
100%
Annual budget for SLM component:
US$ 2,000-10,000
Decisions on choice of the Technology(ies) by SLM specialists alone (top-down)
Decisions on method of implementing the Technology(ies): by SLM specialists alone (top-down)
Approach designed by: national specialists
Implementing bodies: government
Land user involvement
Phase
Involvement Activities
Initiation/motivation
None
Planning
None
Implementation
Interactive
Implemantion is basically done by individual land owners with consulancy of SWC
specialist
Monitoring/evaluation Interactive
Research
None
Differences between participation of men and women: Yes, great
Women are not a part of planning and implementation of strip farming. They are passivelly involved in certain secondary
activities such as weeding etc.
Involvement of disadvantaged groups: Yes, little
Farmers applied strip farming method with the help of SWC spelialist.
Organogram: Flow chart for crop
production by strip farming (Mehmet
Zengin)
Technical support
Training / awareness raising:
Training provided for land user, field staff/agricultural advisor
Only male farmers attend the training meetings.
Training was courses, demonstration areas, public meetings
Advisory service:
The extension system is quite adequate to ensure continuation of activities.
Research:
Yes, moderate research. Topics covered include ecology
Mostly on station research.
SWC specialists studied the effects of strip cropping on soil loss.
External material support / subsidies
Contribution per area (state/private sector): .
Labour: Voluntary, food-for-work.
Inputs:
- Equipment (machinery, tools, etc): machinery. Partly financed
- Agricultural (seeds, fertilizers, etc): seeds, fertilizers. Partly financed
Credit: Credit was not available
Support to local institutions: Yes, great support with training, equipment
Monitoring and evaluation
Monitored aspects
Methods and indicators
bio-physical
Ad hoc measurements: soil loss by wind
economic / production
Ad hoc measurements: wheat yield
Changes as result of monitoring and evaluation:
There were few changes in the approach. Farmers understand the efficacy of strip cropping in prevention of wind
erosion.
Impacts of the Approach
Improved sustainable land management: Yes, moderate; Strip cropping system was appreciated by the
farmers.
Adoption by other land users / projects: Yes, few; Farmers around settlements heard and visited strip
farming system for plant production and conservation of wind erosion and liked and adopted it.
Training, advisory service and research:
- Training effectiveness
Land users*: good
- Advisory service effectiveness
Land users*: good
- Research contributing to the approach`s effectiveness: Moderately
Research confirmed that strip farming decreased wind speed and increased wheat yield.
Land/water use rights:
Help - low in the implementation of the approach. No problem, because farmers can easily apply the approach in their
fields.
The approach did reduce the land/water use rights problem (low). Farmers could not give up their habits of sowing a field
completely.
Long-term impact of subsidies:
Concluding statements
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM:
Increased profit(ability), improve cost-benefit-ratio
Prestige / social pressure
Environmental consciousness, moral, health
Sustainability of activities:
Yes the land users can sustain the approach activities without support.
Strengths and how to
sustain/improve
Weaknesses and
how to overcome
Plant crop approach was successfull for strip farming
system in the wind region.
It is necessary
law/rule/forcing.
Adoption and application of this measure by farmers are
difficult due to sociological reasons.
By training and
demonstration.
This approach is usefull to conserve wind erosion, but we
can not give up our customs.
Field experiments,
demonstrations and training.
It is difficult partail sowing in some field. Moreover area
required for fallow is an important weakness.
By the
encouragements.
Copyright (c) WOCAT (2017)