Women's agricultural practices and their effects on soil nutrient content in the Nyalenda urban gardens of Kisumu, Kenya

Jonkman, Nicolette Tamara Regina Johanna Maria; Kooijman, Esmee Daniëlle; Kalbitz, Karsten; Pouw, Nicky Rosa Maria; Jansen, Boris

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-303-2019

Articles | Volume 5, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-303-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-303-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 5, issue 2

Original research article

|

15 Oct 2019

Original research article |

| 15 Oct 2019

Women's agricultural practices and their effects on soil nutrient content in the Nyalenda urban gardens of Kisumu, Kenya

Nicolette Tamara Regina Johanna Maria Jonkman, Esmee Daniëlle Kooijman, Karsten Kalbitz, Nicky Rosa Maria Pouw, and Boris Jansen

Download

Final revised paper (published on 15 Oct 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 06 Aug 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Referee Comment', Karoline Hemminger, 29 Aug 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to Referee Comment', Nicolette Tamara Jonkman, 27 Sep 2018
RC2: 'Review paper Urban Soil Kenya Women Agricultural Knowledge', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2018
- AC2: 'Reply to Review paper Urban Soil Kenya Women Agricultural Knowledge', Nicolette Tamara Jonkman, 27 Sep 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (15 Oct 2018) by Nikolaus J. Kuhn

AR by Nicolette Tamara Jonkman on behalf of the Authors (25 Nov 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Jan 2019) by Nikolaus J. Kuhn

RR by Karoline Hemminger (05 Feb 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (12 Feb 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The aim of this paper is to link women’s knowledge on agricultural practices and their motivations in choosing specific practices with the nutrient content of their soils.
The data presented however are too limited in scope to really thoroughly address this question. The paper nevertheless can provide some insights in the way urban agriculture in Nyalenda is practiced and which constraints people face. However, I would suggest some extensive re-structuring (see below) and would furthermore suggest to the author to be more open about the short-comings of their findings right from the beginning: be more open about what they can really “prove” and which open questions remain. The conclusion in this sense would profit from finishing with suggestions for further research that needs to be done.

Some specific comments:
Paragraph: p.2, 11-24 not really necessary
p.3, 6-15 – Are you referring to agriculture in general or to urban agriculture?
p.3., 16-22: Which factors did you use to select Nyalenda? In which way is it representative?
p. 3, 27-32, paragraph would rather fit in the intro

Is the Question: how knowledge influes action addressed?
p.6, 6-7: do you know for the two fields whether the farmers sued compost or cow manure? And whether they are the ones that are occiaonally using mineral fertilizer?
Compare and combine: p.6, 13-18 and p.7, 30-45: some many similarities in those parts. Best to put all information on p.6
p.7, 34 “know” is missing)
IN general for the interviews and FGD: differentiate clearly where you could identify a lack of know, where are lack of motivation and where a lack of resources as the reason for a specific management technique and structure the presentation of your findings this way. This should help to get clearer information concerning the aim of your paper: “women knowledge on agricultural practices and their motivations in choosing specific practices with the nutrient content of their soils.”
Chapter 3.3. in general is a mixture of an interpretation of the soil data, with some interviews and additional information. Some more structure would do good here. A, engage in depth with the soil analysis and which kind of conclusion you can or cannot draw from them and B, Discuss (in the Discussion part?) whether the differences can be explained through the different management techniques.
Concerning your soil data: please provide standard deviation for all results
p. 8, Table 1: please provide results separated for field without intercropping and field with intercropping (additional comment: you provide some of this information later in the text, p.8 27-34… think about re-grouping the information). + probably best to already present Figure 2 here and combine the two.
p.8, 9: How do you justify your conclusion: “Soil analysis shows that the application of intercropping has a significant effect on the soil nutrient content” I find this conclusion difficult to be drawn from the data you have at hand. Please discuss in more depth on how you come to this conclusion.
p. 8, 15: “slightly higher” please quantify
p8, 16-17: Covering: at which period of time? Is it the overall and average covering over the whole growing period? Please be more specific on who you quantified the coverage.
p.8 , 17-18: “manure information” should come earlier, when presenting the sampled plots.
P.8, 27-34: please indicate for all your results which differences were significant! Not only for the results presented in Figure 1
Figure 1: what do the differences you found in Figure 1 tell you? Can the differences be explained by the management practices? What could be the reason for the differences? Please discuss.
p.10, 16-20: the conclusion “socio-economic factors as determining” did not really become that clear during the presentation of your results. = Re-structure (see my above comments). (other suggestion combine with info on p11 – 24-29 and p12 1-9)
p.10 21-26: does this paragraph belong in the discussion? I would suggestion: “introduction”
p 11, 1-7: part of your results I suggest
p11, 17-21: Repetition! Check with results part.
P 11, 24-29 combine with statement p10, 16-20
P11, 30-40: some of this information could be moved to the soil analysis. … Again a matter of structure.
P12 , 1-9 (Structure! Should come together with p.10 16-20)
Conclusion
Here you should come back to your main question: “link womens knowledge on agricultural practices and their motivations in choosing specific practices with the nutrient content of their soils”. I would suggest critically going through your paper, improving the structure and in the end coming back to your opening research question. It is no problem, in case you could not fully answer your research question, however be precise in presenting what you could show, what you couldn’t show, which questions remain open…
When looking at the information you present I wonder why the woman intercropping actually did the intercropping? To improve soil fertility or to create additional income?
Or otherwise put: what does the woman know? What is the driving force for their action? Is it missing knowledge or socio-economic pressure?

p.12 – 32: where did you show that the “cultural status” of women is important for understanding their action? Maybe I did miss this information. But, I can only remember you citing a study from elsewhere, but no information from your study. So, I would say you couldn’t show so. Other possibility: clearly explain what you mean with “cultural status” and how the data you collected supports your conclusion.

Did you show in which way the women’s decision might differ from that of the men? In case you couldn’t, then no need to talk about it. Could you show with your data how the access of women to knowledge, contacts, material and capital differs from that of the men? If so, please make these differences clearer in the presentation of your results. In case you couldn’t show, then mention it as a short-coming, or do not mention it at all. I can only remember reading somewhere that the women said, they are more open to knowledge and advice (p.6, 32)

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (14 Feb 2019) by Nikolaus J. Kuhn

AR by Nicolette Tamara Jonkman on behalf of the Authors (27 Mar 2019) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 Apr 2019) by Nikolaus J. Kuhn

RR by Karoline Hemminger (29 Apr 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (03 May 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The article improved considerably concerning structure, however, there are still some language issues; especially on the first two pages.
More important, unfortunately concerning the content the article still remains limited in scope and some more input regarding the information gathered during the interviews would be necessary in order to show that the conclusions drawn are based on the field work. The main aims of the paper to understand “what knowledge women working in urban agriculture have on agricultural practices, and how their practices affect their soil” (p.3, L8-9), & “we aimed to determine how the agricultural knowledge and motivations of women farmers influences their soil’ nutrients status” remain so far only sufficiently answered, as no detailed profiles of the two women concerned, their knowledge and their motivations and how they differ are given. Furthermore, the differences in management practices are described very superficial, which makes it almost impossible to say whether the differences in soil properties come from the management practices or rather from the long-term use history or the baseline conditions of the soil. In detail:
1, Concerning the aim of the paper focusing on women knowledge and practices and how it differs from men’s knowledge few new insights seem to have been generated through the research, the only reference found with regards to this is that the FGD including men mentioned some other information sources (not clear however whether this statement came for a men) and maybe have better access to mineral fertilizer (?). The study does not present in how far the practices of women really differ from that of men in the case study, here the results from FGDs should be presented in more details.
2, Little effort can be seen to understand the reasons for the two women to decide for the different strategies. So it becomes difficult to understand the decision processes. I cannot see where “the study showed that women are influenced by their socio-economic and cultural statues when making decisions in agricultural management” /p11, L3&4, the detailed reasons are not presented; we do not get any information about why the two women use different approaches. The results of the interviews should present the differences (and or similarities) between the two women for which the soils were sampled.
E.g. How old are the two women, how many people do they have to take care of, what are their specific sources of information, for how long have the practiced the soil management practice, why do they do so. What does the women using intercropping say about the soil fertility on her field? Is she aware of the problem of removing the cowpeas? Or is she simply so far happy with the soil fertility = no need to leave the cowpeas on the field (this should also be discussed in relation to the soil analysis, e.g. would the soil analysis suggest that she would need to fertilize her field or are the values still high enough, making fertilizer use unnecessary)
Other examples in this regard:
- p3, L31: here it would be interesting to understand who changed strategies, and why.

3, The potential and the real impact of the two applied strategies is impossible to discuss, based on only rough qualitative description. The article does not give quantitative information concerning the amount of manure that is applied on the fields, the spacing of the cowpeas, the time that the practices have been different and so on. Or e.g. on understanding the long-term history of the field. While it is mentioned that one of the fields was left fallow the year before, one was planted with maize and two with kales, the information from one year alone does not really help.
The study could furthermore discuss which kind of input is probably provided through the kind of manure applied and how this differs from the input that cowpeas could bring (even if they are harvested… at least in case the root are left in the soil.
The potential reasons for the differences in CEC should be discussed.
5, As the findings might be too limited in answering the research question, the focus could move to a closer description on the findings that could be achieved (the FGD in more depth, the interview analysis in more depth (e.g. the daily strategies at least of the two women….).
Some other specific points:
P.2, Paragraph 3: it is not clear which of the information given (sources cited) refer to Kisumu specifically and which ones talk about women (in which countries?) in general.
P3, L1: Reference SAITO is missing, Is SAITO referring to Kenya, Kisumu, the World?
P.3, L 10-13: should rather be moved to the methods part.
P3, L 20 “of” is missing “one OF the” (there are more language mistakes in the text, this is just one example)
P.5, L11: Why do you talk about “Some” Women. Given the sentence just before it would make sense to give the concrete number here. IN general, the information about the constraints reported could best be presented in table form (constraint and number of times mentioned)
Like on P5 the information sources and the differences between men and women e.g.
Sources of information Number of times mentioned by women Number of times mentioned by men
Radio

P5 L 15-16: Sentence a bit strange and not really useful here.
P5, L21: Bring examples on how you concluded that the knowledge is limited to visible effects?
P5, L34: which resources? Where do they come from?
P5, L35f: mention all the cultural restrictions that were mentioned and which ones are still followed and how they impact on soil management practices.
P5, L 38: consider deleting the last half sentence.
P6, L1: discrepancy: a pity you can’t say more
P6, L25-34: why do they use different practices? (+ this part does not really belong to the soil analysis, but rather to the interviews)
P9, L19-23: this paragraph should rather be moved to the introduction
P9, L24-29: here it should rather be discussed whether differences between men and women could be found or not and to which extent and what can be learned out of that. E.g. are there really important differences in knowledge between men and women? Yes or no, this should be discussed here.
P9, L38-43 Reasoning in this paragraph is wrong, as the example given doesn’t provide evidence for the claim that decisions are heavily influenced by socio-economic constraints. Here it would be better to enter the information given p10, L14-22 which gives at least one socio-economic reason. Again it would be interesting to know whether famers are aware of the fact that harvesting reduces the positive effect of the intercropping.
P. 10 L 1-10, might in parts better be moved to chapter 3.3
P10: L8 and 9 Numbering of farmers (I2,I7) has not been introduced before.No need to introduce it at the end. See comments above, here it would be interesting to get some information about why one of the farmers is ploughing the manure into the soil and the other doesn’t. It would further be interesting to know, what “ploughing” means (3cm, 10cm, 20cm?).
P10, L24-26: Am not convinced that the study could show this. Yes, there are differences, but do they come from this one year of doing either only manure or manure and intercropping? Maybe in the past the management practices have been much more different? Maybe one of the soil samples contained more sand than the other? (Did you measure the clay, loam, soil content?)
L26: Is it really the growing of cowpeas that causes a more rapid extraction from the soil? (What is the plantation density?). It could also be that farmer that is only applying manure is simplying applying more manure. I would be careful with such statements.
L29-31: Given the scope of the study, it would really make sense here to talk to the farmer again and ask her, why and when she decided to intercrop and what she thinks about the strategy.
P11, L4-6: “The case study showed that women are influenced by their socio-economic and cultural status when making decisions in agricultural management and these decisions may differ from those of men in the same or similar circumstances due to a lack of access to knowledge, contacts, or material and capital.” I think it would help a lot, if the authors think about this conclusion and bring together all specific statements (in the interviews and the FGD) that support their conclusion. As said before: what are the specificities of the socio-economic and cultural status of women in Nyalenda that were found during the study and that influence management decisions and how do they differ from that of men and why; which kind of different contacts, access to material and capital of men could be found on the ground compared with that of women?

Please provide us with the kinds of questions you asked during interviews and FGDs

Hide

ED: Revision (09 May 2019) by Nikolaus J. Kuhn

AR by Nicolette Tamara Jonkman on behalf of the Authors (01 Jul 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (31 Jul 2019) by Nikolaus J. Kuhn

ED: Publish as is (11 Aug 2019) by Johan Six (Executive editor)

AR by Nicolette Tamara Jonkman on behalf of the Authors (20 Aug 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

In the urban gardens of Kisumu we interviewed female farmers to determine the sources and scope of their agricultural knowledge. We assessed the impact of the knowledge by comparing the influence of two types of management on soil nutrients. While one type of management was more effective in terms of preserving soil nutrients, the other management type had socioeconomic benefits. Both environmental and socioeconomic effects have to be considered in agricultural training to increase their impact.