Geoderma 111 (2003) 233 – 248

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma

Similarities and differences between farmer and

scientist views on soil quality issues in
central Honduras
P.J. Ericksen a,*, M. Ardón b
a
Catholic Relief Services, 209 West Fayette Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
b
Comunicación, Educación, e Investigación en Biodiversidad y Agroecologı́a, Tegucigalpa, Honduras

Abstract

This research explores the commonalities and differences between local farmers’ understanding
of soil quality in a small catchment in central Honduras and that of a US soil scientist. The
authors investigated the ways in which the local farmers categorized and managed soils and land
uses. The US soil scientist also conducted independent measurements and analyses for varying
indicators of soil quality throughout the catchment. There were both differences and similarities
between the two views of soil quality. Farmers’ understanding of soil quality was heavily in-
fluenced by the fact that agricultural production was their primary concern, while the soil scientist
had a more holistic view of plant productivity. Broader scale movement of soil and water was not
a particular concern of the farmers, despite the occurrence of mass wasting and slumping every
year. Landform type was a key management variable for both, however, as were soil texture and
drainage patterns.
D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Indicators; Local soil knowledge; Soil quality; Central Honduras

1. Introduction

In their recent review of studies comparing scientist and local farmer knowledge of
soils, Talawar and Rhoades (1998) call for such studies to relate local knowledge to
environmental and agricultural needs. The intent of the study discussed here was to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pericksen@catholicrelief.org (P.J. Ericksen).

0016-7061/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 0 6 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 6 6 - 5
234 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248

compare local and scientific interpretations of soil properties, as they each contributed
to sustainable land management. This research was conducted as part of a larger
project examining processes affecting soil quality and the potential for using
indicators in a mixed land use catchment, La Lima, in the Fransisco Morazán
province of central Honduras (Ericksen and McSweeney, 1999; Ericksen et al., in
press).
A foundation of the research reported here was that farmers’ perceptions and knowl-
edge of their environments are extensive and detailed, and form the basis for daily
decisions about local land use and management issues. Scientists, policy makers, and
extension workers investigating land management strategies in rural areas can benefit from
working with local farmers. Collaboration among these groups can result in a more
complete understanding of local environments and determinants of environmental out-
comes, the design of appropriate management strategies for specific agroecosystems, and
more successful implementation of alternative management strategies. A first and
necessary step in such collaboration must be arriving at a shared understanding of the
differences and commonalities among each group’s environmental knowledge and
management goals.
A combination of theoretical knowledge and practical experience influenced the
premises of our research. Several studies (Tabor, 1992; Pawluk et al., 1992; Hecht,
1990; Wilken, 1987) documented farmers’ knowledge of different soil types, manage-
ment skills, and farmers’ ability to help scientists classify soils. Another group of re-
searchers focused on the social, economic, and/or cultural rationale behind farmer
knowledge and practice (Bellon and Taylor, 1993; Perrot-Maitre and Weaver, 1992;
Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987). Other studies have analyzed the structure and nature of
local soil knowledge, as it differs from that of scientists (Sandor and Furbee, 1996;
Zimmerer, 1994; Scott and Walter, 1993; Sillitoe, 1998). WinklerPrins (1999) calls for
studies that compare local and scientific soil knowledge for the purposes of better
management utilitarian. Talawar and Rhoades (1998) distinguish between studies that
attempt to validate local knowledge with science, and those which relate local knowledge
to the socio-economic, cultural, and agroecological context in which it has developed.
Another group of authors has promoted using farmers’ indicators as the basis for
environmental management and monitoring (Somé and McSweeney, 1996; Guijt and
Sidersky, 1996; Hambly, 1996; Chavero, 1996).

2. Objectives of the study

This investigation compares local Honduran farmers’ knowledge of the soils and
sustainable land management in a small catchment to a US scientist’s perspective and
analysis of these same issues. The authors sought to find common ground between
the two understandings of soil quality rather than to ‘‘validate’’ one over the other.
Although many studies have sought to compare local and scientific soil knowledge,
this study compares the interpretation of this knowledge, as it relates to an as-
sessment of soil quality for plant productivity and overall sustainable land manage-
ment.
 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248 235

3. Methods

3.1. Background

The research was conducted in the catchment of La Lima, located in central

Honduras, about 20 km southeast of the capital, Tegucigalpa (see Fig. 1). Precipitation
is marked by a dry season from November to May and a wet season from June to
September. The annual rainfall ranges from 1100 to 1200 mm. Due to clearing for agri-
culture, original forest vegetation has been decreasing in area during the past 50 years.
From 1955 to 1995, the area in forest decreased from 55.5% to 36%. Pastures and
agricultural plots have replaced trees (EAP-IFPRI-IDRC, 1996). Studies by Kammerba-
uer and Ardón (1999) and Bergeron and Pender (1999) found that since 1975, land use
patterns in the catchment have been relatively stable. The only significant change since
the 1980s has been the adoption of intensive horticultural production by a number of
farmers, in response to accessible markets in Tegucigalpa after a road was built and the
development of a potable water system. The area devoted to each of the major land use
categories of fallow, pasture, forest, and agriculture has remained constant (Bergeron and
Pender, 1999).
The catchment occupies about 9.2 km2 with elevation ranging from 1100 to 1850 m
above sea level (masl). Topography is highly variable and steep: 80% of the slopes are
>15%, 47% are >30%. Relief can vary over scales as fine as 10 m. The relief is dynamic
in that landforms are subject to continual slumping, erosion, and redistribution of
sediment. The bedrock geology consists of volcanic ash deposits from the Tertiary period,
with some Quaternary basaltic andesite deposits (Perdomo Bennett, 1996). As none was
available, a soil survey was carried out as part of this investigation. We classified soils
according to the USDA Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1998) as Ustepts and Aquepts,
varying in their mineralogy, organic matter content, and base saturation (Ericksen et al., in
press).
The population of the La Lima catchment, totaling about 400, is of mixed Spanish and
indigenous descent (ladinos) (Bergeron et al., 1996). Land is cultivated by men, who work
primarily as farmers on their own small plots, on which they cultivate beans, corn, and a
variety of horticultural crops, or perform labor for other local farmers or on large farms in
the Zamorano valley below the catchment.

3.2. Eliciting information from farmers

We relied upon a variety of techniques to investigate land uses in the catchment and
elicit information from the farmers. Many of the techniques we used were based upon
early researchers exploring various participatory approaches (e.g., Schoonmaker-Freuden-
berger, 1994; Bunch, 1993; Ashby, 1992). While ‘‘knowledge’’ is perhaps a subjective
word, in this study, we considered it to be the understanding and observations the farmers
told us they had regarding their landscape. This was in response to both open, informal
interviews and specific questions. We used an approach most similar to what the World
Bank sourcebook on participation defines as participatory consultation (World Bank,
2000)—a precursor to actual participatory research.
236 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248

Ardón (1995), working as part of a team from the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI), the Escuela Agricola Panamericana (EAP), and the Interna-
tional Development Research Center (IDRC), gathered the initial information on soils
and land use. He spent 2 months (February and March of 1995) in the catchment
working and talking with as many farmers as possible, walking transects, interviewing
family members, and making copious notes. Although he met most of the families in
the catchment, he relied on a group of 15 to 20 most heavily. His key interest was to
learn what the major land uses in the catchment were, to assess the environmental
problems facing farmers, and to differentiate the farm families on the basis of land
holdings, social and economic status. He also identified some of the local knowledge
regarding soils and plants, using five key informants. Over the subsequent 3 months,
he worked with other team members to refine his questions, map land use, and formulate
a basis for a better understanding of land dynamics and economic factors. The use of a
large aerial photo from 1995 (original scale was 1:20,000, but photo was enlarged to
10 times that size) as a mapping tool with farmers was particularly valuable for
verifying land use locations. A copy of the land use map made with the farmers is shown in
Fig. 1.
The land use classifications derived from the farmers are as follows:

y Five different types of forests, ranging from intact cloud forest to badly degraded and
sparse pine (Pinus maximinoi H.E. Moore and Pinus oocarpa Scheide) forest. Farmers
differentiated among the sparse pine forests depending upon the type of grass which
grew among the trees.
y Five types of agricultural plots, depending upon availability and type of irrigation and
fallow. Labranzas were the common type, so named because they were plowed with
oxen when possible. In some cases, they were irrigated. A few swampy areas, known as
cienegas, were irrigated in the dry season using channels dug into the ground. Guatales
were areas cultivated for corn in the rainy season (without plows) for 1 or 2 years and
then left for several years to recuperate. Montecillo referred to areas that had largely
been abandoned for agricultural purposes and were covered with shrubs. They were not
considered as fertile as guatales. However, with the advent of fertilizers and the
declining fertility of land, farmers had stopped rotating fallow plots in almost all cases
and relied on continuous cultivation. Vegetation on abandoned plots sometimes
rejuvenated. In the majority of cases, abandoned plots had been invaded by an exotic
grass, jaraguá (Hyparrhenia rufa Ness Stapf), which out-competed other species on
degraded soils.
y Coffee groves, which were usually located near streams. A variety of fruit trees were
used to shade the smaller coffee trees.
y Five types of pastures (called pasto or potrero), as much of the abandoned agricultural
land had been converted to pasture during the past 20 years when farmers began to buy
cattle. Local farmers distinguished between pastures depending upon the species of
grass (jaraguá or higher quality locally known species) which dominates. The species
and density/productivity of grass indicated both soil quality (fertility, pH, and moisture
content) and quality as cattle food. The cattle grazed everywhere, however, depending
upon time of year. Arable pastures were in short supply, and farmers also liked to have
 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248 237

Fig. 1. Land use map made with farmers.

cattle eat down some of the stubble covering the agricultural plots to clear them prior to
planting.
y Three lakes, which contained some fish.
During extensive independent field work (over 15 months from March 1995 to July
1996) to evaluate soil quality throughout the catchment, Ericksen gathered additional
information about farmer’s views of soil quality and land management. Her soil quality
measurement sites were distributed throughout the catchment and varied by land use
type and landform. The first point of interaction between scientist and farmer was in
the sample selection for these soil quality measurements, as the farmer-defined land
use types were used as a key selection variable. The subsequent interactions were an
informal but guided elicitation, in which at times the farmers’ general views on soils
238 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248

and land were recorded through open-ended discussions, and at other times the
farmers’ opinions about specific topics of interest to the scientist were probed (e.g.,
Birmingham, 1998). The topics she discussed in particular with the farmers were the
following:

1. How much fertilizer did they use? How and when did they plant? What did they do
with crop stubble at the end of growing seasons?
2. How did they decide which plots should be cultivated versus left in pasture or forest?
Had these decisions changed at all?
3. How did they distinguish between good and bad soils for different purposes?
4. What did they know about soil texture and stoniness? How did they describe them?
5. Were they aware of soil organic matter? Soil animals?
6. How did they explain infiltration of water? Or local drainage patterns?
7. What were their views on erosion?
8. Did they distinguish between type and density of vegetation cover?

Following the example and approach of Ardón, Ericksen relied upon daily contact
and the buildup of mutual trust with farmers and their families to become familiar with
the communities. She worked with several local farmers who helped her take measure-
ments and were invaluable guides to the people and land throughout the catchment.
Over time, she tried to interact with a variety of farmers, especially those who had not
previously been contacted by Ardón. Overall, she spoke at length with about 30 of the
male adult farmers in the catchment; this does not include the children and laborers
who worked with them. These farmers were the owners of the sampling sites and
others who either worked on these same plots or were people she encountered fre-
quently at other sites in the catchment. Through collaboration with the IFPRI team and
her own observations, she learned about the socio-economic background of the farmers
as well.
To draw the conclusions presented below, we synthesized the information gathered in
all of the different ways, identifying the themes outlined below as key. Iteration and
triangulation served to confirm answers, and to point out problem areas (Schoonmaker-
Freudenberger, 1994; Birmingham, 1998). The IFPRI team continued investigations in
the catchment as well, conducting an economic census and in-depth plot histories
(Bergeron et al., 1996; Bergeron and Pender, 1999). No result is presented as generally
true, unless it had been confirmed by at least six different (in terms of how they farmed,
their social and economic status, etc.) farmers, at different times and places. If only one or
two farmers mentioned a topic, this is noted in the discussion and is not presented as
generally true.

3.3. Soil quality and sustainable land management

The methodology and approach for the soil scientist’s investigation of soil quality
and sustainable land management are described in Ericksen and McSweeney (1999)
and Ericksen et al. (in press). The driving motivation was to develop indicators for
future planning, after first determining what differences were discernable. Considerable
 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248 239

efforts were made to use simple and locally relevant measures. To describe soil quality
at the plot level, Ericksen and McSweeney (1999) chose to focus initially on soil
functions that contributed to a suitable habitat for plant growth and that would be
applicable to a variety of land uses. Five functions were chosen to assess habitat
suitability:

1. Infiltration and redistribution of air and water.

2. Preservation of soil moisture.
3. Organic matter supply and nutrient cycling.
4. Habitat for flora and fauna.
5. Resistance to erosion.

The attributes measured to evaluate these functions are listed in Table 1. A scoring process
was used to evaluate the attributes (Ericksen and McSweeney, 1999).
At a broader scale, Ericksen et al. (in press) evaluated the leakiness of plots, or the
propensity of sediment and water to flow away from a given site, thereby having on
impact on surrounding areas. Eleven surface features were described and scored. At the
catchment scale, seven transfer processes and three landscape features indicative of
processes were identified as having the greatest impact on water and sediment transfer
throughout the catchment. The frequency and intensity of these processes were
evaluated.

Table 1
Soil quality functions with attributes and weights used for computation
Infiltration and Preservation of Organic matter Habitat for soil Resistance
redistribution of soil moisture supply and flora and fauna to erosion
air and water nutrient cycling
Infiltration rate (0.2) Soil organic Soil organic Soil organic Vegetative cover
carbon (0.3) carbon (0.2) carbon (0.2) (0.2)
Bulk density (0.2) Vegetative Vegetative cover Soil macrofauna Surface
cover (0.3) (0.1) (0.2) microtopography
(0.2)
Surface Percent clay Soil macrofauna Vegetative cover Infiltration rate
microtopography (0.1) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)
Vegetative cover (0.1) Surface Soil nitrogen, Soil structure Percent clay (0.2)
stoniness (0.1) phosphorus (0.1)
and potassium
(0.1 each)
Soil structure (0.1) pH (0.2) pH (0.1) Surface stoniness
(0.1)
Soil macrofauna (0.1) Bulk density Bulk density (0.1)
(0.1)
Percent clay (0.1) Percent clay
(0.1)
Soil organic carbon (0.1)
Weights given in parentheses were used to compute values for soil quality functions.
240 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248

4. Results and discussion

The results are presented in the following order. First, we describe the scientist’s
assessment of soil quality, noting which indicators were found to be important and which
areas were identified as sustainably managed. The farmers’ views of soil quality are
presented second, along with a discussion of their management practices. Finally, the two
views are compared and the potential for finding a common basis for better management is
discussed. Farmer views on some of the scientist’s soil quality indicators are also dis-
cussed.

4.1. Scientific evaluation of soil quality

The investigation was designed to assess which land use and landform combinations
were the most sustainable and to focus on the impact of human activity upon soil quality
and soil stability.
The plot level analysis (Ericksen and McSweeney, 1999) indicated that seven attributes
were most useful as indicators of differences in soil quality at the plot level: organic carbon
content, percent clay, percent vegetation cover, A horizon thickness, pH, bulk density, and
soil structure. Soil texture, carbon content, and A horizon thickness are broadly related to
intrinsic variability of the geology within the catchment and its ecological and geo-
morphologic history. Bulk density, pH, vegetation cover, and soil structure are, in turn,
quite sensitive to management, which also modifies erosion and deposition processes. This
latter influence contributes to additional localized variation in A horizon, percent clay, and
organic carbon content. Interestingly, differences in attributes are greater among land uses
than landforms, also supporting the influence of management practices.
When the attributes were combined to form the soil quality functions, coffee groves,
fallows, forests, and pastures were rated as having higher overall soil quality (see Tables 2
and 3). The irrigated and flooding plots scored low on water infiltration and soil aeration
and habitats for soil fauna. Agricultural plots also ranked low for preservation of soil
moisture and soil organic matter and nutrient cycling. There was an important interaction
between land use and landform, in that forests scored well despite their predominant
location on slopes. Pastures, because of their permanent vegetation cover, low bulk
density, reasonable surface layer, organic matter content, and high soil fauna content, score
well. In general, all plots were low on nutrient and organic matter cycling, fairly good for
vegetative cover and A horizon depth, and variable for pH and bulk density.

Table 2
Soil quality functions by landform
Soil quality function Landform
Upper slope Mid-slope Flat area
Infiltration of air and water 0.78 0.72 0.65
SOM and nutrient cycling 0.67 0.55 0.59
Preservation of soil moisture 0.54 0.45 0.63
Habitat for soil fauna 0.78 0.67 0.59
Resistance to erosion 0.66 0.68 0.48
 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248 241

Table 3
Soil quality functions by land use
Soil quality function Land use
Pasture Forest Irrigated Temporal Flooded Fallowa Coffee
agriculture agriculture area grove
Infiltration of air and water 0.68 0.75 0.515 0.71 0.41 0.79 0.86
SOM and nutrient cycling 0.58 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.48 NA 0.78
Preservation of soil moisture 0.6 0.54 0.34 0.43 0.6 0.54 0.75
Habitat for soil fauna 0.61 0.73 0.36 0.63 0.46 0.76 0.91
Resistance to erosion 0.48 0.68 0.39 0.71 0.38 0.76 0.73
a
Proxy values assigned for stoniness, microtopography and pH.

Turning to evaluation of the propensity for sediment, vegetation, water, and nutrients to
move within areas of the catchment, Ericksen et al. (in press) describe a complex pattern of
attributes and processes which interact to determine this. At the level of individual plots,
landform shape, vegetation cover, boundaries, and nature of the erosion had the greatest
influence. Approximately half the sites were scored as ‘‘leaky’’, a term used to represent
the propensity of sediments and water to ‘‘leak’’ away from a given plot. Of the 10
processes and landscape features identified as influencing movement among plots, Table 4
summarizes those with the greatest impact. Surface water flow, more severe gully erosion,
paths, human influence on land use type or cover, and landslides (caused by several
factors) are the most important factors. There was a distinction between those processes
that were prevalent but had primarily localized impacts, such as landform location and

Table 4
Predominant cases where transfer processes, land management practices and landscape features have broad-scale
impact, La Lima catchment, central Honduras
Transfer process Management practice Landscape feature Impact
Substantial surface Removal of vegetative Convex slope, silty soils Rills and gullies that
water flow cover can, with time, transfer
sediment
Surface water flow Paths Slope proximate to flat Deposition of sediment
or concave area and water, often on
agricultural fields
Subsurface water Convex shape, layers of Landslides, slumping,
flow and drainage clays with coarse textured and mass wasting that
patterns sediments move sediment and
reshape landforms
Clearing of forest through Fragmentation and loss
logging and for cattle and of forest habitat
agriculture
Changing land uses to Poor quality pastures
permanent agriculture and loss of fallows
and increased cattle grazing
Shallow water Flat footslope, Fields flood in the rainy
table/poor drainage clay sediments season and cannot be
used for agriculture
242 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248

shape, and those that had broader scale impact, such as surface water flow. Both human
and biophysical factors were influential. About 2/3 of the catchment is affected by leaks.

4.2. Farmer management and perceptions of soils

4.2.1. Management
A consistent relationship between land use and landform might have indicated that
farmers deliberately managed this relationship, perhaps for best environmental protection
or agricultural productivity. However, although steep slopes are primarily covered with
forests, and irrigated agriculture is restricted to flatter areas, pastures occur on all
landforms (Kammerbauer and Ardón, 1999). All land use categories are encountered on
the two most common slope categories: 15 –30% and 30 – 50%. The only exception is
irrigated agriculture. These plots are universally on slopes less than 15%, in depressions
where sediment collected and the elevation and relief permitted gravity-fed irrigation.
Bergeron and Pender (1999) found that the only intensive production in the catchment
occurs on these plots, which are 11% of the total land use. Pastures are more likely than
agricultural plots to be on slopes greater than 15%, with the exception of El Plan, where
the flat relief, heavy clay soils, and high water table resulted in a number of pastures on
slopes less than 15%.
As farmers universally said that pastures had once been cultivated, this indicates that
either sloped lands or those which flood regularly were abandoned first. Less clear,
however, was why some sloped lands were continued to be cultivated, and others were
abandoned for pasture or fallow. Discussions with farmers suggested that land tenure
played an important role, as many farmers only had access to sloped lands, as did
declining soil fertility and the subsequent invasion by the aggressive species of grass
known locally as jaraguá (H. rufa Ness Stapf), which prevented more diverse fallow
vegetation from regrowing. Farmer response to local specificity, resulting from both socio-
economic and biophysical factors, explained the pattern of land use on sloped lands better,
although not as one might have expected.
Both formal surveys (Bergeron et al., 1996) and our own investigations confirmed that
farmers deliberately managed only their agricultural plots. Of these, the irrigated growing
of horticultural crops was the most intensive in terms of inputs, as they fetched a good
price in the Tegucigalpa urban market. This intensive management consisted of seedbed
preparation, selecting appropriate crops for different soils (clay versus loamy), and the use
of fertilizers and sometimes pesticides. Plowing with oxen (from which the term labranza
is derived) was a normal practice if the slope was not too steep. Organic matter
management was not a high priority, although in response to questions, all farmers said
they knew of its benefits. In reality, however, most crop stubble was used for cattle feed or
filling in thin parts of fields. Also, many farmers said that stubble encouraged pests.
Micro-management of fields was common, as all the farmers were aware of spatial
variability in texture, fertility, soil moisture holding capacity, and soil cover thickness.
Very few fallow plots existed in La Lima. Only 2% of land cover was classified as
fallow, and farmers had basically stopped rotating their fields. Much of the former
agricultural land had been converted to pasture. The popular explanation was that the
soils were no longer very fertile, and invasive grasses had taken over, preventing other
 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248 243

shrubbier vegetation from growing. Paniagua et al. (1999) support this. However, the
farmers did not say that they wanted to be able to rotate their plots. They all used fertilizer
if they could afford it and universally thought it was the primary solution to low
agricultural productivity. They did not manage pastures or fallows to try to recuperate
them.
The remaining forest patches were used for cattle grazing or fuel wood, along with a
few extractive activities (Córdoba, 1995). There was evidence of a slow clearing of the
gentler slopes of Cerro Grande, as more cattle grazed and trees died.
Ten farmers owned coffee groves, which also included fruit trees for shade. None of the
farmer owners saw the value in rehabilitating them, unless the price of coffee became more
stable. They used the coffee primarily for domestic consumption.

4.2.2. Descriptions
The primary terms the farmers of La Lima used to describe the soils of their catchment
are summarized in Table 5. The soils were always described in terms of their utility for
agriculture, hence the heading ‘‘evaluation by farmers’’. The technical English translations
are not intended to suggest any scientific evaluation, rather to guide the reader. These data
indicate that farmers primarily used surface features to describe soils. Although they could
identify rocks and geologic materials found in soils, subsurface horizons were not
something they mentioned without prompting when asked to describe their soils.

Table 5
Summary table of farmer soil descriptors
Farmer term US soil scientist Evaluation by farmers
equivalent
Soil texture
Barrioloso clay-rich fertile, high-moisture-holding
capacity, difficult to plow
when very wet or very dry
Suelta silty or loam easy to plow and cultivate,
suitable for many crops
Arenoso sandy infertile and droughty
Lajilloso containing poorly infertile and difficult to work
weathered tuffs

Geologic materials
Laja rhyolitic tuffs none
Piedras finas basaltic andesite none

Slope
Pendiente fuerte steep slope drain easily but hard to
plow with oxen
Parajita o plan flat easy to plow and irrigate,
more susceptible to flooding

Surface horizon
Capa negra o flor de la tierra A or organic horizon fertile if dark and thick
244 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248

Table 6
Farmer scores for soil quality by landform
Soil quality attribute Upper slope Mid-slope Flat area
Slope poor to intermediate poor to intermediate high
Texture varied according to crop varied according to crop varied according to crop
Irrigation poor intermediate high
Disease NA NA NA
Perceived fertility poor to fair poor to fair high in some cases
Drainage high intermediate poor

It is clear from these descriptive terms that a major concern of farmers regarding their
preferences for agricultural land was soil texture as it related to drainage at a particular
location, as well as ability to plow or hoe a particular plot. Soil texture was also an
indicator of fertility, as coarse textured soils were viewed as less fertile. Slope was a
second concern, as it related to drainage and ability to plow with oxen. Implicit also in the
farmers’ desire for irrigated agriculture was an understanding of slope, as all the water
systems were gravity fed. The only soil horizon of concern to the farmers was the surface
horizon, viewed as very beneficial if it were thick and dark. La flor de la tierra literally
means ‘‘flower of the soil’’, conveying a sense that this horizon promised good quality and
fertile soil. None of the farmers viewed soils as homogeneous entities and all were aware
of variability in texture, color, moisture holding capacity, and fertility (as indicated by crop
productivity).
In Tables 6 and 7, a derived local farmer index for soil quality is presented, first for
landforms and second for land use. These attributes are those the farmers actually used to
manage plots, given the constraints that land tenure and the predominantly steep slopes of
the catchment placed upon them. They reflect farmer concerns about their soils, as well as
their preferences. The terms we found were most important to farmer perceptions of soil
quality are as follows:

 Slope: flatter plots were preferred because of ease of plowing.

 Texture: silty soils were easiest to manage, but clays were valued for their fertility.
Heavy rains significantly hampered workability of the latter soils.

Table 7
Farmer scores for soil quality by land use
Pasture Forest Irrigated Temporal Flooded Fallow Coffee
agriculture agriculture area grove
Slope varies low high fair high varies high
Texture varies varies varies high fair varies high
Irrigation NA NA high poor high poor NA
Disease NA NA varies; fair varies varies fair to
often poor poor
Perceived fertility low high high fair high poor to high
moderate
Drainage varies high often poor high poor varies high
 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248 245

 Irrigation: the availability of this increased the value of a plot tremendously and
dictated where intensive agricultural plots were located.
 Disease history: farmers generally agreed that this could prohibit growing certain crops,
but their ability to eradicate them was limited.
 Perceived fertility: In addition to soil texture, this was indicated by the type of
vegetation in a pasture or fallow or the crop yield in previous years.
 Drainage: a function of slope and soil texture, as well as hydrologic patterns
within the catchment, farmers’ evaluation of this depended upon the crop and the
season.

This index is imperfect, but it does indicate the complexity of farmers’ evaluation of
soils in terms of their quality. No single variable dictated land use practices.

4.3. Farmer compared with scientist knowledge

A comparison of Tables 2 and 3 with Tables 6 and 7 indicates first, that farmers
articulated their soil quality concerns using concepts related primarily to agricultural
production concerns, while the scientist’s index attempted to incorporate a broader set
of plant productivity concerns. Both soil quality indices, however, use texture and
water infiltration characteristics as key indicators. Slope is also implicit in the
classification of landform units and explicit in the farmer evaluation of plots. The
farmers used type of vegetation cover in some cases (pastures and fallows) to indicate
fertility, but this differed from the scientist’s use of this variable to indicate
preservation of soil moisture and infiltration. The farmers linked vegetation cover to
enhanced nutrient cycling through their understanding of organic matter (see below).
Soil fauna were not a concern of the farmers, except in the case of disease caused by
grubs. About half viewed earthworms and beetles as beneficial, when probed on this
topic.
The responses of farmers to questions about the scientific soil quality indicators
were interesting in that organic matter is something most farmers are aware of and
said was important, as it provided nutrients for soil. They knew it came from de-
composing crop stubble and other litter. They also considered soil texture and
infiltration rates important, and could explain the link between infiltration and runoff.
However, what the scientist considered to be a well-structured and friable soil was
called a ‘‘loose’’ soil by the farmers, and viewed as more susceptible to erosion. A
thick A horizon was considered very good for crop production, along with silty or clay
soils.
Erosion was not a concern, despite the prevalence of it, albeit with a localized
influence. Although farmer decisions about land use resulted in a ‘‘breaking’’ up of the
landscape, which, along with the geomorphology, determined the flow of materials
among locations of the watershed, few farmers deliberately tried to control erosion.
They did not all see vegetative cover as important to preventing runoff, and they
viewed physical barriers as best for preventing erosion. Their response to the land-
slides in La Lima and Los Montes was to replow and level the new plot shapes that
resulted.
246 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248

5. Discussion

This discussion is divided into two parts. The first examines which important factors
either local farmers or scientists might discount, and the second deals with the potential to
move forward together for more sustainable management of the catchment.

5.1. Does either view discount important factors?

The scientist view missed the farmer concern with plant diseases that are soil borne (or
perceived to be), as well as pests that live in the soil or crop residue. It also did not
investigate the full relationship between different natural vegetation (including the various
pasture grasses) and soil fertility. The availability of irrigation as a primary factor was also
not considered.
The farmer view discounts erosion and the impact of changing land use upon the
overall catchment integrity. It also does not value soil animals very highly. Their view of
landslides is that they are bad, but unlike the scientist, they do not consider their impact to
be a complete disaster.
Both assessments consider soil texture, landform type, organic matter content, A
horizon thickness and color, and infiltration (as it links to drainage and water holding
capacity), and use them in an integrated manner to evaluate soil quality. Both have a
complex concept of soil quality in which no single factor makes a plot good or bad.
Ultimately, both evaluate plot level soil quality as problematic. Farmer understanding of
the broader scale impact of the movement of nutrients and sediment around the watershed
is much more limited, while this was a primary concern for the scientist. She viewed these
processes as important to the declining soil productivity in the catchment. Farmers see the
solution as applying more fertilizers, rather than returning to rotation of plots or manage-
ment of fallows and pastures.

5.2. What has a comparison of the two knowledge bases indicated regarding future work
to improve things?

To answer this question, it is first necessary to consider the rationale behind the two
knowledge bases. The scientist deliberately took a holistic view and broad-scale view of
soil quality in order to evaluate the sustainability of land management overall. She sought
to determine whether the specific pattern of landform and land use was the best in terms
not only of agricultural productivity but also environmental sustainability.
The farmers view their land as a resource that has value only as it can produce a
marketable product, and their management reflects this. They have a plot and agriculture
specific view of soil quality.
In the future, there is potential for La Lima farmers to acquire what Ortiz (1999) calls
modifying or in some cases reinforcing knowledge to better their management. They
already have a complex understanding of soil quality and could learn more. The success of
the interactions with extension agents will, however, be colored by their economic needs.
There is also potential for the scientist to do better investigation of declining fertility, lack
of fallow regrowth, and of soil-borne diseases and pests.
 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248 247

6. Conclusion

This study is able to relate local soil knowledge to both its agroecological context and
a few social and economic factors, but falls short of a complete understanding of the
cultural context. However, its primary goal was to assess the potential of both local and
scientific soil knowledge to improve land management, and it does achieve this. It differs
from comparisons of soil classification systems because it draws upon scientific
interpretation of land use and management, similar to recent studies of local versus
scientific understanding of soil erosion (Scott and Walter, 1993; Cartier van Dissel and
de Graaff, 1998). Neither the scientist nor farmer view is complete in its consideration of
all factors, reinforcing the basic motivation for the study. This study suggests that for
future work between farmers and scientists in the area, the most useful soil quality
indicators upon which to focus would be those pertaining to drainage, slope, disease, and
fertility.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the farmers of La Lima and two anonymous reviewers for
making both the process and the reality of producing this research so fruitful. We were
thankful for funding to support this research from the Fullbright Foundation, IDRC, and
the USAID SANREM-CRSP.

References

Ardón, M., 1995. Dinámica de manejo del espacio en la microcuenca de La Lima, Tatumbla, Fransisco Morazán,
Honduras. EAP-IFPRI Report. El Zamorano, Honduras.
Ashby, J.A., 1992. Manual para la evaluación de tecnologı́a con productores. Proyecto IPRA-CIAT, Cali,
Colombia.
Bellon, M.P., Taylor, J.E., 1993. ‘Folk’ soil taxonomy and the partial adoption of new seed varieties. Economic
Development and Cultural Change 41 (4), 763 – 786.
Bergeron, G., Pender, J., 1999. Determinants of land use change: evidence from a community study in Honduras.
EPTD Discussion Paper No. 46. Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Bergeron, G., Scherr, S., Pender, J., Mendoza, F., Barbier, B., Durón, G., Rodrı́guez, R., Neidecker-Gonzalez, O.,
1996. Environmental and socioeconomic change in La Lima, Central Honduras, 1975 – 1995. Part of final
report for ‘‘Policies for Sustainable Development in the Central American Hillsides,’’ prepared by IFPRI-
EPTD for the Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.
Birmingham, D., 1998. Learning local knowledge of soils: a focus on methodology. Indigenous Knowledge and
Development Monitor 6 (2) (http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/).
Blaikie, P., Brookfield, H., 1987. Land Degradation and Society. Methuen and Co., London, UK.
Bunch, R., 1993. What we have learned about campesinos and green manures. CIDICCO Technical Report
No. 3, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Cartier van Dissel, S., de Graaff, J., 1998. Differences between farmers and scientist in the perception of soil
erosion: a South African case study. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 6 (3) (http://www.
nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/).
Chavero, S., 1996. Perceptions of a deteriorated nature. ILEIA Newsletter 12 (3), 18 – 19.
248 P.J. Ericksen, M. Ardón / Geoderma 111 (2003) 233–248

Córdoba, B., 1995. Los recursos silvestre en La Lima. Unpublished thesis. Escuela Agricola Panamericana, El
Zamorano, Honduras.
Ericksen, P.J., McSweeney, K., 1999. Fine scale analysis of soil quality under mixed land uses and landforms: a
case study from Central Honduras. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14 (4), 146 – 157.
Ericksen, P.J., McSweeney, K., Madison, F.W., 2002. Linkages and sustainable land management: evidence from
Central Honduras. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 91 (1 – 3), 295 – 311.
Escuela Agricola Panamericana-International Food Policy Research Institute-International Development Re-
search Center (EAP-IFPRI-IDRC), 1996. Proyecto cartografia de recursos comunitarios e investigación de
polı́ticas (Honduras) 93-0030. Escuela Agrı́cola Panamericana, El Zamorano, Honduras.
Guijt, I., Sidersky, P., 1996. Agreeing on indicators. ILEIA Newsletter 12 (3), 6 – 9.
Hambly, H., 1996. Grassroots indicators: measuring and monitoring environmental change at the local level.
ILEIA Newsletter 12 (3), 14 – 15.
Hecht, S., 1990. Indigenous soil management in the Latin American tropics: neglected knowledge of native
peoples. In: Altieri, M.A., Hecht, S.B. (Eds.), Agroecology and Small Farm Development. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, pp. 151 – 158.
Kammerbauer, J., Ardón, C., 1999. Land use dynamics and landscape change pattern in a typical watershed in the
hillside region of central Honduras. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 75, 93 – 100.
Ortiz, O., 1999. Understanding interactions between indigenous knowledge and scientific information. Indige-
nous Knowledge and Development Monitor 7 (3) (http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/).
Paniagua, A., Kammerbauer, J., Avedillo, M., Andrews, A.M., 1999. Relationship of soil characteristics to
vegetation successions on a sequence of degraded and rehabilitated soils in Honduras. Agriculture, Ecosys-
tems and Environment 72, 215 – 225.
Pawluk, R.R., Sandor, J.A., Tabor, J.A., 1992. The role of indigenous soil knowledge in agricultural develop-
ment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47 (4), 298 – 302.
Perdomo Bennett, R.A., 1996. Informe de perfil geológico de la microcuenca quebrada el Zapote. Unpublished
mimeo.
Perrot-Maitre, D., Weaver, T.F., 1992. Indigenous knowledge and fertilizer strategies in Leyte, Phillipines:
implications for research and demonstration trials. Journal for Farming Systems Research 3 (1), 21 – 34.
Sandor, J.A., Furbee, L., 1996. Indigenous knowledge and classification of soils in the Andes of southern Peru.
Soil Science Society of America Journal 60, 1502 – 1512.
Scott, C.A., Walter, M.F., 1993. Local knowledge and conventional soil science approaches to erosional pro-
cesses in the Shivalik Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development 13 (1), 61 – 72.
Schoonmaker-Freudenberger, K., 1994. Trees and Land Tenure: Rapid Appraisal Tools. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome, Italy.
Sillitoe, P., 1998. Knowing the land: soil and land resource evaluation and indigenous knowledge. Soil Use and
Management 14, 188 – 193.
Soil Survey Staff, 1998. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 8th ed. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
Somé, S., McSweeney, K., 1996. Assessing sustainability in Burkina Faso. ILEIA Newsletter 12 (3), 12 – 13.
Tabor, J.A., 1992. Ethnopedological surveys—soil surveys that incorporate local systems of land classification.
Soil Survey Horizons Spring, 1 – 5.
Talawar, S., Rhoades, R.E., 1998. Scientific and local classification and management of soils. Agriculture and
Human Values 15, 3 – 24.
Wilken, G., 1987. Good Farmers. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
WinklerPrins, A., 1999. Local soil knowledge: a tool for sustainable land management. Society and Natural
Resources 12 (2), 151 – 161.
World Bank, 2000. Participation Key Concepts. Participation Theme Team. http://www.worldbank.org/
participation/keyconcepts.htm#participation.
Zimmerer, K.S., 1994. Local soil knowledge: answering basic questions in highland Bolivia. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 49 (1), 29 – 34.