Crop Protection and Human–Wildlife Conflict in Côte d’Ivoire | JBES 2025

 

Koffi Kouamé Christophe,  Ouffoue Affoué Eugénie Naomie,  Gagbé Dalié Sylvestre, and Beda Alex, from the institute of the Côte d’Ivoire. Wrote a research article about, Crop Protection and Human–Wildlife Conflict in Côte d’Ivoire. Entitled, Household socio-agricultural profiles and the adoption of crop protection strategies in human-wildlife conflict contexts: Insights from western Côte d’Ivoire around mount Sangbé National Park. This research paper published by the Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences | JBES. an open access scholarly research journal on Environmental Sciences. under the affiliation of the International Network For Natural Sciences| INNSpub. an open access multidisciplinary research journal publisher.

Abstract

In rural sub-Saharan Africa, proximity to protected areas and habitat fragmentation intensify human-wildlife conflicts, particularly through crop-raiding. This study examines how household socio-agricultural profiles influence the adoption of protection strategies against wildlife incursions. The study took place near mount Sangbé national park in Côte d’Ivoire and involved surveying 121 farming households from three villages through structured interviews, complemented by field observations and expert consultations. Nineteen wildlife species were identified as crop raiders, with granivores and rodents, especially the grass cutter, red-headed quelea, and patas monkey, causing significant damage to rice, cassava, and cocoa. A hierarchical classification revealed four distinct household clusters, differentiated by landholding size, education level, age structure, and proximity to the park. Binary indicators were constructed for each method to evaluate protection practices and visualized by cluster. Strategies were grouped into physical deterrents, agroecological measures, and community-based interventions. A bias-reduced multinomial logistic regression was conducted using adjusted score equations to obtain stable estimates. Results show that field guarding is the most widely used strategy, especially among educated households with smaller landholdings, while traditional hunting and trapping are more common among older, less educated households with larger farms. Passive tolerance was positively associated across all clusters, suggesting widespread reliance on non-confrontational coping mechanisms. Scarecrows and trapping methods showed low or negative adoption rates, indicating limited perceived effectiveness. These findings underscore the need to tailor mitigation strategies to household-specific capacities and spatial contexts. The study advocates for agroecological and community-based approaches to enhance resilience and sustainability in buffer zones near protected areas.

Introduction

In rural regions of sub-Saharan Africa, agricultural systems are increasingly subjected to ecological and social pressures resulting from habitat fragmentation, expansion of cultivated areas, and proximity to protected zones. These factors exacerbate humanwildlife conflicts, particularly via wildlife encroachments into subsistence crops, a phenomenon extensively documented in buffer zones adjacent to natural reserves (Dibloni et al., 2020; Chepkwony et al., 2025). Such crop-raiding events jeopardize food security, economic stability, and the psychological well-being of farming households (Barua et al., 2013; Nyhus, 2016). Crop-raiding, defined as the incursion of wild animals into cultivated fields, results in direct economic losses and indirect effects on the mental health and social cohesion of farmers (Hill, 2005; Galley and Anthony, 2024). These conflicts are further aggravated by land pressure, habitat degradation, and inadequate compensation or prevention mechanisms (Asaye et al., 2024).

While forest ecosystems provide essential services that enhance rural resilience to climate change, their proximity also increases exposure to crop-raiding, especially in low-diversity farming systems. This paradox highlights the need for integrated approaches that balance conservation and agricultural productivity. Agroecology is a theoretically grounded and operational framework to address this dual challenge. Rooted in ecological principles and local knowledge, agroecology promotes crop diversification, sustainable soil management, and landscape-level planning. It offers practical strategies such as vegetative barriers, agroforestry, and community-based surveillance systems that can mitigate wildlife incursions while enhancing ecosystem services (Altieri, 1995; Bommarco, 2024; Dickman, 2010; Wezel et al., 2009).

Despite growing recognition of crop-raiding impacts, existing research remains fragmented and overly focused on direct economic losses. It often neglects the socio-territorial and behavioral dimensions that shape household responses and rarely incorporates agroecological or resilience-based perspectives. Moreover, the socio-agricultural typologies of farming households and their influence on the adoption of mitigation strategies are insufficiently characterized. This study fills these gaps by analyzing the complex interactions between household socio-agricultural profiles, crop-raiding dynamics, and protection strategies. It adopts a differentiated and sustainability-oriented approach to managing human-wildlife conflicts in rural areas adjacent to protected zones. Specifically, the study identifies the plant and animal species involved in crop-raiding events, characterizes the socio-agricultural profiles of affected households, evaluates the protection strategies adopted based on household profiles and geographic location, and statistically models the influence of household characteristics on mitigation methods.

Reference

Altieri MA. 1995. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture (2nd Ed.). Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd (ITP), WESTVIEW PRESS, Estados Unidos de América. https://www.sidalc.net/search/Record/KOHA-OAI-UAAAN:31703/Description

Asaye B, Tekalign W, Dobamo T. 2024. Livestock predation, crop raiding, and community attitudes towards sustainable wildlife conservation in and around Mankira Forest, Southwest Ethiopia. BMC Ecology and Evolution 24(1), 85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-024-02279-2

Awuah R, Douglass R, Agyepong S, Kuwornu E. 2017. An adaptive household sampling method for rural African communities. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 17(1), 11477 11496.

Barua M, Bhagwat SA, Jadhav S. 2013. The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological Conservation 157, 309 316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014

Blench R. 2017. Fencing agricultural land in Nigeria: why should it be done and how can it be achieved? Field investigations on pastoralist-farmers’ crises areas and enhancement of MISEREOR’s partners interventions in Nigeria, Phase 3. MISEREOR. https://www.misereor.org/fileadmin/user_upload_misereororg/publication/en/foodsecurity/fencing-agricultural-land-in-nigeria.pdf

Bommarco R. 2024. Ecological redesign of crop ecosystems for reliable crop protection. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 44(6), 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-024-00987-z

Burudi JW, Kovács ET, Katona K. 2025. Wildlife fences to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts in Africa: A literature analysis. Diversity 17(2), 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17020087

Chang’a A, Souza De N, Muya J, Keyyu J, Mwakatobe A, Malugu L, Ndossi HP, Konuche J, Omondi P, Mpinge A, Hahn N, Saibulu J, Kioko J, Kiffner C. 2016. Scaling-up the use of chili fences for reducing human-elephant conflict across landscapes in Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science 9(2), 921 930. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291600900220

Chepkwony MC, Lyakurwa GJ, Sabuhoro E. 2025. Human–wildlife conflicts, household livelihood security, and conservation support among residents adjacent to the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. Wild 2(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/wild2010006

Conteh AMH, Gebge B, Kallon S. 2022. Using multinomial logistic regression model (MLRM) to assess the factors influencing the selection of farming business by cassava and rice farmers in Bombali District, Sierra Leone. International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications 5(11), 103-108.

Dibloni OT, Ouoba D, Zoman YS, Yameogo S, Kabré BG. 2020. Caractérisation des conflits hommes-faune dans la Réserve de Biosphère de la Mare aux Hippopotames en zone sud soudanienne du Burkina Faso. Afrique Science 17(2), 115 127.

Dickman AJ. 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13(5), 458 466.

Fry HC, Keith S. 2020. The Birds of Africa: Volume VII. Vol. 7. Bloomsbury Publishing. Londres.

Galley W, Anthony BP. 2024. Beyond crop-raiding: Unravelling the broader impacts of human-wildlife conflict on rural communities. Environmental Management 74(3), 590 608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02018-9

Gueneau S, Jacobee F. 2005. Conservation de la biodiversité forestière tropicale en Afrique centrale: dépassionner les débats. Idées pour le débat, N˚14. Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales.

Hajdu I. 2022. Top Five Strategies to Protect Crops from Wild Animals. AGRIVI, 31 mars. https://www.agrivi.com/blog/top-five-strategies-to-protect-crops-from-wild-animals/

Hill CM. 2000. Conflict of interest between people and baboons: Crop raiding in Uganda. International Journal of Primatology 21(2), 299 315. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005481605637

Hill CM. 2005. People, crops and primates: A conflict of interests. Commensalism and Conflict: The Human-Primate Interface 4, 40 59.

Kingdon J, Butynski T, Kalina J. 2024. Mammals of Africa: Volume II. Vol. 2. Bloomsbury Publishing. Londres. (p 784)

Kingdon J, Happold D, Butynski T, Hoffmann M, Happold M, Kalina J. 2013. Mammals of Africa: Volume VI. Vol. 3. Bloomsbury Publishing. Londres. 560p.

Kingdon J, Happold D. 2024. Mammals of Africa: Volume III. Vol. 3. Bloomsbury Publishing. Londres.  704p.

Koffi KC, Kouakou HB, Kouakou NK, Kouakou AB, Beda A. 2024. Phenological stage of the destruction of crops by wild animals around Mont Sangbé National Park, Western Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology 33(3), 1-6.

Kosmidis I, Firth D. 2009. Bias reduction in exponential family nonlinear models. Biometrika 96(4), 793 804. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asp055

Lahm S. 1996. A nationwide survey of crop-raiding by elephants and other species in Gabon. Pachyderm 21, 69 77.

Lauginie F. 2007. Conservation de la nature et aires protégées en Côte d’Ivoire (NEI/Hachette et Afrique Nature). Abidjan. 668p.

Madden F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9(4), 247 257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505762

Mamo A, Lemessa D, Diriba OH, Hunde D. 2021. Pattern of crop raiding by wild large mammals and the resultant impacts vary with distances from forests in Southwest Ethiopia. Ecology and Evolution 11(7), 3203 3209. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7250

Manono BO, Khan S, Kithaka KM. 2025. A Review of the Socio-Economic, Institutional, and Biophysical Factors Influencing Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices in Sub-Saharan Africa. Earth 6(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6020048

Mnukwa ML, Mdoda L, Mudhara M. 2025. Assessing the Adoption and Impact of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices on Smallholder Maize Farmers’ Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 9, 1543805. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1543805

Naughton-Treves L, Treves A. 2005. Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding by elephants and other. People and Wildlife, Conflict or Co-existence? 9, 252.

Nyhus PJ. 2016. Human–Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41(1), 143 171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634

Pacini GC, Colucci D, Baudron F, Righi E, Corbeels M, Tittonell P. 2014. Combining multi-dimensional scaling and cluster analysis to describe the diversity of rural households. Experimental Agriculture 50(3), 376 397. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479713000529

Tavolaro F, Woodgate Z, Brown C, Redpath S, O’Riain JM. 2022. Multispecies study of patterns and drivers of wildlife impacts on human livelihoods in communal conservancies. Conservation Science and Practice 4(7), e12773. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12773

UNHCR. 2024. Sampling for household surveys. UNHCR Assessment and Monitoring Resource Centre.

United Nations. 2005. Designing Household Survey Samples: Practical Guidelines. Studies in Methods, Series F No. 98. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division.

Walker, Kendra L. 2010. Moving Away from Prescriptive Pachyderm Palliatives: Toward an Integrated Assessment of Farmer-Elephant Conflict in Gabon. PhD Thesis in Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/75922.

Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C. 2009. Agroecology as a Science, a Movement and a Practice. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29(4), 503 515. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004

Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A. 2005. People and wildlife, conflict or co-existence? Vol. 9. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 452p.

Article source : Household socio-agricultural profiles and the adoption of crop protection strategies inhuman-wildlife conflict contexts: Insights from western Côte d’Ivoire around mount Sangbé National Park 

Read More

Lignocellulolytic Bacteria for Sugarcane Trash Biodegradation | IJB 2024

Viji Jayabalan and Neelanarayanan Periyasamy, from the institute of the India. Wrote a research article about, Lignocellulolytic Bacteria for Sugarcane Trash Biodegradation. Entitled, Diversity of lignocellulolytic bacteria in native soil of sugarcane trash and to assess their biodegradation potential. This research paper published by the International Journal of Biosciences | IJB. an open access scholarly research journal on Biosciences. under the affiliation of the International Network For Natural Sciences| INNSpub. an open access multidisciplinary research journal publisher

Abstract

The main goal of this research was to investigate the diversity of lignocellulolytic bacteria in the native soil of sugarcane trash and to assess their biodegradation potential. From naturally degrading sugarcane waste, bacteria were identified. 35 distinct bacterial species were discovered; these bacteria were then employed to determine each one’s potential for breaking down the lignin and cellulose found in sugarcane waste. After selecting a potential strain of bacteria, Congo red and iodine tests were created for the purpose of screening bacterial species, and they were then utilized to further the biodegradation of sugarcane waste. Thirteen of the thirty-five investigated bacterial species generated cellulase and ligninase enzymes, and Pseudomonas fluorescens was identified in the secondary screening as a suitable strain among these. Hence, this P. fluorescens was employed in the degradation of sugarcane waste. When this lingo-cellulolytic bacterium was introduced to sugarcane waste, the rate of degradation of the waste was enhanced. Significant reduction in lignin and cellulose contents were observed in sugarcane trash inoculated with P. fluorescens compared to other experiments. P. fluorescens lowered the C:N ratio in soil-mixed sugarcane waste from 70:1 to 10:1. The macronutrients of the compost taken from experimental trays seeded with P. fluorescens showed a substantial increase as well. It is evident from these results that the P. fluorescens, lingo-cellulolytic bacteria may be used for the degradation of sugarcane trash. Hence, we conclude that P. fluorescens can be recommended for the degradation of sugarcane trash which would result in the production of good quality compost containing higher amounts of total nitrogen, total potassium and total phosphorus contents.

Introduction

Sugarcane is one of the most significant cash crops in India and is extremely essential to both the agricultural and industrial economies of the nation. One of the world's top producers of sugarcane is India. India produces 320 million tonnes of sugarcane annually. In Tamil Nadu, 102 tonnes of sugarcane are produced per acre (Mohan and Ponnusamy, 2011).

More than 3000 ha of sugarcane are grown in the Tiruchirappalli district of Tamil Nadu, with an average production of 100 tonnes ha-1. Over 6.5 million tonnes of sugarcane waste are created year when the crop is harvested. The state government of Tamil Nadu, through Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Sirugamani, and Tiruchirappalli District, conducted numerous education and training initiatives on how to effectively manage trash from harvested sugarcane, although trash burning is still a common practise (Dhanushkodi et al., 2019). By releasing harmful gases into the atmosphere, such as methane and carbon dioxide, this activity pollutes the atmosphere and endangers both human health and the ecosystem. Moreover, this approach significantly depletes the soil of minerals, micronutrients and microbes.

The two best alternatives for managing sugarcane waste effectively are composting and mulching, but both require a lot of work. The combined approaches of composting with microbial inoculants can be used to reduce this issue, and it currently attracts a lot of interest from researchers (Swetha et al., 2010).

The aforementioned facts make it clear that using microorganisms is necessary for the efficient and rapid decomposition of sugarcane waste. The breakdown process is typically accelerated by the microorganisms that are naturally present in the garbage. In this work, we looked into a biological technique for employing bacteria to hasten the breakdown of the main chemical components found in the waste from sugarcane. It is one of the greatest options for quickly turning the available, unused organic biodegradable wastes, such as sugarcane garbage, into compost.

This study aims to examine the diversity of lingocellulolytic bacteria in native soil, or naturally decomposing sugarcane waste sites, and afterwards to test their biodegradation capacity in order to make recommendations to farmers in the future.

Reference

Abdelhamid MT, Horiuchi T, Oba S. 2004. Composting of rice straw with oilseed rape cake and poultry manure and its effects on faba bean (Vicia faba L.) growth and soil properties. Bioresource Technology 93(2), 183-189.

Anonymous. 2006. The Fertiliser (Control) Order. The Fertiliser Association of India, Rakmo Press Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 203p.

Barakah FN, Radwan SM, Aziz RA. 2013. Using biotechnology in recycling agricultural waste for sustainable agriculture and environmental protection. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science 2, 446-459.

Bernal MP, Alburquerque JA. 2009. Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment: A review. Bioresource Technology 100, 5444-5453.

Bharadwaj S. 1999. Significance of microbial inoculants in organic matter decomposition. Agromicrobes, Current Trends in Life Sciences, New Delhi, 210p.

Bhat R, Narayan K. 2003. Textbook of Biochemical Methods. Himalaya Publications, New Delhi, 168p.

Cappuccino G, Sherman N. 1999. Microbiology: A Laboratory Manual. Dorling Kindersley Pvt. Ltd., India, 420p.

Chang V, Hudson HJ. 1967. Analysis of biochemical constituents of wheat straw. Ecological Studies 50, 649-651.

Das P, Mukherjee S, Sen R. 2008. Improved bioavailability and biodegradation of a model polyaromatic hydrocarbon by a biosurfactant producing bacterium of marine origin. Chemosphere 72, 1229-1234.

Dhanushkodi V, Noorjehan AKA, Amuthaselvi G, Easwaran S. 2019. In-situ sugarcane trash composting: A boon for soil fertility and cane yield (Saccharum officinarum). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 207-209.

Graham MH, Haynes J, Meyer JH. 2000. Changes in soil fertility induced by trash retention and fertiliser applications on the long-term trash management trial at Mount Edgecombe. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association 74, 109-113.

Hart TD, De Leij FAAM, Kinsey G, Kelley J, Lynch LM. 2002. Strategies for the isolation of cellulolytic fungi for composting of wheat straw. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 18, 47-480.

Herr T. 1979. Secretion of cellulases and beta-glucosidases by Trichoderma viridae ITCC 1433 in submerged cultures on different substrates. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 21, 1361-1363.

Ledwozyw A, Michalak J, Stepien A, Kadziolka K. 1986. The relationship between plasma triglycerides, cholesterol, total lipids and lipid peroxidation products during human atherosclerosis. Clinica Chimica Acta 155, 275–284.

Miller GL. 1959. Use of Dinitro Salicyclic Acid Reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Analytical Chemistry Journal 31, 426-428.

Mohan P, Ponnusamy D. 2011. Addressing the challenges of sugarcane trash decomposition through Effective Microbes. International Conference of Food Engineering and Biotechnology 9, 229-233.

Moldes A, Cendon Y, Barral MT. 2007. Evaluation of municipal solid waste compost as a plant growing media component, by applying mixture design. Bioresource Technology 98, 3069-3075.

Pointing SB. 1999. Qualitative methods for the determination of lignocellulolytic enzyme production by tropical fungi. Fungal Diversity 2, 17–33.

Pramanik P, Ghosh GK, Ghosal PK, Banik P. 2007. Changes in organic C, N, P and K and enzyme activities in vermicompost of biodegradable organic wastes under liming and microbial inoculants. Bioresource Technology 98, 2485-249.

Sharma S. 2003. Municipal solid waste management through vermicomposting employing exotic and local species of earthworms. Bioresource Technology 90, 169–173.

Sweta S, Kumar R, Singh BL, Deepshikha V. 2010. Integrating microbial composting and vermicomposting for effective utilization of by-product of sugarcane processing industries. Journal of Bioremediation 14, 158-167.

Tandon HLS. 2005. Methods of analysis: Soils, plants, waters, fertilizers & organic manures. Fertilizers Development and Organization, New Delhi, 203p.

Thormann MN, Currah RS, Bayley SE. 2002. The relative ability of fungi from Sphagnum fuscum to decompose selected carbon substrates. Current Journal of Microbiology 48, 204-211.

Tien M, Kirk TK. 1988. Lignin peroxidase of Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Methods of Enzymology 161, 238–249.

Updegroff DM. 1969. Semi-micro determination of cellulose in biological materials. Annals of Biochemistry 32, 420-424.

Article source : Diversity of lignocellulolytic bacteria in native soil of sugarcane trash and to assess their biodegradation potential  

Read More

Scaling Management of Invasive Prosopis juliflora | JBES 2025

Filbert T. Meela,  From the institute of the,  Tanzania Forestry Research Institute, Morogoro, Tanzania. Linus K. Munishi, From the institute of the,  School of Life Sciences and Bio-Engineering, The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, Arusha, Tanzania. Richard A. Giliba, From the institute of the, School of Life Sciences and Bio-Engineering, The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, Arusha, Tanzania. Wrote a review article about, Scaling Management of Invasive Prosopis juliflora. Entitled, Challenges in scaling management of the invasive tree Prosopis juliflora: A review. This research paper published by the Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences | JBES. an open access scholarly research journal on Environmental Sciences. under the affiliation of the International Network For Natural Sciences| INNSpub. an open access multidisciplinary research journal publisher

Abstract

Prosopis juliflora is an invasive tree species native to Central and South America, is listed among the world’s 100 worst invasive species, severely impacts biodiversity, soil chemistry, human livelihoods, and poses health risks, potentially endangering native species. Despite global efforts to control this species using mechanical, chemical, biological, and integrated methods, it continues to spread, suggesting current strategies are ineffective. This review evaluates the effectiveness of various management approaches and highlights challenges and lessons from global experiences. Findings reveal that management efforts have mostly been small-scale trials, with mechanical, chemical, biological, and integrated methods applied at 12%, 38%, 12%, and 17% scales, respectively. These strategies often fail due to their unsustainability, lack of follow-up, and poor documentation of scalable protocols. Prosopis juliflora‘s adaptability to diverse environments further complicates management. The review underscores the urgent need for sustainable strategies that account for environmental factors and community perceptions. It recommends developing tailored management plans for each country, raising awareness in affected regions, and integrating various control methods to improve effectiveness.

Introduction

Invasive plants are the species or strains that rapidly increase their spatial distribution by expanding into native plant communities (Zedler and Kercher, 2004). Invasive plants may exert a range of impacts on native communities, they can alter resource availability to native plants and fire regimes (Aslan and Rejmanek, 2012). These invasive plants can be introduced in a new area either intentionally or unintentionally and are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. As trade and travel increase worldwide, invasive plant introductions continue to rise through different pathways such as trade and human movement (Mehta et al., 2007). Other drivers include wind, water, floods, birds, animal movements, and transport machines like cars and cargo ships (Hulme, 2009; Lyimo et al., 2009; Mortensen et al., 2009). Invasive plants not only destroy biodiversity but also soil chemistry, hydrology and lower human livelihood and may result in the extinction of native plants, alter the native species composition and spatial distribution (Foxcroft et al., 2006; Ngondya and Munishi, 2021; Rahman et al., 2010) and after establishment their management is often costly and ineffective in the long term (Clewley et al., 2012).

There are three fundamental management objectives when dealing with invasive species and these are as follows: prevention/exclusion; Early detection/rapid assessment; and Control/containment/eradication (Crowley et al., 2017; Mehta et al., 2007; Rejmánek, 2000). How to meet these objectives, in particular within political and economic limitations, is more a question of policy and technology (Mehta et al., 2007). By increasing resources to detect invasive species, managers may increase their chances of finding a species at a smaller population level, lessening the extent of damage and making subsequent control potentially less expensive and more effective (Mehta et al., 2007). Generally there are four methods employed in the control of the invasive plant species including the use of chemical, mechanical removal, biological method that involve release of herbivores and pathogens to manage the invasive plants (Seastedt, 2015; Zachariades et al., 2011) and integrated management which involve in cooperating all possible management approaches for control the invasive species (Ehi-Eromosele et al., 2013). The cost and time for managing these invasive alien plants (IAPs) vary depending on the level of invasiveness and the choice of the management options depending on the scale of invasion.

Management strategies targeting Prosopis juliflora have predominantly been trialed and implemented at a small scale (Shackleton et al., 2016a; Wise et al., 2012a). Despite these efforts, the effectiveness of these management approaches has been limited due to their unsustainable nature, time of intervention, no effective management practices available or not correctly implemented, failure to follow up, replacement by other IAPs, conflicts of stakeholder interests, and no restoration of desired land use. Additionally, once the projects were phased out, there was a lack of further implementation strategies. Prosopis juliflora hereafter referred to as P. juliflora has infiltrated around 54 million hectares worldwide (Shiferaw et al., 2022). It is now on the International Union Conservation of Nature (IUCN) list of the 100 worst invasive species (Mwangi and Swallow, 2008; Shiferaw et al., 2019; Simberloff and Rejmanek, 2019).

The effectiveness of the methods used, time spent in controlling and acceptance of the control methods used have not been systematically documented. Literature on this subject lacks documentation on the extent of efforts and their equity by geography and by types of methods to enable quantification of the magnitude of successes and challenges associated with the efforts taken to management. P. juliflora continues spreading where it is invasive which indicates that management strategies are not always successful. To fill this gap, this review paper focuses on different regions of the world that P. juliflora has colonized and examines whether the control methods applied were able to eradicate the species or reduce further spread. This involves reviewing the existing literature on the reasons for the introduction of P. juliflora, the negative impacts of P. juliflora, factors that contribute to the globally spread of P. juliflora, and control methods of P. juliflora. Further, the review discusses the challenges and lessons learned about the management strategies employed in fighting P. juliflora. This review paper acts as a prerequisite to decisionmakers to come up with a holistic approach to the management of P. juliflora and it provides an edge to prioritizing management options and a knowledge base for fighting against P. juliflora at different stages of invasion.

Reference

Abdulahi MM, Ute JA, Regasa T. 2017. Prosopis juliflora L: Distribution, impacts and available control methods in Ethiopia. Trop Subtrop Agroecosyst 20(1), 75–89.

Admasu D. 2008. Invasive plants and food security: The case of Prosopis juliflora in the Afar region of Ethiopia.

Al-Frayh A, Hasnain SM, Gad-el-Rab MO, Al-Turki T, Al-Mobeireek K, Al-Sedairy ST. 1999. Human sensitization to Prosopis juliflora antigen in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med 19(4), 331–336. https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.1999.331.

Aslan C, Rejmanek M. 2012. Native fruit traits may mediate dispersal competition between native and non-native plants. NeoBiota 12, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.12.2357.

Balcha LD. 2022. Prosopis juliflora distribution, impacts, and control methods available in Ethiopia.

Bukombe J, Smith S, Kija H, Loishooki A, Sumay G, Mwita M, Mwakalebe G, Kihwele E. 2018. Fire regulates the abundance of alien plant species around roads and settlements in the Serengeti National Park. Manag Biol Invasions 9(3), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2018.9.3.17.

Choge S, Mbaabu PR, Muturi GM. 2022. Management and control of the invasive Prosopis juliflora tree species in Africa with a focus on Kenya. In: Puppo MC, Felker P, eds. Prosopis as a Heat Tolerant Nitrogen Fixing Desert Food Legume, Academic Press, pp. 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823320-7.00024-9.

Choge SK, Pasiecznik NM, Harvey M, Wright J, Awan SZ, Harris PJC. 2007. Prosopis pods as human food, with special reference to Kenya. Water SA 33(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v33i3.49162.

Clewley GD, Eschen R, Shaw RH, Wright DJ. 2012. The effectiveness of classical biological control of invasive plants. J Appl Ecol 49(6), 1287–1295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02209.x.

Crowley SL, Hinchliffe S, McDonald RA. 2017. Conflict in invasive species management. Front Ecol Environ 15(3), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1471.

Dakhil MA, El-Keblawy A, El-Sheikh MA, Halmy MWA, Ksiksi T, Hassan WA. 2021. Global invasion risk assessment of Prosopis juliflora at biome level: Does soil matter? Biol 10(3), 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10030203.

Degefu MA, Assen M, Few R, Tebboth M. 2022. Performance of management interventions to the impacts of Prosopis juliflora in arid and semiarid regions of the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Glob J Agric Innov Res Dev 9, 35–53. https://doi.org/10.15377/2409-9813.2022.09.4.

Dubow AZ. 2011. Mapping and managing the spread of Prosopis juliflora in Garissa County, Kenya.

Eckert S, Hamad A, Kilawe CJ, Linders TEW, Ng W, Mbaabu PR, Shiferaw H, Witt A, Schaffner U. 2020. Niche change analysis as a tool to inform management of two invasive species in Eastern Africa. Ecosphere 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2987.

Ehi-Eromosele CO, Nwinyi OC, Ajani OO. 2013. Integrated pest management. In: Soloneski S, ed. Weed and Pest Control-Conventional and New Challenges, InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/54476.

El-Keblawy A, Al-Rawai A. 2007. Impacts of the invasive exotic Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) D.C. on the native flora and soils of the UAE. Plant Ecol 190(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-006-9188-2.

EPPO. 2019. Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. EPPO Bull 49(2), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12531.

Eschen R, Bekele K, Jumanne Y, Kibet S, Makale F, Mbwambo JR, Megersa B, Mijay M, Moyo F, Munishi L, Mwihomeke M, Nunda W, Nyangito M, Witt A, Schaffner U. 2023. Experimental Prosopis management practices and grassland restoration in three Eastern African countries. CABI Agric Biosci 4(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-023-00163-5.

Felker P, Ewens M, Ochoa H. 2000. Environmental influences on grafting success of Prosopis ruscifolia (vinal) onto Prosopis alba (algarrobo blanco). J Arid Environ 46(4), 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1006/jare.2000.0686.

Felker P, Moss J. 1996. Prosopis: Semiarid fuelwood and forage tree building consensus for the disenfranchised.

Foxcroft LC, Lotter WD, Runyoro VA, Mattay PMC. 2006. A review of the importance of invasive alien plants in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and Serengeti National Park. Afr J Ecol 44(3), 404–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00607.x.

Fulton EA, Smith ADM, Smith DC, Johnson P. 2014. An integrated approach is needed for ecosystem-based fisheries management: Insights from ecosystem-level management strategy evaluation. PLoS ONE 9(1), e84242. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084242.

Gemeda WS. 2019. Effects of Prosopis juliflora on soil microbial and other pathogenic activities: A review paper.

Ghosheh HZ. 2005. Constraints in implementing biological weed control: A review. Weed Biol Manag 5(3), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-6664.2005.00163.x.

Howari FM, Sharma M, Nazzal Y, El-Keblawy A, Mir S, Xavier CM, Salem IB, Al-Taani AA, Alaydaroos F. 2022. Changes in the invasion rate of Prosopis juliflora and its impact on depletion of groundwater in the Northern part of the United Arab Emirates. Plants 11(5), 682. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11050682.

Hughes CE, Ringelberg JJ, Lewis GP, Catalano SA. 2022. Disintegration of the genus Prosopis L. (Leguminosae, Caesalpinioideae, mimosoid clade). PhytoKeys 205, 147–189. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.205.75379.

Hulme PE. 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01600.x.

Jumanne Y, Moyo F, Mbwambo JR. 2021. Effects of restoration techniques on plant diversity and forage biomass in areas invaded by Prosopis juliflora. Int J Adv Sci Res Eng 7(12), 09–15. https://doi.org/10.31695/IJASRE.2021.34101.

Kazmi SJH. 2010. For bio-char production in Pakistan.

Khera N, Mehta V, Sabata BC. 2009. Interrelationship of birds and habitat features in urban greenspaces in Delhi, India. Urban For Urban Green 8(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.05.001.

Kilawe CJ, Mwambo JR, Kajembe GC, Mwakaluka EE. 2017. Mrashia: Prosopis has started invading pastures and agricultural lands in Tanzania. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34708.50568.

Lyimo JG, Kangalawe RY, Liwenga ET. 2009. Status, impact and management of invasive alien species in Tanzania. Tanzan J For Nat Conserv 79(2), 28–42.

Magid TDA. 2014. Mesquite in Sudan: A boon or bane for drylands? Its socioeconomic and management aspects in Kassala State, Sudan.

Masakha EJ, Wegulo FN. 2015. Coping mechanisms to invasion of Prosopis juliflora in Kenya: Case study of Salabani Location, Baringo County.

Mbaabu PR, Schaffner U, Eckert S. 2021. Invasion of savannas by Prosopis trees in Eastern Africa: Exploring their impacts on LULC dynamics, livelihoods and implications on soil organic carbon stocks. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLIII(B3), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2021-335-2021.

Mehta SV, Haight RG, Homans FR, Polasky S, Venette RC. 2007. Optimal detection and control strategies for invasive species management. Ecol Econ 61(2–3), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.024.

Messing RH, Wright MG. 2006. Biological control of invasive species: Solution or pollution? Front Ecol Environ 4(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0132:BCOISS]2.0.CO;2.

Meyerson LA, Mooney HA. 2007. Invasive alien species in an era of globalization. Front Ecol Environ 5(4), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[199:IASIAE]2.0.CO;2.

Mortensen DA, Rauschert ESJ, Nord AN, Jones BP. 2009. Forest roads facilitate the spread of invasive plants. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 2(3), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-08-125.1.

Muller GC, Junnila A, Traore MM, Traore SF, Doumbia S, Sissoko F, Dembele SM, Schlein Y, Arheart KL, Revay EE, Kravchenko VD, Witt A, Beier JC. 2017. The invasive shrub Prosopis juliflora enhances the malaria parasite transmission capacity of Anopheles mosquitoes: A habitat manipulation experiment. Malar J 16(1), 237. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-017-1878-9.

Mwangi E, Swallow B. 2005. Invasion of Prosopis juliflora and local livelihoods: Case study from the Lake Baringo area of Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre.

Mwangi E, Swallow B. 2008. Prosopis juliflora invasion and rural livelihoods in the Lake Baringo area of Kenya. Conserv Soc 6(2), 130. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.49207.

Nagar N. 2011. Desert Environmental Conservation Association (DECO).

Ngondya IB, Munishi LK. 2021. Impact of invasive alien plants Gutenbergia cordifolia and Tagetes minuta on native taxa in the Ngorongoro Crater, Tanzania. Sci Afr 13, e00946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00946.

Obonyo CO, Zhu H, He W, Chinopfukutwa GL. 2017. How do East African communities cope with the impacts of Prosopis juliflora (Mesquite) invasion? A review.

Pandey CB, Singh AK, Saha D, Mathur BK, Tewari JC, Kumar M, Goyal RK, Mathur M, Gaur MK. 2019. Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC.: An invasive alien in community grazing lands and its control through utilization in the Indian Thar Desert. Arid Land Res Manag 33(4), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/15324982.2018.1564402.

Patnaik P, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. 2017. Prosopis (Prosopis juliflora): Blessing and bane. 58(3), 455–483.

Rahman MH, Khan MASA, Fardusi MJ, Roy B. 2010. Status, distribution and diversity of invasive forest undergrowth species in the tropics: A study from northeastern Bangladesh. J For Environ Sci 26(3), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.7747/JFS.2010.26.3.149.

Ravhuhali KE, Mudau HS, Moyo B, Hawu O, Msiza NH. 2021. Prosopis species—An invasive species and a potential source of browse for livestock in semi-arid areas of South Africa. Sustainability 13(13), 7369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137369.

Rejmánek M. 2000. Invasive plants: Approaches and predictions. Austral Ecol 25(5), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2000.01080.x.

Rembold F, Leonardi U, Ng W-T, Gadain H, Meroni M, Atzberger C. 2015. Mapping areas invaded by Prosopis juliflora in Somaliland on Landsat 8 imagery. Proc. SPIE 9637, 963723. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2193133.

Sawal RK, Ratan R, Yadav SBS. 2004. Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) pods as a feed resource for livestock—A review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 17(5), 719–725. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2004.719.

Seastedt TR. 2015. Biological control of invasive plant species: A reassessment for the Anthropocene. New Phytol 205(2), 490–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13065.

Shackleton RT, Le Maitre DC, Richardson DM. 2015. Stakeholder perceptions and practices regarding Prosopis (mesquite) invasions and management in South Africa. Ambio 44(6), 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0597-5.

Shackleton RT, Le Maitre DC, van Wilgen BW, Richardson DM. 2016. Identifying barriers to effective management of widespread invasive alien trees: Prosopis species (mesquite) in South Africa as a case study. Glob Environ Change 38, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.012.

Shackleton RT, Le Maitre DC, van Wilgen BW, Richardson DM. 2017. Towards a national strategy to optimise the management of a widespread invasive tree (Prosopis species; mesquite) in South Africa. Ecosyst Serv 27, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.022.

Shanwad UK, Chittapur BM, Honnalli SN, Shankergoud I, Gebremedhin T. 2015. Management of Prosopis juliflora through chemicals: A case study in India. J Biol.

Shiferaw H, Teketay D, Nemomissa S, Assefa F. 2004. Some biological characteristics that foster the invasion of Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. at Middle Awash Rift Valley Area, north-eastern Ethiopia. J Arid Environ 58(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2003.08.011.

Shiferaw W, Bekele T, Demissew S, Aynekulu E. 2019. Prosopis juliflora invasion and environmental factors on density of soil seed bank in Afar Region, Northeast Ethiopia. J Ecol Environ 43(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41610-019-0133-4.

Shiferaw W, Demissew S, Bekele T, Aynekulu E. 2022. Community perceptions towards invasion of Prosopis juliflora, utilization, and its control options in Afar region, Northeast Ethiopia. PLoS One 17(1), e0261838. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261838.

Shiferaw W, Demissew S. 2022. Effects of the invasive alien Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC and its management options in Ethiopia: A review. In: Tropical Plant Species and Technological Interventions for Improvement [Working Title]. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108947.

Shiferaw W, Demissew S. 2023. Effects of the invasive alien Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC and its management options in Ethiopia: A review. In: Khan MS (Ed.), Tropical Plant Species and Technological Interventions for Improvement. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108947.

Simberloff D, Rejmanek M, editors. 2019. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species: A Selection from The Global Invasive Species Database. In: Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. University of California Press, 715–716. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520948433-159.

Sintayehu DW, Egeru A, Ng W, Cherenet E. 2020. Regional dynamics in distribution of Prosopis juliflora under predicted climate change in Africa. Trop Ecol 61(4), 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42965-020-00101-w.

Talab TT, Zaroug MS, Dawood DA. 2020. Distribution and control of mesquite tree Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC using some herbicide and herbicide mixtures in Gezira State, Sudan. J Biol 7.

Tessema YA. 2012. Ecological and economic dimensions of the paradoxical invasive species—Prosopis juliflora and policy challenges in Ethiopia.

Van Driesche RG, Carruthers RI, Center T, Hoddle MS, Hough-Goldstein J, Morin L, Smith L, Wagner DL, Blossey B, Brancatini V, Casagrande R, Causton CE, Coetzee JA, Cuda J, Ding J, Fowler SV, Frank JH, Fuester R, Goolsby J, van Klinken RD. 2010. Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biol Control 54, S2–S33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.03.003.

Van Klinken RD, Fichera G, Cordo H. 2003. Targeting biological control across diverse landscapes: The release, establishment, and early success of two insects on mesquite (Prosopis spp.) insects in Australian rangelands. Biol Control 26(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1049-9644(02)00107-X.

Van Klinken RD, Fichera G, Parr R, McCormick E, Cobon R, Fleck L, March N, McMahon J. 2006. Challenges facing the successful management of widely distributed weeds: Biological control of mesquite (Prosopis species).

Vazeed Pasha S, Satish KV, Sudhakar Reddy C, Jha CS. 2015. Massive invasion of mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) in Wild Ass Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Natl Acad Sci Lett 38(3), 271–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40009-014-0321-9.

Vilayati Babul. 2001. Managing Prosopis Manual.

Wakie TT, Evangelista PH, Jarnevich CS, Laituri M. 2014. Mapping current and potential distribution of non-native Prosopis juliflora in the Afar Region of Ethiopia. PLoS One 9(11), e112854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112854.

Wakie TT, Hoag D, Evangelista PH, Luizza M, Laituri M. 2016. Is control through utilization a cost-effective Prosopis juliflora management strategy? J Environ Manage 168, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.054.

Wakie TT, Laituri M, Evangelista PH. 2016. Assessing the distribution and impacts of Prosopis juliflora through participatory approaches. Appl Geogr 66, 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.11.017.

Walter KJ, Armstrong KV. 2014. Benefits, threats and potential of Prosopis in South India. Forests Trees Livelihoods 23(4), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2014.919880

Wise RM, van Wilgen BW, Le Maitre DC. 2012. Costs, benefits and management options for an invasive alien tree species: The case of mesquite in the Northern Cape, South Africa. J Arid Environ 84, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.03.001

Witt ABR. 2010. Biofuels and invasive species from an African perspective – a review: Biofuels as invasives in Africa. GCB Bioenergy 2(6), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01063.x

Wudad A, Abdulahi A. 2021. Expansion of Prosopis juliflora and land use land cover change in Korahey Zone of Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia.

Zachariades C, Hoffmann JH, Roberts AP. 2011. Biological control of mesquite (Prosopis species) (Fabaceae) in South Africa. Afr Entomol 19(2), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.4001/003.019.0230

Zedler JB, Kercher S. 2004. Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: Opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23(5), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680490514673

Article source : Challenges in scaling management of the invasive tree Prosopis juliflora: A review     

Read More

Climate Shapes Manganese-Rich Soils in Côte d’Ivoire | JBES 2020

Krogba Yves Nangah, Yao Kouman Nestor Kouakou,  Kouamé Antoine N’Guessan, and Albert Yao-Kouame, from the institute of the Côte d’Ivoire. Wrote a research article about, Climate Shapes Manganese-Rich Soils in Côte d’Ivoire. Entitle, Chemical variability of climate sequence of manganesiferous soil derived from volcano-sedimentary materials in Côte d’Ivoire. This research paper published by the Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences |JBES. an open access scholarly research journal on Environmental Sciences. under the affiliation of the International Network For Natural Sciences| INNSpub. an open access multidisciplinary research journal publisher

Abstract

Knowledge of limiting factors is an important prerequisite for ensuring efficient agricultural production, agronomically, economically and environmentally. The objective of this study is to determine the basic physicochemical properties of manganiferous soils derived from volcano-sedimentary material under different climatic facets. Three sites on different climatic facets were prospected. An analysis of soil samples was carried out in order to determine the physicochemical parameters (water pH, exchangeable bases, CEC, organic matter, phosphorus). The results show that soils are acidic with pH <5.5. The available phosphorus is better supplied with contents greater than 20mg.kg-1, while the complex is strongly desaturated. This study has highlighted the existence of a marked climatic gradient for organic matter and CEC. These elements follow a decreasing trend, from the North (Savannah zone and Sudanese climate) to the South (forest zone and Attiean climate). The forest area (Guitry) in Attiean Climate remains better enriched in bases compared to the other zones studied. The influence of microclimatic conditions on pedogenesis is important in the individualization of Cambisols. 

Introduction

The soil is the physical and nutritive support of living beings on the surface of the continents, and, as a result, the life support of man. Although the man is in permanent contact with the ground, it is still, in many ways, a black box whose operation is still only partially known. The floors are constantly changing under the combined action of the flow of materials and energy, which, when applied to a parent material, gradually transforming the primary minerals into secondary components (Chadwick and Chorover 2001; Cornu, 2005). These permanent interactions give the soil a large spatial and temporal variability, which is difficult to grasp. This complexity characterizes natural environments and makes their study delicate.

Manganese soils in Côte d'Ivoire are mainly formed on volcano-sedimentary complexes. These volcanosedimentary complexes give rise to browned soils (Cambisols) (Perraud, 1971), and are under different climatic facets. The study of these soils has been limited to morphological characterization and the study of metallic trace elements (Nangah et al., 2019). This does not allow to apprehend the physicochemical environment that reigns in these soils. In addition, they also do not guide decision-making on the prevention of potential risks and the adoption of adequate cropping systems by the majority of the population, which is rural. However, failure to take into account the physico-chemical constraints of soils is detrimental to the exploitation of these, because, certain soil parameters play a preponderant role in the management of plant nutrition, and an adequate supply of nutrients. nutrients depend on their optimization (Troeh and Thompson, 2005). Knowledge of limiting factors is therefore an important prerequisite for ensuring efficient agronomic, economic and environmental agricultural production from reliable diagnoses (Dahnke and Olson 1990, Parent and Dafir 1992).

The objective of this study is to determine the basic physicochemical properties of manganese soils derived from volcano-sedimentary material under different climatic facets.

Reference

Agusto L, Badeau V, Arrouays D, Trichet P, Flot JL, Jolivet C, Merzereau D. 2006. Caractérisation physico-chimique des sols d’une région naturelle à partir d’une compilation de données : exemple des sols du massif forestier landais. Etudes et Gestion des Sols 13(1), 07-22.

Aranda V, Ayora-Canada MJ, Dominguez-Vidal A, M artin-Garcia JM, Calero J, Delgado R, Verdejo T, Gonzalez-Vila FJ. 2011. Effect of soil type and management (organic vs. conventional) on soil organic matter quality in olive groves in a semi-arid environment in Sierra Magina Natural Park (Spain). Geoderma 164, 54-63.

Ben Hassine H, Aloui T, Gallali T, Bouzid T, El Amri S, Ben Hassen R. 2008. Evaluation quantitative et rôle de la matière organique dans les sols cultivés en zones subhumides et semi-arides méditerranéennes de la Tunisie. Agrosolutions 19(2), 4-17.

Bigorre F, Tessier D, Pedro G. 2000. Contribution des argiles et des matières organiques a la rétention de l’eau dans les sols. Signification et rôle fondamental de la capacité d’échange en cations. Comptes Rendus de l ’Académie des Sciences 330, 245-250.

Brady NC, Weil RR. 2002. The nature and properties of soil. Ed. Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey, 960 p.

Bur T. 2008. Impact anthropique sur les éléments traces métalliques dans les sols agricoles de Midi Pyrénées. Implications en termes de limites et de charges critiques. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse 281 p.

Callesen I, Liski J, Raulund-Rasmussen K. 2003. Soil carbon stores in Nordic well-drained forest soils relationships with climate and texture class. Global Change Biology 9, 358-370.

Chauvel A, Lucas Y, Boulet R. 1986. On the genesis of the soil mantle in the region of Manaus, Central Amazonia. Experientia 43(3), 285-299.

Dai W, Huang Y. 2006. Relation of soil organic matter concentration to climate and altitude in zonal soils of China. Catena 65, 87-94.

Dorel M, Lombard K, Oliver R. 2005. Azote minéralisable et statut organique des Andosols de Guadeloupe. Etude et Gestion des Sols 12(4), 267-280.

Duchaufour P. 1977. Pédogenèse et classification. Eds. Masson, Paris 477 p.

Elbering B, Touré A, Rasmussen K. 2003. Changes in soil organic matter following groundnut-millet cropping at three locations in semi-arid Senegal, West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 96, 37-47.

Ganuza A, Almendros G. 2003. Organic carbon storage in soils of the Basque Country (Spain): the effect of climate, vegetation type and edaphic variables. Biology and Fertility of soils 37, 154-162.

Genot V, Colinet G, Brahy V, Bock L. 2009. L’état de fertilité des terres agricoles et forestières en région wallone (adapté au chapitre 4-sol1) de « l’état de l’environnement wallon 2006-2007 ». Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement 13, 121-138.

Heviaa GG, Bushiazzoa DE, Heppera EN. 2003. Organic matter in size fractions of soils of the semiarid Argentina. Effect of climate, soil texture and management. Geoderma 116, 265-277.

Jandl R, Smidt S, Mutsch F, Fürst A, Zechmeister H, Bauer H, Dirnbock T. 2012. Acidification and Nitrogen Eutrophication of Austrian Forest Soils. Applied and Environmental Soil Science 2012, 1-9.

Landon JR. 1991. Booker tropical soil manual. A handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. Eds. Longman, Oxon 474 p.

Lemenih M, Itanna F. 2004. Soil carbon stocks and turnovers in various vegetation types and arable lands along an elevation gradient in Southern Ethiopia. Geoderma, 123, 177-188.

Liu Z, Shao M, Wang Y. 2011. Effect of environmental factors on regional soil organic carbon stocks across the Loess Plateau region, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 142, 184-194.

Lucas Y, Luizao FJ, Chauvel A, Rouiller J, Nahon D. 1993. The relation between biological activity of the rain forest and mineral composition of soils. Science 260, 521-523.

Menzies NW. 2003. Toxic elements in acidic soils: chemistry and measurement. In: Rengel Z, Ed. Handbook of soil acidity. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York 267-296.

Mustapha S. 2007. Physico-chemical properties and fertility status of some Haplic Plinthaquults in Bauchi local government of Bauchi state, Nigeria. International Journal of Soil Science 2(4), 314-319.

Maithani K, Arunachalam A, Tripathi RS, Pandey HN. 1998. Nitrogen mineralization as infuenced by climate, soil and vegetation in a subtropical humid forest in northeast India. Forest Ecology and Management 109, 91-101.

Mallouhi N. 1997. Interprétations des analyses du sol et principales caractéristiques de certaines substances organiques et du compost. Coopération Française, Programme d’Appui à la Formation Professionnelle des Agronomes, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université Nationale du Bénin 20 p.

Marques JJ, Teixeira WG, Schulze DG, Curi N. 2002. Mineralogy of soils with unusually high exchangeable Al from the western Amazon region. Clays Minerals 37, 651-661.

Martin A, Nolin MC. 1991. Etude pédologique du comte de Chambly (Quebec). Volume 2 : Description et classification des séries de sols. Direction Generale de la Recherche, Canada, Contribution n°89-26, 144 p.

Masmoudi S, Rigane H, Ammar E, Medhioub K. 2011. Effets de l’amendement de sols par différents types de composts sur le comportement pédo-géochimique, région d’El hajeb (Sfax, Tunisie). Microbiologie et Hygiène Alimentaire 23, 80-87.

Mbonigaba JJM, Nzeyimana I, Bucacu C, Culot M. 2009. Caractérisation physique, chimique et microbiologique de trois sols acides tropicaux du Rwanda sous jachères naturelles et contrainte à leur productivité. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement 13(4), 545-558.

Moyin-Jesu EJ. 2008. Soil fertility, chemistry and crop nutrition. Eds. Global-link, Swansea 114 p.

Nangah KY, Yao-Kouamé A, Yao GF, Kouakou YKN, Alui KA et Savane I. 2012. Attributs physico-chimiques et contrainte à la productivité agricole des sols du site manganésifère de Lauzoua (Guitry) en Côte d’Ivoire. Journal of Applied Biosciences 50, 3459-3467.

Nangah KY, Kouakou YKN, Zrau BGF, Yao-Kouame A. 2019. Evaluation of morphological characteristics of manganiferous soils at the scale of the toposequence. JECET; Sec. A Vol. 8. No. 2, 167-176. Quantin P, Dejou J, Tejedor M, Jimenez C. 2007. Sols et paléo-altérites sur roches volcaniques du Cantal (France) : Exemple du Puy Courny. Etude et Gestion des Sols 14(1), 43-62.

Quideau SA, Chadwick QA, Benesi A, Graham RC, Anderson MA. 2001. A direct link between forest vegetation type and soil organic matter composition. Geoderma 104, 41-60.

Romheld V, Kirkby EA. 2010. Research on potassium in agriculture: need and prospects. Plant Soil 335, 155-180.

Sollins P, Homann P, Caldwell BA. 1996. Stabilization and destabilization of soil organic matter: mechanisms and controls. Geoderma 74, 65-105.

Turner BL, Haygarth PM. 2001. Phosphorus solubilization in rewetted soils. Nature 411, 258-259.

Yao-Kouame A. 2008. Caractéristiques chimiques et physicochimiques des sols brunifiés développés sur les formations du complexe volcano sédimentaire de Kanhankro (Toumodi) en moyenne Côte d’Ivoire. Revue CAMES – Série A 7, 17-29.

Yeboua K, Ballo K. 2000. Caractéristiques chimiques du sol sous palmeraie. Cahiers Agricultures 9(1), 73-76.

Yoboue KE, Kouadio KP, Blé LO, et Yao-Kouame A. 2018. Caractéristiques Morphopédologiques et Géochimiques des Sols Brunifiés de Anikro et de Kahankro (Centre-Sud de la Côte d’Ivoire). European Scientific Journal, Vol.14, No.3, 281-300.

Yoboue KE, Yao-Kouame A, Alui KA. 2010. Evolution pédogéochimique et minéralogique au cours de l ’altération des formations du complexe volcano-sédimentaire d’Anikro et de Kahankro (Toumodi) dans le Centre-Sud de la Côte d’Ivoire. European Journal of Scientific Research 40(1), 60-72.

Article source : Chemical variability of climate sequence of manganesiferous soil derived from volcano-sedimentary materials in Côte d’Ivoire

 

 

Read More

Blood Meal Sources of Aedes aegypti in Benin | IJB 2023

Tchibozo Carine,  Yadouleton Anges,  Dramane Gado, Hounkanrin Gildas, Adewumi Praise, and Joest Hanna, from the institute of Benin. Wrote a research article about, Blood Meal Sources of Aedes aegypti in Benin entitled, Origin of the blood meal of the Aedes aegypti mosquito in five localities in Benin. This research paper published by the International Journal of Biosciences | IJB. an open access scholarly research journal on Biosciences. under the affiliation of the International Network For Natural Sciences| INNSpub. an open access multidisciplinary research journal publisher.

Abstract

With the aim of learning about the multiple origins of blood meal sources in Aedes aegypti in Benin, a study was conducted in five localities from the south to the north of the country (Cotonou, Porto-Novo, Calavi, Dassa and kandi) from June 2020 to October 2021 to capture adult populations of A. aegypti. To achieve this objective, BG-Sentinel and Aedes Gravid traps were set daily inside and outside four randomly selected concessions in each of the above-mentioned sites, three times a week for the duration of the study. Populations of blood-feeding A. aegypti mosquitoes were identified using the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technique. PCR results were confirmed by sequencing to identify the origin of the blood meal. Out of a total of 3,749 mosquitoes collected, Aedes aegypti (79.22%) and Culex quinquefaciatus (20.08%) were the two main species caught. With a total of 2,970 A. aegypti populations, 2,684 (71.7%) were non-blood-fed, compared with 286 (7.6%) blood-fed. For Culex quinquefasciatus, out of 753 populations caught, 733 (19.5%) were non-gorged versus 20 (0.5%) blood-fed. Research into the origin of the blood meal using the PCR technique showed that out of 1019 mosquitoes analyzed, 987 (96.8%) had taken their blood meal from humans. This result was confirmed by sequencing analysis of PCR-positive pools. The anthropophagous nature of A. aegypti confirmed by the sequencing results during this study remains an important clue in the implementation of arbovirus control strategies, particularly against A. aegypti mosquitoes in Benin. 

Introduction

According to the World Health Organization in 2016, several vector-borne diseases are caused by arthropods and the most important are found in subSaharan Africa. The main mosquito general responsible for these diseases are: Anopheles, Aedes and Culex.

Aedes aegypti is the main vector of arboviruses such as dengue, zika, yellow fever and chikungunya. This highly hematophagous domestic mosquito is found in human dwellings and, is present in jars, abandoned cans, from northern to southern Benin throughout the year with risks of spreading dengue fever (Yadouleton et al., 2018). The recent and rapid spread of this mosquito to new geographical areas, including rural environments, means that it is considered a public health problem (WHO, 2016), Moreover, these blood-requiring mosquitoes most often develop a preference for the most available and stable source of blood (Roiberg and Gordon et al., 2005; O'Meara et al., 2020). The preference of mosquito vectors for a specific host for their blood meal undoubtedly affects the mosquitoes' ability to transmit pathogens.

Over the past decade, several cases of arboviruses, notably dengue, have been reported in sub-Saharan Africa, notably in Gabon (Abe et al., 2020), Côte d'Ivoire (Moi et al., 2010), Senegal (Faye et al., 2014) and Burkina-Faso (Ouédraogo et al., 2019), with over 1,500 cases recorded. The preference of mosquito vectors for a specific host for their blood meal surely affects the mosquitoes' ability to transmit pathogens. Consequently, understanding mosquito blood feeding patterns in different environments can help determine which host species can influence the maintenance and epidemic transmission of viruses. With this in mind, this study was carried out in 5 cities in Benin, in order to determine the origin of the blood meal in Aedes aegypti populations.

Article source : Origin of the blood meal of the Aedes aegypti mosquito in five localities in Benin   

Read More