Drought is a major threat to banana production in Uganda, leading to large yield losses. This study documented drought effects on banana production and identified farmers’ coping strategies to mitigate the impact of droughts. Interviews were conducted in eight districts, randomly selected from banana-growing districts in Uganda’s cattle corridor, characterised by frequent droughts. Data were collected from 120 respondents/farms. Banana production in the study area was dominated by small-scale farmers, growing mostly a combination of cooking and dessert banana types. Among the 15 identified effects of drought stress on banana growth, reduced bunch weight, wilting and drying of leaves, reduced leaf production and reduced number of fingers and clusters were the most reported. ‘Mpologoma’ and ‘FHIA 17’ cultivars were reported as the most and least affected by drought stress, respectively. Although the cattle corridor is prone to recurrent droughts, the deployment of drought coping strategies was mostly low, with farmers using one to three strategies. A total of 12 drought mitigation practices were used across the cattle corridor, with mulching being the most common option. Irrigation was perceived as the most effective mitigation option though its deployment was limited by water scarcity and the high cost of water pumps. This study suggests the need for government support in drought stress mitigation practices and the development of drought-tolerant cultivars by breeders. Additionally, farmers need to prioritise preventive coping strategies like planting drought-tolerant cultivars, irrigation, mulching, and manure application and ensure the appropriate time of deployment of mitigation practices.
Research Article
Assessing Drought Effects on Banana Production and On-Farm Coping Strategies by Farmers – A Study in the Cattle Corridor of Uganda
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-867469/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
You are reading this latest preprint version
Banana production
drought stress
coping strategies
cattle corridor
Uganda
Banana (Musa spp.) is a major food and cash crop worldwide, particularly in the tropical and subtropical regions. The crop has a global production of 116.8 million tons harvested from an area of 5.16 million ha (FAOSTAT 2019). The East and Central African subregion, including Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Burundi, Rwanda and the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo is home to a unique group of bananas well-known as the East African Highland Bananas (EAHBs, Musa AAA genome). Moreover, this region is also considered to be a secondary centre of diversity for the EAHBs and plantains (AAB genome) (Simmonds 1966), with an annual production of 17.31 million tons cultivated on 1.7 million ha (FAOSTAT 2019). In Uganda, EAHBs are the main staple food for over 13 million people, with cultivation mostly concentrated in the central and southwestern regions (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 2014). The crop is grown either as a sole crop or intercrop with other perennial or annual crops, offering additional benefits to the ecosystem in addition to animal feed, fibre, and food (van Asten et al. 2015; Ocimati et al. 2018). Although EAHBs are an important staple and commercial crop to many Ugandans (Bagamba 2007), actual production remains low (< 30 \({\text{t}\text{h}\text{a}}^{-1}{\text{y}\text{e}\text{a}\text{r}}^{-1}\)) compared with the potential yield (> 70\({\text{t}\text{h}\text{a}}^{-1}{\text{y}\text{e}\text{a}\text{r}}^{-1}\)) (van Asten et al. 2005) due to a combination of biotic and abiotic stresses.
Several studies in Uganda have reported on biotic stresses such as banana bacterial wilt (Xanthomonas campestris pv. musacearum) (Ocimati et al. 2014a), banana weevil (Cosmopolites sordidus) (Gold et al. 2004; Ocan et al. 2008) parasitic nematodes (Pratylenchus coffeae and Radopholus similis) (Speijer 1999), fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense [FOC]) (Kangire et al. 2000) and black leaf streak disease (Mycosphaerella fijiensis) (Barekye et al. 2009). Prominent abiotic stresses include low soil fertility (Wairegi et al. 2010) and drought (inadequate soil moisture) (van Asten et al. 2011a).
Drought is a serious constraint to banana production in Uganda, particularly in the cattle corridor where the country’s largest banana production is based. With most of the farmers depending on seasonal rainfall patterns, there is an immediate effect of climate variability (manifesting as drought and unreliable rainfall) on crop production, food security, income, and livelihoods in general (NAPA 2007; Anwar et al. 2013). The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) (2016) reported that Uganda’s cattle corridor is vulnerable to climate change impacts such as floods, erratic rains, high temperatures and prolonged droughts. Consequently, the effects of drought on several sectors (including agriculture) within the region have attracted a number of studies (Nimusiima et al. 2013; Kilimani et al. 2015; Owoyesigire et al. 2016; Branch 2018). Twongyirwe et al. (2019) evaluated farmers’ perceptions of how drought affects household food security, existing coping responses and their determinants. They found that households were most vulnerable to drought-induced food insecurity and hence access to financial services and other sources of livelihood may offer resilience to such drought effects. In another study by Mfitumukiza et al. (2017), large crop losses and damages per household due to drought were reported.
However, the above studies did not consider the impact of drought on banana production in isolation but rather on crop production in general. There are gaps in literature regarding the daunting effects of drought stress on banana production and yield. Numerous studies focussing on phenotypic and physiological changes of selected banana genotypes to drought stress (also termed as moisture stress) have been conducted, but most of these have been carried out on-station under controlled conditions (Bananuka et al. 1999), with few studies conducted in the field (Wairegi et al. 2010; Taulya et al. 2014; Uwimana et al. 2021). One of the field studies found that drought results in crop failure and reduced bunch yield (up to 65% losses) when the rainfall falls below 1,100 mm per year (van Asten et al. 2011a).
While several efforts have been made or are being undertaken to increase the resilience of bananas to drought conditions through research and agronomic or crop management (van Asten et al. 2011a; Nansamba et al. 2020), knowledge of how specific farmer-preferred cultivars respond to drought stress and holistic on-farm adaptive strategies by banana farmers is still limited. Drought effects, particularly on the production of locally grown banana cultivars, have not been systematically documented as a basis for use in banana improvement research. Understanding the impact of drought on different banana varieties and associated management measures by farmers is critical in managing drought effects on production across a scale and supporting the improvement of farmer coping practices. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of drought on banana production and identify management strategies deployed by farmers. Specifically, the study aimed to i) document drought effects on all locally grown varieties in terms of impact on plant growth characteristics, yield and yield-related parameters, ii) establish the variability within the set of cultivars maintained by farmers i.e. identify which cultivars are highly sensitive, moderately tolerant, very tolerant or not affected by drought iii) identify on-farm coping practices employed by farmers for mitigating such adverse effects and iv) determine the specific purpose(s) for each coping strategy in mitigating drought effects on bananas.
2.1 Study area and site selection
This study was conducted in eight districts lying within the cattle corridor of Uganda (Fig.1). The cattle corridor dominated mostly by pastoral rangelands covers an area of 84,000 stretching from North-east to South-west Uganda. In this predominantly semi-arid region, local communities rely mainly on rain-fed crop and livestock production for their livelihood (McGahey and Visser 2015; FAO 2019). The annual daily average minimum and maximum temperatures in the region are 21.5oC and 30oC, respectively (Nimusiima et al. 2018). The area receives poorly distributed annual rainfall of 1350mm (Mfitumukiza 2015), with two rainy seasons (March to June and late August to November-December) and two dry seasons (June-August and December-February) (Nimusiima et al. 2013; Ogwang et al. 2016). It is characterized by unpredictable climate change conditions such as unpredictable rainfall onsets and cessations, flooding, and recurrent and prolonged droughts (USAID 2011; Nimusiima et al. 2013).
According to Kajobe et al. (2016), Uganda has ten agro-ecological zones, five of which fall within the cattle corridor, including Southern drylands, Lake Victoria Crescent, Karamoja drylands, part of Mid Northern and part of Eastern agro-ecological zone. Among these five agro-ecological zones, the Southern drylands and Lake Victoria Crescent were purposively selected because they host the largest banana-based cropping systems. From the Southern dryland agro-ecological zone, four districts including Ibanda, Sembabule, Ntungamo and Isingiro were randomly selected. In the Lake Victoria Crescent agro-ecological zone, the randomly selected districts included Mubende, Luweero, Nakaseke and Kiboga. At district level, two sub-counties were randomly selected from a list of banana-growing sub-counties (Table 1).
2.2 Sampling, data collection and analysis
A total of 120 banana farms (i.e., 15 farms per district) were randomly selected with the assistance of District Agricultural and Extension Officers in the respective districts. Farms were only considered for selection if the plantation was at least 0.25 acres (with at least 100 banana plants) large and banana was grown as the main crop on that farm. It was assumed that this group of farmers had a better understanding and experience with the effects of drought on banana production, particularly drought effects on plant growth characteristics and yield, the response of different varieties as well as their coping strategies to mitigate adverse drought effects on-farm. Respondents participated in one-on-one interviews guided using a semi-structured questionnaire from which both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. The study was conducted towards the end of the long dry season of December to March 2018. Farm-level data were collected including, the banana plantation status, nature of the cropping system, drought stress effects on plant growth characteristics and farmers’ on-farm coping strategies for mitigating drought effects on banana production.
Regarding plantation status, the interviewer recorded the plantation size, plantation management (poorly- or well-managed), plantation age, and banana cultivars grown. Plantations were considered ‘well-managed’ if the farmer carried out basic agronomic management practices like mulching, water conservation, weeding, and pruning, while ‘poorly-managed’ plantations were neither mulched nor weeded at the time of visiting. The plantation age was captured and later grouped into six categories for further analysis. A list of banana varieties grown at each farm was recorded and coded for analysis. Cultivar names varied depending on the local language in that region but were reconciled using banana variety lists developed by Karamura et al. (2012), Marimo et al. (2019) and an agronomy extension training guide prepared by the National Banana Research Programme of the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) Uganda (NARO 2019). Following the classification of Karamura (1998), all grown cultivars were then categorised into four groups based on the use of their end products i.e., cooking, dessert, beer/juice, and roasting bananas. Lastly, farmers provided the key reasons for cultivar selection.
In the case of the nature of the cropping system, two options including monocropping (only bananas) and intercropping (banana [main crop] + other crops) systems were considered. Reasons for practicing these two cropping systems were then captured and in case of intercropping, the crops grown with bananas were identified.
The respondents were then probed to describe the effects and symptoms (in terms of changes in plant morphological growth characteristics) of drought stress manifested by sensitive cultivars and the scores for the different symptoms were later coded for analysis. Based on their experience and careful observation, farmers were then required to report the reaction of each cultivar (only those cultivars they cultivated) to drought stress using a four-point rating scale i.e. 3= highly sensitive, 2= moderately tolerant, 1= very tolerant and 0= no effect at all. Interviewers confirmed these effects by observing the plants since these interviews were conducted in farmers’ fields. The most popular cultivars (i.e. grown by at least twenty farmers) were then ranked from most to least affected by drought using a weighted average index (WAI) adopted from Ndamani et al. (2016).
Where Fs = frequency of responses with highly sensitive, Fm = frequency of responses with moderately tolerant, Ft = frequency of responses with very tolerant, Fn = frequency of responses with no drought stress effect response and N = total number of respondents growing a given cultivar (out of the total 120)
To determine on-farm coping strategies for mitigating adverse drought stress effects on bananas, farmers were asked about their deployment of different agronomic and crop management practices. These practices included mulching, irrigation, intercropping with trees/ shrubs, weeding, reduced leaf harvesting, construction of trenches or contour bands trenches within the plantations, manure application and others, if any. Depending on the number of interventions deployed, each respondent’s extent of deployment of such on-farm drought coping practices was determined against a four-point rating scale as no practice (0 coping strategies), low (1-3 strategies), medium (4-6 strategies) and high practice (more than 6 strategies). Respondents were also deliberately probed to specify the purpose of each intervention in mitigating drought effects on banana production and the time of deployment of each coping strategy.
The study data were analysed using the STATA 17 edition to derive inferential and descriptive statistics. Graphs were then generated in Microsoft Excel 2016 software using the data analysis from STATA 17. Pearson’s product moment coefficient of correlation was used to determine the association between the focus and explanatory variables.
3.1 Characteristics of banana plantations
The banana plantations assessed varied in size, age, management, cultivars, cropping system, among others (Table 2). Most of the respondents were small- (57.5%) and medium-scale farmers (21.7%), with an average plantation size of 4.36 acres. All selected fields were more than one year old, with those ranging between 1 to 5 (33.3%) and above 20 years (29.2%) forming the majority. Banana fields that are 30 to 50 years old have been reported to be common in the East and Central African region (Bekunda, 1999; Gold et al., 1999). Over 85% of respondents had well-managed plantations while 14.2% had poorly managed farms. Farmers cultivated a total of 54 banana varieties (mean= 8.4, minimum=2 and maximum=19 cultivars), mostly comprising of a combination of cooking and dessert use types (29.2%), followed by cooking, dessert and roasting types combined (21.7%). Only 13.3% of the farmers cultivated one use type bananas, specifically the cooking type, while 13.3% cultivated all the four use groups. Growing mixed banana varieties is regarded as important because each variety has a unique set of production and consumption attributes, which vary in terms of composition and levels (Edmeades et al. 2008; Akankwasa et al. 2013; Akankwasa et al. 2020). For instance, the grown banana varieties have different levels of tolerance to adverse climatic conditions such as prolonged drought and thus provide farmers with an opportunity to diversify against risks.
Among the four banana types grown, the cooking banana cultivars comprised the majority (Fig. 2), with each respondent growing at least one variety. Across the two agro-ecological zones, the top five cooking type cultivars were all EAHB types (Musa AAA genome) and included ‘Mbwazirume’, ‘Kibuzi’, ‘Nakitembe’, ‘Mpologoma’ and ‘Nakabululu’. ‘Sukali Ndizi’ (AAB genome) and ‘Bogoya’ (AAA genome) were the most prominent dessert banana varieties (Table 3). However, the proportions of farmers in the southern drylands districts growing ‘Mbwazirume’, ‘Kibuzi’ and ‘Bogoya’ were significantly higher than those in Lake Victoria crescent districts (Table 4). ‘Mbwazirume’ was the most grown local cultivar because of its desirable consumer attributes, including good taste, soft food, and good flavour (Akankwasa et al. 2013; Akankwasa et al. 2020). ‘Mbwazirume’ is also often used as a reference cultivar in the banana breeding programme at NARO-Uganda (Nowankunda et al. 2015; Tumuhimbise et al. 2018, 2019). Farmers attributed their possession of fewer dessert and beer/juice types to destruction by fusarium wilt (caused by fungus Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense), a soilborne disease. Dessert variety ‘Bogoya’ (syn. ‘Gros Michel’) and beer type ‘Kayinja’ (syn. Pisang Awak) are generally susceptible to Foc (Pegg et al. 2019). Consequently, the few stands of dessert, beer and roasting bananas are planted mainly for home consumption with surplus sold in the local market.
Big bunch size was the main reason (55% of the respondents) for selecting specific banana cultivars, distantly followed by tolerance to drought stress (15%). Large bunch size has been reported as a key factor for selecting a specific variety because big bunches or fingers fetch a higher price in the market than their smaller-sized counterparts (Akankwasa et al. 2013; Marimo et al. 2019). However, similar to Bagamba et al. (2010), farmers also reported banana market prices to depend on the season. During the rainy season, the farm-gate price for bananas is low due to the high supply compared to the higher price offered during the dry season when the supply is low. In addition, farmers reported the availability of planting materials (from their old plantations, neighbours or improved varieties from banana breeders), resistance to pests and diseases, desirable taste and the cultivar’s ability to thrive and yield even in low fertility soils as reasons for selecting cultivars. Similar, observations have been reported in banana systems of Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi (Ocimati et al. 2013, 2014b, 2016).
3.2 Nature of cropping system
More than half of the respondents (62.5%) had an intercropping system, whereas 37.5% reported a monocropping system. Farmers with an intercropping system had plantations with banana as the main crop and at least two other crop or tree species (Table 5). 86.1% of those respondents with an intercropping system grew trees/shrubs within or at the edges of their plantations, purposefully to provide stakes (for supporting big banana bunches from toppling or snapping), wood and food (from the edible fruits) and shade to their banana plants during very hot and sunny days (Table 5). Legume intercrops (43%), mainly with beans and peas accounted for the next dominant intercrop species. Banana intercropping with crops such as coffee (van Asten et al. 2011b) and beans (Bagamba et al. 1998) has been a common practice among Ugandan farmers over the years as a strategy to maximize crop production, increase family incomes, reduce pest and disease prevalence, improve soil fertility (leaf droppings act as organic mulch) and structure and increase resilience to adverse weather conditions such as drought (van Asten et al. 2015; Gambart et al. 2020). Farmers with an intercropping system also pointed out the need to diversify their diets to boost their intake of required nutrients which are low or lacking in bananas (Ekesa et al. 2013). On the other hand, banana growers with a monocropping system stated avoidance of competition for resources (light, soil nutrients, water) among intercrops and reducing banana shade effects on shorter crops as reasons for their choice. Moreover, intercropping is time-consuming and labour intensive, thereby adding to costs of operations such as weeding. Similar observations have been reported within the study region by Gambart et al. (2020).
3.3 Perceived and observed drought stress effects on banana growth characteristics
Fig. 3 shows the observed effects of drought stress on the morphological characteristics of field-grown bananas. Drought effects observed and reported by farmers included reduced bunch weight (Fig. 3b; 90% of farmers), wilting and drying of leaves (Fig. 3a; 73%) and reduced leaf formation (63%) as the most prominent effects of drought stress across all grown banana cultivars (Fig. 4). Similarly, a reduction in bunch weight was reported by van Asten et al. (2011a) which may partly be attributed to a decline in the plant’s photosynthetic capacity and rate (Flexas and Medrano 2002). However, farmers reported late exposure to drought (after bunch formation) not to affect bunch yield despite causing complete wilting and drying of leaves (Fig. 3a).
On drought-sensitive cultivars, additional drought effects reported included stunted growth (Fig. 3c), reduced size and number of fingers and/or clusters (Fig. 3d), drying and snapping of the pseudostem (Fig. 3e), halted or reduced sucker production, delayed flowering and bunch formation, longer bunch filling duration, reduced pseudostem size, and rapid leaf senescence. Interestingly, study respondents also reported some cultivar-specific drought stress symptoms. For instance, strangled birth was manifested by only two cultivars: ‘Mpologoma’ and ‘Nakyetengu’ (Fig. 3f). ‘Mpologoma’ was the only cultivar that displayed leaf petiole rosette formation (Fig. 3g) and abortion of the inflorescence, which occurs particularly during prolonged dry periods (Fig. 3h). The disintegration of the pseudostem was only observed in cultivars ‘Kibuzi’ and ‘Entaragaza’.
These observations confirm some of the adverse effects of drought on banana growth that have been reported in previous field studies. For instance, Ravi and Uma (2011) reported drought-susceptible Musa acuminata diploids to produce fewer hands, ill-filled fruits and to experience bunch choking. Similarly, delays in phenological processes like flower development and increased fruit filling duration due to limiting soil water have been reported (Turner et al. 2007; Taulya et al. 2014).
Table 6 shows the most popularly grown banana cultivars (grown by at least 20 farmers) and their respective responses to drought stress as perceived by the study respondents based on the estimates of the WAI estimates. The larger the WAI value, the higher the impact of drought stress on a given cultivar. The cooking type cultivar ‘Mpologoma’ was reported as the most adversely impacted by drought stress (WAI=2.94), whereas ‘FHIA 17’, an exotic improved dessert hybrid, was ranked as the least affected (WAI=0.90). Farmers partly attributed the high sensitivity of ‘Mpologoma’ to drought stress to a high transpiration rate through the leaves and pseudostems (formed by tightly overlapping leaf sheaths). Although water is mainly lost from the banana plant through the leaf stomata by transpiration (Liu et al., 2008), part of it is also lost from the fleshy pseudostems. Compared to moderately tolerant cultivars like ‘Nakabululu’, ‘Mpologoma’ has very thin leaf sheaths (Fig. 5a) through which water is easily lost, thereby resulting in quicker desiccation, weakening, and snapping of the pseudostem during drought conditions.
On the other hand, cultivars like ‘Nakabululu’ have thicker leaf sheaths (Fig. 5b) which minimise the loss of water, hence their moderate tolerance to drought stress. However, it was interesting to note from farmers that ‘Mpologoma’ recovers much faster than other cultivars when drought conditions cease. On the other hand, ‘FHIA 17’ might have inherited its high tolerance to drought stress from one of its parent cultivars, ‘Gros Michel’, locally known as ‘Bogoya’ (Van den Bergh et al. 2020). According to the WAI value in Table 6, ‘Bogoya’ was reported to be moderately tolerant to drought.
Considering the top five most grown cultivars, ‘Kibuzi’ was reported as the most affected by drought (WAI=2.07), followed by ‘Nakitembe’ (WAI=1.94). However, a significantly higher number of respondents in the Lake Victoria Crescent region reported both ‘Kibuzi’ and ‘Nakitembe’ to be moderately tolerant to drought stress than those in the Southern Drylands zone (Table 7).
3.4 On-farm coping strategies to mitigate drought stress effects on banana
A total of 12 on-farm coping strategies were reported for minimising the daunting effects of drought on banana production (Fig. 6). Each practice was deployed for a specific purpose and time of deployment (Table 8). The five most deployed practices were mulching (56%), planting of mixed cultivars (35%), construction of water retention trenches or contour bands (23%), manure application (11%) and reduced leaf harvesting (18%). Some of these strategies such as mulching, application of manure and construction of water retention trenches form basic plantation management and soil-water conservation practices by Ugandan banana farmers (NARO 2019). Common mulch types used by farmers included residues from banana plants such as fresh or dry leaves and pseudostems, grass (e.g., spear grass, elephant grass), residues of other crops and dried weeds. Such organic mulch options were also reported by Bekunda (1999). Application of manure or fertilisers, especially potassium, ensures a healthy banana plant (Smithson et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2020) that can withstand moisture stress, thereby masking the drought effects on plant growth (Taulya 2013; Panelo and Diza 2017). Farmers reported the application of organic fertilizers, particularly farm manures, as desirable but were constrained by its insufficient supply and high cost except those who reared livestock e.g., cows, goats and chickens. Other drought coping options deployed by respondents included irrigation, weeding, staking of weak plants (particularly for late season drought), tying of disintegrated pseudostems with banana fibres, intercropping with trees and cover crops, heaping of soil around exposed plant roots and sucker removal (they leave three to four plants per mat) (Fig. 7). Even though mulching was the most used coping practice (55.8%), many of the farmers (81.7%) pointed out irrigation as the most effective measure to mitigate drought effects on banana production.
Farmers reported several drought coping strategies, some of which are already documented in literature and others not (Fig. 6). However, farm-level use of drought coping strategies was predominantly low (72%), with most of the farmers deploying one to three drought coping strategies. Only 4% of the farmers used four to six practices (medium practice) while none of the farmers used more than six practices (high practice) to mitigate drought effects on their bananas. 24% of farmers did not deploy any of the drought coping strategies.
Farmers’ management of climate change-related conditions such as drought is often influenced by prevailing climatic, economic and social factors (Shrestha et al. 2017). Rural communities are often resource limited and hence lack the means to combat the adverse effects of climate change (Mardy et al. 2018). In this study, farmers who did not practice any or a few on-farm drought coping strategies attributed their failure to the high cost of inputs e.g. water and mulch, water scarcity (there is not even enough water for home consumption), limited time and old age. Drought coping practices such as weeding, sourcing of mulch and mulching, collecting water from long distances for irrigation require a considerable amount of physical labour, which farmers lack and are hence limited in their capability to partake in such drought management activities. Moreover, their lack of monetary resources hinders them from sourcing for external labour. Limited access and high cost of irrigation equipment were also mentioned as hindrances for irrigation during dry periods. This confirms previous findings by Kabunga et al. (2012). Therefore, there is a need for intervention by development practitioners, particularly the government e.g., through subsidising agricultural equipment such as irrigation pumps.
3.5 Correlation between the characteristics of the farms and the extent of deployment of coping strategies
The association between the extent of deployment of drought coping practices (focus variable) and two farm characteristics, plantation size and age, as explanatory variables were determined. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient (r) indicated negative associations between the extent of deployment of drought strategies and the two explanatory variables, i.e., r values -0.126 and -0.008 for plantation age and size, respectively. The negative association between the extent of deploying coping strategies and plantation size could be a reflection of resource limitation to deploy drought mitigation practices that are mostly costly on larger farms. The bigger the banana plantation, the more demanding and expensive it is to access drought management requirements such as hired labour, mulch, manure, irrigation water and equipment.
This study has shown that the banana production systems in the cattle corridor of Uganda are severely threatened by drought. The intensity of drought effects on banana production varied with the cultivar and plant growth stage. Reduced bunch size, wilting and drying of leaves, reduced leaf formation, reduced size and number of fingers and clusters, stunted growth, drying and snapping of the pseudostem, halted or reduced sucker production, delayed flowering and bunch formation, longer bunch filling duration, reduced pseudostem size, and rapid leaf senescence are common drought effects on banana in the region. Cultivar-specific drought effects included strangled birth, abortion of the inflorescence, formation of petiole rosette and disintegration of the pseudostem. ‘Mpologoma’, a popular landrace cultivar for its large bunch size and high market price, ranked as the most affected cultivar, while ‘FHIA 17’, an exotic hybrid, was the most drought-tolerant cultivar.
To mitigate adverse drought effects, banana farmers in the Ugandan cattle corridor deploy different coping practices such as mulching, planting mixed cultivars, construction of water retention trenches or contour bands, reduced leaf harvesting, manure application, irrigation, weeding and staking of weak plants. Additional practices included tying of disintegrated pseudostems with banana fibres, intercropping with trees and cover crops, heaping soil around exposed plant roots, and removal of excess suckers. Mulching was the most practiced, while irrigation though among the least applied practices, was considered as the most effective for reducing drought effects on banana production.
Despite the importance of the above measures in mitigation of drought effects on-farm, the extent of their deployment was still limited by a shortage of resources (monetary, human, and physical resources). Deploying of some the measures will require government and policy interventions in terms of providing logistical support to farmers and subsidies. The development of drought-tolerant cultivars that require much less water for optimal growth needs to be explored by banana breeding programmes. Moreover, some of the popular cultivars that have been reported as tolerant to drought stress should be considered for use in such banana crossbreeding research. Given the nature of climate change-related phenomena like unpredictable withdrawal of rains and prolonged droughts, farmers need to prioritise preventive coping initiatives such as planting drought-tolerant cultivars, mulching (all year round) and manure application which protect plants against potential adverse drought effects rather than curative strategies. Moreover, such preventive strategies should be deployed at planting or before the onset of drought instead of adopting these practices during drought conditions or after the damage has already been caused.
Author contributions statement: Ms. Nansamba, Drs; Sibiya, Tumuhimbise, Karamura and Karamura contributed to the conception and design of this study. Ms. Nansamba carried out data collection and drafted the manuscript. Ms. Nansamba and Dr Kikulwe performed data analysis and interpretation. All authors provided critical revision of intellectual content and gave approval of final version for submission.
Acknowledgements: The authors thank the fund donors of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas for supporting to conduct and publish this work.
Funding: This study was funded by the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (Biotech Project: B100821 C100414).
Data availability: The data sets generated during and/ or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Materials availability: Not applicable
Code availability: Not applicable
Conflict of interest / Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest or any competing interests.
Ethics approval: Not applicable
Consent to participate: Not applicable
Consent for publication: All authors have given consent to submit final version.
Akankwasa K, Ortmann GF, Wale E, Tushemereirwe WK (2013) Farmers’ choice among recently developed hybrid banana varieties in Uganda: A multinomial logit analysis. Agrekon: Agricultural Economics Research, Policy and Practice in Southern Africa 52:25-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2013.798063
Akankwasa K, Marimo P, Tumuhimbise R, Asasira M, Khakasa E, Mpirirwe I, Kleih U, Forsythe L, Fliedel G, Dufour D, Nowakunda K (2020) The East African highland cooking bananas ‘Matooke’ preferences of farmers and traders: Implications for variety development. Int J Food Sci Tech 56:1124–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14813
Anwar RM, Liu DL, Macadam I, Kelly G (2013) Adapting agriculture to climate change: a review. Theor Appl Climatol 113:225-245 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-012-0780-1
Bagamba F, Ssennyonga J, Tushemereirwe WK, Gold C (1998) Performance and profitability of the banana subsector in Uganda farming systems. In: Picq C, Fouré E, Frison EA (eds.) Bananas and Food Security. International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP), Montpellier, pp 729–740
Bagamba F (2007) Market access and agricultural production: the case of banana production in Uganda. Dissertation, Wageningen University
Bagamba F, Burger K, Tushemereirwe WK (2010) Banana (Musa spp.) production characteristics and performance in Uganda. Acta Hortic 879:187-198. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.879.17
Bananuka JA, Rubaihayo PR, Tenywa MM (1999) Reactions of Musa genotypes to drought stress. Afr Crop Sci J 7:333–339
Barekye A, Tongoona P, Derera J, Tushemereirwe, WK (2009) Variation in diploid (AA) and tetraploid (AAAA) banana populations for black Sigatoka resistance and agronomic traits. Afr Crop Sci J 9:509–516
Bekunda M (1999) Farmers’ responses to soil fertility decline in banana-based cropping systems of Uganda. Managing Africa’s soils No. 4. Russell Press, Nottingham
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2014) Multi-crop value chain Phase II Tanzania/Uganda cooking banana
Branch A (2018) From disaster to devastation: drought as war in northern Uganda. Disasters 42:S306−S327. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12303
Edmeades S, Phaneuf DJ, Smale M, Renkow M (2008) Modelling the crop variety demand of semi-subsistence households: Bananas in Uganda. J Agr Econ 59:329-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00153.x
Ekesa, BN, Kimiywe J, Van den Berg I, Blomme G, Dhuique-Mayer C, Davey M (2013) Content and retention of provitamin A carotenoids following ripening and local processing of four popular Musa cultivars from Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Sustain Agric Res 2 (2). https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.231318
FAO (2019) FAO, EU and Government of Uganda launch new initiative to promote adaptation to climate change in vulnerable districts in Uganda. Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). http://www.fao.org/uganda/news/detail-events/zh/c/1201051/ Accessed 18 March 2021
FAOSTAT (2019) Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC Accessed 22 February 2021
Flexas J, Medrano H (2002) Drought-inhibition of photosynthesis in C3 plants: Stomatal and non-stomatal limitations revisited. Ann Bot 89:183–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcb027
Gambart C, Swennen R, Blomme G, Groot JC, Remans R, Ocimati W (2020) Impact and opportunities of agro-ecological intensification strategies on farm performance: a case study of banana-based systems in central and south-western Uganda. Front Sustain Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00087
Gold CS, Kagezi GH, Night G, Ragama PE (2004) The effects of banana weevil, Cosmopolites sordidus (Germar), damage on highland banana growth, yield and stand duration in Uganda. Ann Appl Biol 145:263–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2004.tb00382.x
Kabunga NS, Dubois T, Qaim M (2012) Yield effects of tissue culture bananas in Kenya: Accounting for selection bias and the role of complementary inputs. J Agric Econ 63:444–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00337.x
Kajobe R, Kato EK, Otim SA, Kasangaki P, Abila PP (2016) The status of honeybee pests in Uganda. Bull Anim Hlth Prod Afri 64:105–117
Kangire A, Karamura EB, Gold C, Rutherford MA (2000) Fusarium wilt of banana in Uganda, with special emphasis on wilt-like symptoms observed on East African Highland cooking cultivars (Musa spp., AAA). Acta Hortic 540:343-353. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2000.540.40
Karamura DA (1998) Numerical Taxonomic Studies of the East African Highland Bananas (Musa AAA-East Africa) in Uganda. Dissertation, University of Reading
Karamura DA, Karamura EB, Tinzaara W (2012) Banana cultivar names, synonyms and their usage in Eastern Africa. Bioversity International, Kampala
Kilimani N, van Heerden J, Bohlmann H, Roos L (2015) Impact of drought on the Ugandan economy. A paper presented at the Economic Society of South Africa (ESSA) Biennial Conference (2-4th September 2015). University of Cape Town, South Africa
Liu HJ, Cohen S, Tanny J, Lemcoff JH, Huang G (2008) Transpiration estimation of banana (Musa spp.) plants with the thermal dissipation method. Plant Soil 308:227–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9622-4
Mardy T, Uddin MN, Sarker MA, Roy D, Dunn ES (2018) Assessing coping strategies in response to drought: A micro level study in the North-West region of Bangladesh. Climate. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli6020023
Marimo P, Karamura D, Tumuhimbise R, Shimwela MM, Van den Bergh I, Batte M, Massawe CRS, Okurut AW, Mbongo DB, Crichton R (2019) Post-harvest use of banana in Uganda and Tanzania: Product characteristics and cultivar preferences of male and female farmers. CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB). RTB Working Paper. No. 3. https://doi.org/10.4160/23096586RTBWP20193
McGahey D, Visser Z (2015) Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in Uganda’s cattle corridor. Adaptation at Scale in Semi-Arid Regions (ASSAR). http://www.assar.uct.ac.za/news/climate-change-vulnerability-and-adaptation-uganda%E2%80%99s-cattle-corridor. Accessed 20 March 2021
Mfitumukiza D (2015) Climate variability/change in the cattle corridor of Uganda: vulnerability and adaptation perspectives. Climate Change lecture series. Makerere University Centre for Climate Change Research and Innovations (MUCCRI), Kampala
Mfitumukiza D, Barasa B, Ntale E (2017) Ecosystem-based adaptation to drought among agro-pastoral farmers: opportunities and constraints in Nakasongola district, Central Uganda. Environ Manag Sustain Dev 6:31-50. https://doi.org/10.5296/emsd.v6i211132
Nansamba M, Sibiya J, Tumuhimbise R, Karamura D, Kubiriba J, Karamura E (2020) Breeding banana (Musa spp.) for drought tolerance: A review. Plant Breed 139:685-696. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.12812
NAPA (2007) Climate Change: Uganda National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA). Ministry of Water and Environment, Kampala, Uganda.
NARO (2019) Growing bananas better – Banana agronomy extension training guide. National Agricultural Research Organisation Uganda. http://africasoilhealth.cabi.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Banana-agronomy-extension-guide-final.pdf . Accessed 2 February 2021
Ndamani F, Watanabe T (2016) Determinants of farmers’ adaptation to climate change: A micro level analysis in Ghana. Sci Agric 73:201–208. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-9016-2015-0163
NEMA (2016) State of the environment report for Uganda 2014. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), Kampala, Uganda.
Nimusiima A, Basalirwa CPK, Mwanjalolo M, Otim-Nape W, Okello-Onen J, Rubaire-Akiiki C, Konde-Lule J, Ogwal-Byenek S (2013) Nature and dynamics of climate variability in the Uganda cattle corridor. African J Environ Sci Technol 7:770-782
Nimusiima A, Basalirwa CPK, Jackson GM, Majaliwa JGM, Kirya D, Twinomuhangi R (2018) Predicting the impacts of climate change scenarios on maize yield in the cattle corridor of central Uganda. J Environ Agric Sci 14:3-78
Nowakunda K, Barekye A, Ssali RT, Namaganda J, Tushemereirwe WK, Nabulya G, Erima R, Akankwasa K, Hilman E, Batte M, Karamura D (2015). ‘Kiwangaazi’ (syn ‘KABANA 6H’) Black Sigatoka nematode and banana weevil tolerant ‘Matooke’ hybrid banana released in Uganda. Hortsci 50:621–623. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.50.4.621
Ocan D, Mukasa HH, Rubaihayo PR, Tinzaara W, Blomme G (2008) Effects of banana weevil damage on plant growth and yield of East African Musa genotypes. J Appl Biosci 9:407 415
Ocimati W, Blomme G, Karamura D, Ragama P, Lepoint P, Kanyaruguru JP, Ngezahayo F, Ndungo V, Hakizimana F (2013) On-farm Musa germplasm diversity in different agro-ecologies of Burundi. Int J Biodivers Conserv 5:751-760
Ocimati W, Nakato GV, Fiaboe KKM, Beed F, Blomme G (2014a) Incomplete systemic movement of Xanthomonas campestris pv. Musacearum and the occurrence of latent infections in Xanthomonas wilt-infected banana mats. Plant Pathol 64:81–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12233
Ocimati W, Blomme G, Rutikanga A, Karamura D, Ragama P, Gaidashova S, Nsabimana A, Murekezi C (2014b) Musa germplasm diversity status across a wide range of agro-ecological zones in Rwanda. J Appl Biosci 73:5979–5990
Ocimati W, Karamura D, Sivirihauma C, Ndungo V, De Langhe E, Adheka J, Dheda B, Ntamwira J, Muhindo H, Ragama P, Blomme G (2016) On-farm banana (Musa) cultivar diversity status across different altitudes in North and South Kivu provinces of eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Acta Hortic 1114:35-44 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1114.5
Ocimati W, Groot JCJ, Tittonell P, Taulya G, Blomme G (2018) Effects of Xanthomonas wilt and other banana diseases on ecosystem services in banana-based agroecosystems. Acta Hortic 1196:19-32. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1196.3
Ogwang BA, Nimusiima A, Tindamanyire T, Serwanga MN, Ayesiga G, Ojara M, Ssebabi F, Gugwa G, Nsubuga Y, Atim R, Kibwika R, Balikudembe JK, Kikonyogo H, Kalema A, Ongoma V, Taire A, Kiryhabwe A, Kituua M, Semujju M, Einyu F, Aribo L, Kituusa R (2016) Characteristics and changes in SON rainfall over Uganda (1901-2013). J Environ Agric Sci 8:45–53
Owoyesigire B, Mpairwe D, Ericksen P, Peden D (2016) Trends in variability and extremes of rainfall and temperature in the cattle corridor of Uganda. Uganda J Agric Sci 17: 231 – 244. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ujas.v17i2.8
Panelo BC, Diza, TM. (2017). Growth and yield performance of banana (Musa acuminate L.) as affected by different farm manures. Asia Pac J Multidiscip Res 5:199-203
Pegg KG, Coates LM, O’Neill WT, Turner DW (2019) The epidemiology of fusarium wilt of banana. Front Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01395
Ravi I, Uma S (2011) Phenotyping bananas and plantains for adaptation to drought. In: Philippe M, Jean-Marcel R (eds.) Drought phenotyping in crops: From theory to practice. CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme/CIMMYT, Texcoco
Shrestha RP, Chaweewan N, Arunyawat S (2017) Adaptation to climate change by rural ethnic communities of Northern Thailand. Climate, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli5030057
Simmonds NW (1966) Bananas (2nd edition). Longmans, London
Smithson PC, McIntyre BD, Gold CS, Ssali H, Kashaija IN (2001) Nitrogen and potassium fertilizer vs. nematode and weevil effects on yield and foliar nutrient status of banana in Uganda. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 59:239–250. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014462923539
Speijer PR (1999) East African Highland banana production as influenced by nematodes and crop management in Uganda. Int J Pest Manag 45:41–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096708799228030
Taulya G (2013). East African highland bananas (Musa spp. AAA-EA) ‘worry’ more about potassium deficiency than drought stress. Field Crops Res 151:45–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.07.010
Taulya G, van Asten PJA, Leffelaar PA, Giller KE (2014) Phenological development of East African highland banana involves trade-offs between physiological age and chronological age. Eur J Agron 60:41–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2014.07.006
Tumuhimbise R, Barekye A, Kubiriba J, Akankwasa K, Arinaitwe IK, Karamura D, Tushemereirwe WK (2018) New high-yield cooking banana cultivars with multiple resistances to pests and diseases (‘NAROBan1’, ‘NAROBan2’, ‘NAROBan3’, and ‘NAROBan4’) released in Uganda. HortSci 53:1387–1389. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI13207-18
Tumuhimbise R, Buregyeya H, Kubiriba J, Tushemereirwe WK, Barekye A, Tendo RS, Namagembe B, Muhangi S, Kazigye F, Talengera D, Tindamanyire J, Akankwasa K, Nabulya G, Namaganda J, Waswa W, Kushaba A, Namuddu M, Oyesigye N, Namanya P, Arinaitwe IK, Waniale A, Karamura D, Karamura E (2019) ‘NABIO808’ (Syn. ‘NAROBAN5’): A tasty cooking banana cultivar with resistance to pests and diseases. Crop Breed Appl Biotechnol 19:491-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1984-70332019v19n4c71
Turner DW, Fortescue JA, Thomas DS (2007) Environmental physiology of the bananas (Musa spp.). Braz J Plant Physiol 19:63–484. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-04202007000400013
Twongyirwe R, Mfitumukiza D, Barasa B, Naggayi BR, Odongo H, Nyakato V, Mutoni G (2019) Perceived effects of drought on household food security in South-western Uganda: Coping responses and determinants. Weather Clim Extremes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2019.100201
USAID (2011) Climate Change and Conflict in Uganda: The Cattle Corridor and Karamoja. Report prepared by Jeffrey Stark for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Uganda
Uwimana B, Zorrilla-Fontanesi Y, van Wesemael J, Mduma H, Brown A, Carpentier S, Swennen R (2021) Effect of seasonal drought on the agronomic performance of four Banana genotypes (Musa spp.) in the East African Highlands. Agronomy. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010004
Van Asten PJA, Gold CS, Wendt J, De Waele D, Okech SHO, Ssali H, Tushemereirwe WK (2005) The contribution of soil quality to yield and its relation with other banana yield loss factors in Uganda. In: Blomme G, Gold CS, Karamura E (eds.) Proceedings of a workshop held on Farmer participatory testing of IPM options for sustainable banana production in Eastern Africa. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Montpellier, pp 100–115
Van Asten PJA, Fermont AM, Taulya G (2011a) Drought is a major yield loss factor for rainfed East African highland banana. Agric Water Manag 98:541–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.10.005
Van Asten PJA, Wairegi LWI, Mukasa D, Uringi NO (2011b) Agronomic and economic benefits of coffee–banana intercropping in Uganda’s smallholder farming systems. Agric Syst 104:326-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.12.004
Van Asten P, Ochola D, Wairegi L, Nibasumba A, Jassogne L, Mukasa D (2015) Coffee-Banana intercropping: Implementation guidance for policymakers and investors. Climate-Smart Agriculture Practice brief. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Copenhagen
Van den Berg I, Vézina A, Crichton R (2020) FHIA-17. ProMusa. https://www.promusa.org/FHIA-17 Accessed 5 May 2021
Wairegi LWI, van Asten PJA, Tenywa MM, Bekunda MA (2010) Abiotic constraints override biotic constraints in East African highland banana systems. Field Crops Res 117:146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.02.010
Zhang J, Li B, Zhang J, Christie P, Li X (2020) Organic fertilizer application and Mg fertilizer promote banana yield and quality in an Udic Ferralsol. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230593
Table 1 The location of sampled banana farms in the cattle corridor of Uganda
|
Agro-ecological zone |
District selected |
Sub-county visited |
|
Southern Drylands |
Ibanda |
Igorora town council, Kijongo |
|
|
Sembabule |
Mateete, Rwebitakuri |
|
|
Ntungamo |
Rubaare, Ruhaama |
|
|
Isingiro |
Masha, Birere |
|
Lake Victoria crescent |
Mubende |
Bukuya, Makokoto |
|
|
Luweero |
Bamunanika, Makulibita |
|
|
Nakaseke |
Kasagga, Nakaseke |
|
|
Kiboga |
Lwamata, Kibigga |
Table 2 Characteristics of banana plantations owned by respondents in the eight study districts located in the cattle corridor of Uganda
|
Category |
Proportion of respondents (%) |
|
Plantation size (acres) Small (0.25 – 2.5) Medium (2.6 – 5.0) Large (greater than 5.0) |
57.5 21.7 20.8 |
|
Plantation age (scale score: 1-6) Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years Above 20 years |
- 33.3 19.2 10.0 8.3 29.2 |
|
Management level Well managed Poorly managed |
85.8 14.2 |
|
Banana types & combinations grown Cooking bananas only Dessert bananas only Beer/Juice bananas only Roasting bananas only Cooking & Dessert bananas Cooking & Beer/Juice bananas Cooking & Roasting bananas Dessert & Beer/Juice bananas Dessert & Roasting bananas Beer/Juice & Roasting bananas Cooking, Dessert & Beer/Juice bananas Cooking, Dessert & Roasting bananas Cooking, Beer/Juice & Roasting bananas Dessert, Beer/Juice & Roasting bananas All four banana types |
13.3 - - - 29.2 2.5 3.3 - - - 15.8 21.7 0.8 - 13.3 |
|
Main reason for cultivar selection Big bunch size Tolerance to drought stress Pest and disease resistance Availability of planting materials Fast maturity Desirable taste Others Cropping system Monocropping (only bananas) Intercropping (bananas + other crops) |
55.0 15.0 8.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.7
37.5 62.5
|
Table 3 Local names and synonyms of banana cultivars grown by farmers in the eight study districts located in the cattle corridor of Uganda
|
Local cultivar name |
Synonym(s) |
Banana type |
Genome group |
Proportion of respondents growing cultivar (%) |
|
Mbwazirume |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
65.8 |
|
Kibuzi |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
61.7 |
|
Nakitembe |
Entaragaza |
Cooking |
AAA |
57.5 |
|
Mpologoma |
Bukadefu |
Cooking |
AAA |
52.5 |
|
Nakabululu |
Embururu |
Cooking |
AAA |
52.5 |
|
Musakala |
Enshakara, Rwamugongo |
Cooking |
AAA |
40.0 |
|
Enyeru |
Nabusa, Enyanshenyi, Enshenyi |
Cooking |
AAA |
35.0 |
|
Muvubo |
Mujuba, Mayovu |
Cooking |
AAA |
32.5 |
|
Ndyabalangira |
Enzirabushera |
Cooking |
AAA |
27.5 |
|
Kisansa |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
25.8 |
|
Enzirabahima |
Entukura, Muziranyama |
Cooking |
AAA |
23.3 |
|
Kivuuvu |
- |
Cooking |
ABB |
21.7 |
|
Nakinyika |
Enjuuma |
Cooking |
AAA |
20.8 |
|
Enjagata |
Nandigobe |
Cooking |
AAA |
18.3 |
|
Nfuuka |
Ntiika, Enfuuka |
Cooking |
AAA |
16.7 |
|
Butobe |
Butoobe |
Cooking |
AAA |
16.7 |
|
Nakyetengu |
Ekitetengwa, Kitiika |
Cooking |
AAA |
10.8 |
|
Atwalira |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
10.0 |
|
FHIA 25 |
- |
Cooking |
AAB |
9.2 |
|
Siira |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
9.2 |
|
Namwezi |
Kasa |
Cooking |
AAA |
8.3 |
|
M9 |
Kiwangaazi, Kabana 6H |
Cooking |
AAA |
7.5 |
|
Katwalo |
Njoogabakazi, Kasenga, Kabucuragye, Entanzinduka |
Cooking |
AAA |
7.5 |
|
Lwaddungu |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
5.0 |
|
Nakamaali |
Nakamali |
Cooking |
AAA |
2.5 |
|
M2 |
Kabana 7H |
Cooking |
AAA |
1.7 |
|
Namunwe |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
1.7 |
|
Mukubakonde |
Mukubyakonde |
Cooking |
AAA |
1.7 |
|
Lumenyamagaali |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
1.7 |
|
Lusumba |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
1.7 |
|
Enyaruyonga |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
1.7 |
|
M19 |
NAROBan1 |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
M20 |
NAROBan2 |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
M25 |
NAROBan3 |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
M27 |
NAROBan4 |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
Nakawere |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
Nalugolima |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
Nambi |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
Mukazimugumba |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
Lwakizita |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
Enkunku |
Bukunku, Makunku |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
Namulondo |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
Enyamanyamunyo |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
Lwasa |
- |
Cooking |
AAA |
0.8 |
|
Gonja |
Plantain |
Roasting |
ABB |
40.0 |
|
Sukali Ndizi |
Kabalagala, Apple banana |
Dessert |
AAB |
61.7 |
|
Bogoya |
Mbogoya, Gros Michel |
Dessert |
AAA |
58.3 |
|
FHIA 17 |
Kabana 3H |
Dessert |
AAAA |
24.2 |
|
Yangambi-KM5 |
Mufunyankobe |
Dessert |
AAB |
9.2 |
|
FHIA 23 |
Kabana 4H |
Dessert |
AAAA |
3.3 |
|
Kayinja |
Musa |
Beer /juice |
ABB |
20.8 |
|
Mbidde |
Kabula, Enyarukira, Embiire |
Beer /juice |
AAA |
15.8 |
|
Kisubi |
- |
Beer /juice |
AB |
3.3 |
|
Kibiddebidde |
Kibidde |
Beer /juice |
AAA |
1.7 |
Table 4 Proportion of farmers growing the five most popular banana cultivars in the two agro-ecological zones
|
Cultivar |
Agro-ecological zone (%) |
Chi square value |
|
|
Lake Victoria Crescent |
Southern Drylands |
||
|
Mbwazirume |
55.0 |
76.8 |
6.260** (0.012) |
|
Kibuzi |
40.0 |
83.3 |
23.831*** (0.000) |
|
Sukali Ndizi |
61.7 |
60.0 |
0.035 (0.852) |
|
Bogoya |
48.3 |
68.3 |
4.931** (0.026) |
|
Nakitembe |
60.0 |
53.3 |
0.543 (0.461) |
***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1; values in parenthesis are p values
Table 5 Other crops grown in association with bananas by study respondents
|
Intercrop category |
Specific crops grown |
Proportion of respondents growing intercrop (%) |
|
Trees /shrubs |
Tree crops Mango, avocado, jackfruit, orange, guava, coffee, pawpaw, java plum Wood or fodder trees Ficus natalensis, Albizia coriaria, Maesopsis eminii, Swietenia mahagoni (mahogany) |
86.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Legumes |
Beans, cowpeas |
43.1 |
|
Tubers |
Cassava, sweet potatoes, yams |
35.3 |
|
Vegetables |
Eggplants, bitter berries, tomatoes, cabbage |
19.6 |
|
Cucurbits |
Pumpkins, bottle brush, calabash |
5.9 |
|
Cereals |
Maize |
11.8 |
|
Others |
|
|
|
Fruits Spices Medicinal plants Peanuts Grasses |
Pineapples, passion fruit Mint, lemon grass, rosemary, ginger Aloe vera Groundnut Sugarcane, elephant grass |
17.6 |
Table 6 Ranking of the most popular banana cultivars based on their response to drought stress as perceived by the study respondents (from most to least affected by drought)
|
|
|
Number of respondents reporting cultivar response to drought stress |
|
|
|||
|
Local cultivar name |
Frequency (n=120) |
Highly sensitive |
Moderately tolerant |
Very tolerant |
No effect |
WAI |
Rank |
|
Mpologoma |
63 |
60 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2.94 |
1 |
|
Kisansa |
31 |
11 |
18 |
2 |
0 |
2.29 |
2 |
|
Enjagata |
22 |
6 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
2.27 |
3 |
|
Musakala |
48 |
13 |
33 |
2 |
0 |
2.23 |
4 |
|
Gonja |
48 |
20 |
19 |
9 |
0 |
2.23 |
4 |
|
Ndyabalangira |
33 |
8 |
22 |
3 |
0 |
2.15 |
6 |
|
Enzirabahima |
28 |
10 |
12 |
6 |
0 |
2.14 |
7 |
|
Muvubo |
39 |
6 |
31 |
2 |
0 |
2.10 |
8 |
|
Kibuzi |
74 |
17 |
45 |
12 |
0 |
2.07 |
9 |
|
Butobe |
20 |
5 |
9 |
6 |
0 |
1.95 |
10 |
|
Nakitembe |
69 |
7 |
51 |
11 |
0 |
1.94 |
11 |
|
Mbwazirume |
79 |
9 |
54 |
16 |
0 |
1.91 |
12 |
|
Nfuuka |
20 |
1 |
16 |
3 |
0 |
1.90 |
13 |
|
Bogoya |
70 |
13 |
30 |
27 |
0 |
1.80 |
14 |
|
Nakinyika |
25 |
2 |
14 |
9 |
0 |
1.72 |
15 |
|
Enyeru |
42 |
3 |
20 |
19 |
0 |
1.62 |
16 |
|
Nakabululu |
63 |
3 |
25 |
35 |
0 |
1.49 |
17 |
|
Sukali Ndizi |
74 |
1 |
29 |
44 |
0 |
1.42 |
18 |
|
Kayinja |
25 |
0 |
9 |
16 |
0 |
1.36 |
19 |
|
Kivuuvu |
26 |
0 |
10 |
15 |
1 |
1.35 |
20 |
|
FHIA 17 |
29 |
1 |
4 |
15 |
11 |
0.90 |
21 |
WAI denotes Weighted Average Index
Table 7 Respondents’ perceptions of the response of the five most grown banana cultivars to drought stress across the two selected agro-ecological zones
|
Cultivar |
Agro-ecological zone (%) |
||||
|
Drought sensitivity level |
Lake Victoria Crescent |
Southern Drylands |
Chi-square value |
||
|
Mbwazirume |
1 |
18.2 |
21.7 |
4.50 (0.105) |
|
|
2 |
78.8 |
60.9 |
|||
|
3 |
3.0 |
17.4 |
|||
|
Kibuzi |
1 |
23.1 |
16.0 |
7.80** (0.02) |
|
|
2 |
73.1 |
52.0 |
|||
|
3 |
3.8 |
32.0 |
|||
|
Sukali Ndizi |
1 |
51.3 |
66.7 |
2.43 (0.297) |
|
|
2 |
46.0 |
33.3 |
|||
|
3 |
2.7 |
0.0 |
|||
|
Bogoya |
1 |
27.6 |
46.3 |
3.348 (0.187) |
|
|
2 |
55.2 |
34.2 |
|||
|
3 |
17.2 |
19.5 |
|||
|
Nakitembe |
1 |
16.7 |
12.4 |
4.71* (0.095) |
|
|
2 |
80.5 |
68.8 |
|||
|
3 |
2.8 |
18.8 |
|||
***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1; values in parenthesis are p values
Cultivar drought sensitivity levels: 1- very tolerant; 2-moderately tolerant; 3-highly sensitive
Table 8 Purpose and time of deployment of on-farm drought coping strategies by study respondents
|
Drought coping practice |
Purpose of intervention |
Time of deployment |
|
Mulching |
Preserving soil moisture by reducing evaporation |
Throughout the growing season; during the drought period |
|
Planting mixed cultivars |
Diversify risk (due to drought effects) from a single cultivar |
At planting |
|
Irrigation |
Replenish lost or used soil moisture |
During the drought period |
|
Intercropping |
Tall trees or shrubs provide shade to bananas, especially on very hot days Short trees, shrubs and cover crops serve as soil cover |
Any time during the growing season |
|
Reduced leaf harvesting |
Ensure plants have adequate leaves for photosynthesis Leaves shade the pseudostem and ground, thereby reducing desiccation |
During the drought period |
|
Construction of ditches or contour bands |
For soil and water retention |
At planting At onset of rainfall |
|
Weeding |
Reduces competition for resources e.g. soil water and nutrients |
Throughout the growing season |
|
Staking of plants |
Support the weight of heavy bunches on weak or snapped plants |
During the drought period |
|
Manure application |
Increased organic matter improves water retention. Fertilizers ensure a healthy and strong plant that can withstand drought |
At the onset of rains or At planting |
|
Tying of disintegrated pseudostem |
To keep the disintegrated pseudostem intact |
During the drought period |
|
Sucker removal |
Reduce competition among plants on the same mat for the scarce resources including water |
Throughout the growing season, but more purposely at onset and during the drought period |
|
Heaping soil around plant roots |
Protect exposed roots from desiccation and improve water and nutrient uptake |
During the drought period |