Report of the first meeting of the External Panel of the Soil Management CRSP planning process, Raleigh, N.C., September...
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080631/00002
 Material Information
Title: Report of the first meeting of the External Panel of the Soil Management CRSP planning process, Raleigh, N.C., September 3-6, 1979.
Alternate Title: Soil Management CRSP planning process
Physical Description: 14, 2, 4, 5 leaves : maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Soil Management Collaborative Research Support Program.
Publisher: Soil Management CRSP
Subjects / Keywords: Soil Management Collaborative Research Support Program -- Congresses -- Planning
Agricultural extension work -- Congresses -- Planning
Abstract: The External Panel met to review the information assembled by North Carolina State University encompassing the recommendation on research priorities by 197 individuals from 46 countries representing 118 different institutions. The External Panel assisted in determining whether to structure the program along ecological regions or specific soil constraints, and the criteria for assigning research priorities.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 153292896
System ID: UF00080631:00002

Full Text





North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
September 3-6, 1979


The External Panel met to review the information assembled by North Carolina State
University encompassing recommendations on research priorities by 197 individuals from
46 countries representing 118 different institutions. The Panel recommends that: (1) The
CRSP be structured along agro-ecological zones; (2) Twelve criteria be used for establishing
priorities; (3) Work should concentrate on priority agro-ecological zones: Humid Tropics;
Seasonal, Non-acid Tropics; Seasonal Acid Tropics; Steeplands,and Wetlands; (4) Potential
primary and secondary research sites and a list of main research components of each sub-
program. The Planning Agency, North Carolina State University, concurs with these recom-
mendations and submits them to AID and the Joint Research Committee of BIFAD for

An External Panel was recruited by North Carolina State University, the Planning
Entity, to assist in making the following decisions related to the Assessment Phase of the
Soil Management Planning Grant: 1) Whether to structure the Program along ecological
regions or specific soil constraints, 2) criteria for assigning research priorities, 3) assign-
ment of research priorities into coherent sub-programs, and 4) outline the main compo-
nents of each sub-program.
The meeting was held in the McKimmon Room of Williams Hall at North Carolina
State University from September 3-6, 1979, followed by a presentation of the conclu-
sions to AID officials in Washington on September 7. The Panel was composed of the
following members:

Dr. John K. Coulter, Scientific Advisor, Consultative Group on Agricultural Research,
The World Bank, Washington, D. C.

Dr. Peter E. Hildebrand, Economist, Rockefeller Foundation, Instituto de Ciencia y
Tecnologfa Agropecuaria, Guatemala City, Guatemala

Dr. M. Amirul Islam, Director, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Dacca,

Dr. Kenneth F. S. King, Director General, International Council for Research in Agro-
forestry, Nairobi, Kenya

Dr. Frank R. Moormann, Professor of Soils, State University of Utrecht, Utrecht,

Dr. Marlowe D. Thorne, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

Dr. Carlos Valverde Deputy Executive Director, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones
Agrarias, Lima, Peru

The Panel was assisted by faculty members of North Carolina State University, who
prepared for their consideration, a compilation of soil research priorities proposed by
scientists and"administrators of developing countries, international agricultural research
centers, USAID missions and U. S.-based scientists. This information was compiled in 97
Assessment Reports and 40 cables from USAID Missions. The views of a total of 129
individuals located outisde of the U. S., representing 87 institutions from 45 countries,
along with those of 68 U. S.-based scientists from 31 different institutions were included
in the materials on which the Panel based its conclusions. The geographic distribution of
those contributing to this process appears in Table 1. A summary of the 20 most fre-
querttly mentioned research priorities was prepared by NCSU and appears as Table 2, along
with a list of other research priorities.


The Panel decided that the objective of the Soil Management Collaborative Research
Program as stated in the Grant Description could be modified, with advantage to read:
"To develop, with national institutions, improved soil management tech-
nology to increase and sustain agricultural production in the developing
world, while conserving and improving the land resource base."
The Panel agreed unanimously that in evolving or improving soil management systems,
the existing socio-economic conditions must be taken into account in order to develop
scientific and technological answers to soil constraints which are realistic for poor farmers.


The Panel considered whether it would be more advantageous to focus research on
specific soil constraints in developing economies or to examine the problems within the
context of agro-ecological zones. It was decided that it would be more beneficial to struc-
ture the program along agro-ecological zones because:
(a) The primary objective is to develop feasible soil management systems, and the
possibility of developing these appeared to be greater when a systems approach
is followed; and perhaps more importantly,
(b) The soils constraints to agricultural development so far identified in the developing
countries are most strongly expressed and correlated with specific agro-ecological


Twelve criteria were chosen as the basis for selecting priority agro-ecological zones.
They are:
1. Meets the overall CRSP objective (develop management systems for increasing agri-
cultural production and conserving the soil resource base).
2. Benefits directly the rural and urban poor.
3. Size of the actual area within the agro-ecological zone (target area).
4. Number of people presently in the zone.
5. Number of people the zone potentially can support.
6. Present poverty level (1/GNP).
7. Need for research.
8. Availability of potential collaborators.
9. Technical feasibility.
10. Socio-economic feasibility.
11. Presence of ongoing development projects.
12. Logistical problems involved.


A list of major ecological regions of the developing world prepared by NCSU was used
and the weighed criteria are given in Table 3.
In the course of this exercise it was decided to modify the agro-ecological zones as
a. Seasonal non-acid tropics and semi-arid tropics were combined, so as to include a
cumulative growth period of 90-210 days, defined as the period of the year when
enough soil water is available in upland sites.
b. Volcanic highlands and non-volcanic highlands were combined with other lower
areas dominated by steep slopes in one category of steeplands.
c. Temperate and tropical wetlands (both Asia and non-Asia) were combined.
The final choice was made by considering 1) whether research in soil problems which
could be expected to increase agricultural productivity within a reasonable time span,
2) the comparative advantages of the U. S. universities to conduct collaborative research,
and 3) the major constraints of the zones which are indeed soil related and not water man-
agement related.

Five agro-ecological zones were selected and ranked in order of priority. The Panel de-
cided that the ranking reflects priorities in terms of resource allocation, i.e., if funding is
limited to support only the first three priorities adequately, no work should start on the
fourth and fifth ones.
The five research priority agro-ecological zones are:
1. Humid tropics.
2. Seasonal, non-acid and semi-arid tropics (90-210 days available soil moisture).
3. Seasonal, acid tropics.
4. Steeplands.
5. Wetlands, restricted to the management of non-rice crops grown in rotation with
puddled rice.
The appropriate location of the five zones is illustrated in Figure 1.


The Panel spent considerable time deciding where the most appropriate sites for con-
ducting research would be. Sites were selected where either a national or an international
agricultural research center is presently working, in order for the CRSP to be truly collab-
orative in nature. A primary site reflects major concentration on technology generation,
while a secondary site indicates technology validation research in a network fashion. The
same criteria used for the selection of agro-ecological zones was applied to the site selec-
tion process.
1. Humid Tropics
The principal objective is to develop agronomically, economically and ecologically
sound soil management systems for sustained agricultural production in these fragile but
potentially very productive environments. America, Africa, and Asia were graded in rela-
tion to the criteria used to select the agro-ecological zones as follows:

Actual Future
popula- popula- Research Potential Devlpmt.
Location Area tion tion needs collab. projects Logistics Total

America 12 -4 6 4 2 1 2 23
Africa 8 8 3 4 -1 -1 -2 19
Asia 4 4 6 8 1 1 2 26

Figure 1.

Target Areas of Priority Research Projects:

I. Humid Tropics

2. Seasonal, Non-Acid Tropics I

3. Seasonal, Acid Tropics

4. Steeplands

5. Wetlands

o Potential primary research sites

0 Other potential sites


Approximate Scale Along Equator
0 500 1000 1500 km




The Panel selected America (Amazon Basin) and Asia to be considered with equal
priority, and Africa as an expansion area. The sites were ranked as follows:

1. Peru (Yurimaguas)
1. Sumatra (Palembang)
2. Cameroon (South of Yaounde)
3. Sierra Leone (Njala)
4. Brazil (Manaus)
5. Indonesia (Kalimantan-no location proposed)

2. Seasonal Non-Acid Tropics.
Seasonal non-acid tropics have high base status soils, including both low activity clays,
and to a lesser extent, high activity clays (mainly Vertisols), and are most significant in
.the African continent and the Indian subcontinent. This includes the semi-arid tropics.
Evolving management systems that prevent erosion and maximize the use of limited
available soil moisture supplies are the main concerns.
The Panel agreed that the sites to be selected should cover both West and East Africa.
The countries and possible locations considered were the following: Senegal (Bambey),
Gambia, Upper Volta (Ouagadougou), Niger (Niamey), Nigeria (Samaru), Sudan
(South), Tanzania (Morogoro), Zambia (Lusaka), Brazil (Northeast), India and Sri Lanka
(Maha Illupalamia). Network arrangements with IITA and ICRISAT could be developed.
On rating the above locations, the following primary sites were proposed:
East Africa:
1. Tanzania (Morogoro)
2. Zambia (Lusaka)
West Africa:
1. Upper Volta (Ouagadougou)
2. Niger (Niamey)
3. Seasonal, Acid Tropics.
Important areas of soils with low base status and a strong dry season are located in
South America, mainly in the savannas of Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and Bolivia. In
Africa, areas of this nature exist in the central part, which are inaccessible at present. In
Asia, smaller but socio-economically important areas are located on terraces of the main
rivers, particularly in Northeast Thailand. The potential locations for primary sites are
Brazil (Brasilia), Colombia (Carimagua), Bolivia (San Ignacio) and Thailand (Khon Kaen).
No priority rankings were decided in this subprogram. A network arrangement with CIAT
could be developed.

4. Steeplands
Important areas of steeplands are located throughout the developing world. The major
and overriding requirement for steeplands is improved management of sloping land to con-
serve the soil resource base and to protect the adjacent-lower lands. In steeplands, there-
fore, there is a need for a broader multidisciplinary effort, rather than that normally
envisioned in soil management research. No area priority could be established from tech-
nical considerations. However, it was felt that sites should be considered within the follow-
ing steepland areas: Foothills of the Himalayas (Northeast India and Nepal); Ridge and
valley region of continental Southeast Asia (Bangladesh, N. Thailand); South and Central
America (Ecuador, Guatemala); and the Caribbean (Dominican Republic/Haiti).
5. Wetlands
The main problems of wetlands (i.e., lowlands with rice-based cropping systems) are re-
lated to water management, and to specific adverse soil conditions (Histosols, acid sulfate
soils, salinity/alkalinity, etc.). In most aspects related to wetland soils, sufficient research is
going on at present. However, the physical soil problems related to the use of hydromor-
phic rice land for "off season" dryland cropping is not sufficiently researched. Therefore,
wetlands are included in this priority list for this purpose only. In view of the large areal
extent, the Ganges-Brahmaputra Plain (Bangladesh) is proposed for possible site selection.
Research in this area could be in cooperation with the IRRI Asian Cropping Systems


The following is a summary of the main research components to be considered by
priority ecological zones. The first section lists those components considered essential to
all agro-ecological zones. Specific ones for each agro-ecological zone are listed in order of
All Zones:
1. Soil fertility evaluation, including characterizing soil nutrient deficiencies and
critical plant nutrient levels.
2. Improving the land resource data base, including soil characterization and classifica-
tion, evaluation, use and improvement of Soil Taxonomy.
3. Technical soil classification systems for practical management purposes.
4. Training soil scientists on the job, including graduate training.
5. Continued field research to determine long-term effects of management practices.
6. Improved delivery systems, including data banks and a documentation center.

Humid Tropics
1. Fertility management for continuous production with emphasis on the manage-
ment of soil acidity, phosphorus, micronutrients, nitrogen (organic and inorganic)
and cation balance, including long-term residual effects.
2. Select plants and rhizobia tolerant to soil constraints, mainly acidity and low P.
3. Land clearing methods.
4. Develop stable, low input systems to change from shifting to continuous agricul-
ture, including intercropping or sequential plantings of annual crops, grass-legume
pastures and/or trees. Emphasis on nutrient recycling.
5. Erosion control, prevention and reclamation of eroded or compacted land.
Seasonal, Non-acid Tropics
1. Practices to prevent or reduce detrimental effects of surface capping or crusting.
2. Erosion control, prevention and reclamation.
3. Develop low input systems that maximize the use of available soil water and main-
tain a continuous plant cover, including intercropping and agroforestry.
4. Select plants and rhizobia tolerant to drought, low P and salinity.
5. Management of soils with low activity clays to prevent secondary acidity and
cation imbalances, including phosphorus and micronutrient research.
6. Nitrogen fertilizer research with emphasis on minimizing risk.
7. Alternatives to shifting cultivation, including use of improved land clearing
methods, grass:legume pastures.
8. Supplemental irrigation, where appropriate.
Seasonal, Acid Tropics
1. Select plants and rhizobia tolerant to acidity, low P and drought.
2. Phosphorus fertilizer management in high fixing soils.
3. Control of soil acidity, including Al chemistry, Al and Mn toxicity, liming, base
recycling and secondary acidity.
4. Soil-crop management systems to most economically utilize limited soil water,
particularly during temporary droughts.
5. Low input cropping systems, including crops, pastures and trees, either inter-
cropped or in sequence.
6. Erosion control, prevention and reclamation via improved soil management systems.
7. Secondary and micronutrient research, particularly S, Mg and Zn.
8. Supplemental irrigation or in intensive agriculture.

1. Erosion control is the overriding problem.
2. Develop low input soil covering systems, including continuous cropping, inter-
cropping crops with pastures and trees, promoting nutrient recycling, conserving
lands with permanent forests.
3. Optimize utilization of limited soil water.
4. Fertility management with emphasis on acidity, nitrogen and phosphorus.
5. Select plants that develop a quick soil cover, and rhizobia both tolerant to acidity,
low P and drought.
6. Irrigation, small systems with minimum investment.
1. Physical and chemical dynamics of wetland cultivation under flooded, puddled and
dry conditions.
2. Select plants and rhizobia adapted to poor soil physical conditions after rice

Table 1 List of Countries and Individuals Who

Contributed to the Assessment Phase

of the Soil Management Planning Grant

(September 11, 1979)

A. Foreign-based institutions and individuals (except international centers,
but including USAID Missions that listed priority soil constraints).

Country Institutions Individuals Country Institutions Individuals

Australia 1 1 Lesotho 1 1
Bangladesh 2 2 Malaysia 1 1
Barbados 1 1 Mali 1 1
Bolivia 2 2 Netherlands 3 3
Brazil 11 14 Niger 1 1
Burundi 1 1 Nigeria 1 1
Canada 1 1 Panama 1 1
Central Afr. Rep. 1 1 Paraguay 1 1
China, People's Rep. 1 1 Peru 3 5
Colombia 1 1 Philippines 2 8
Costa Rica 2 2 Senegal 1 1
Dominican Rep. 4 5 Sierra Leone 1 1
Ecuador 1 1 Sri Lanka 1 12
El Salvador 1 1 Sudan 1 1
Ethiopia 1 1 Syria 1 1
France 1 3 Thailand 1 8
Germany, West 2 2 Trinidad 1 1
Ghana 1 1 U. Kingdom 1 1
Guatemala 2 2 Upper Volta 1 1
Guyana 1 1 Zaire 1 1
India 4 4
Indonesia 2 2
Jamaica 1 1 Total
Japan 1 1
Kenya 3 7 45 76 99

Table 1 (cont'd.)

B. International Centers or Institutions

Institution Individuals


C. U. S.-Based Institutions

Institution Individuals Institution Individuals

Alabama A & T Univ. 1 Ohio State Univ. 1
Arizona, Univ. of 1 Oregon State Univ. 1
California, Univ. of 2 Penn. State Univ. 1
Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta. 1 Prairie View A & M Univ. 2
Colorado State Univ. 1 Purdue Univ. 7
Cornell University 4 Rockefeller Foundation 1
Florida, Univ. of 1 Rutgers Univ. 1
Guam, Univ. of 1 Stephen Austin State Univ. 1
Hawaii, Univ. of 8 Soil Conservation Service 1
Illinois, Univ. of 2 Texas A & M Univ. 1
Iowa State Univ. 1 Tuskeegee Institute 1
Kansas State Univ. 3 Utah State Univ. 1
Kentucky, Univ. of 2 Washington State Univ. 3
Minnesota, Univ. of 1 Wisconsin (River Falls) 2
Mississippi State Univ. 2 World Bank 1
N. C. State Univ. 12
Total 31 68

Grand Total Total Foreign U. S.

Countries 46 45 1
Institutions 118 87 31
Individuals 197 129 68

Table 2.

Summary of Most Common Priority Research Areas in Assessment Reports and USAID Mission Responses
as of September 6, 1979). Numbers in parentheses after countries reflect number of institutions

Research Priority Proposed by
(not ranked in order of National or Interna-
importance) tional Institutions USAID Missions US-Based scientists Frequency

1. EROSION, Predictability, con- Sierra Leone, IITA, CIAT Ecuador, Bolivia, Mugwira, Simpson,
trol, prevention and reclama- Univ. of Utrecht, Peru, Indonesia, Van Wambeke, Young,
tion in rainfed areas via IICA, Peru, Kenya, D. Rep., Panama, Singer, Cunningham,
improved soil management U. West Indies, Brazil Paraguay, Salvador, Blevins, Johnson,
systems. Jamaica, Lesotho, Brams Collins, 39
Costa Rica, Philip- El-Swaify, Ekern,
pines Fox, Hill, Moldenhauer-
Jackson, Arscott

2. MANAGEMENT OF SOILS WITH LOW Sierra Leone, CIAT Ecuador, Bolivia, Van Wambeke, Kamprath
ACTIVITY CLAYS. (Oxisols, Univ. of Utrecht Indonesia, Colombia, Calhoun, Singer
Ultisols, oxic Alfisols) in ThailandSri Lanka, Panama, Costa Rica,
humid and seasonal tropics, Peru (3), Brazil (5), Zaire, Brazil, Peru
for sustained production and ICRAF, IITA, Costa
conservation. Rica, Guatemala, 35
Sudan, FAO (Dudal),
Kenya, FAO (Indonesia)

Including research on charac-
terizing soil nutrient de-
ficiencies and matching with
crop requirements, develop-
ment of new soil tests, cri-
tical levels and nutrient
balances for macro and micro-
nutrients, specialist train-
ing, transfer to farmers.

Brazil (3), Sierra
Leone, CIAT, Peru, IRRI,
Guam, Kenya, Fed. Rep. of

Bangladesh, Indo-
nesia, Peru, Colom-
bia, Dominican Re-
public, Costa Rica,
Guatemala, Lesotho,

Cope, Young, Blevins
Johnson, Cunningham
Kanehiro, Kamprath,
Kurtz, Uehara, Silva,
Fox, Barber, Jackson
Arscott, Wennergren

Table 2 (Continued)

Research Priority Proposed by
(not ranked in order of National or Interna-
importance) tional Institutions USAID Missions US-based scientists Frequency

4. SOIL-CROP MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ICRISAT, ICRAF, Kenya, Niger, Lesotho, Mali Calhoun, Van Wambeke
TO MOST ECONOMICALLY UTILIZE Guatemala, Sudan, Johnson, Simpkins,
LIMITED SOIL WATER, in semi- U. West Indies, Brazil Hsaio, Whisler, 20
arid tropics, during temporary Stivers, Jackson,
droughts, in acid sandy Sahel, Wennergren, Arscott
soils, moisture stress research

5. IMPROVING THE LAND RESOURCE ICRISAT, FAO (Indonesia), Guatemala, Phili- Taylor, Simpson,
DATA BASE, including soil University of Wageningen, pines, Niger, Mali Young, Hill Brams- 18
classification, use and im- CIAT, Thailand, Sri Collins, Silva,
provement of Soil Taxonomy, Lanka Hsiao

6. NITROGEN FIELD FERTILIZER Guam, IRRI, Brazil, Bouldin Lathwell,
RESEARCH, to maximize output Costa Rica, U. West Cope, Kurtz, Blevins,
per unit fertilizer N, sources, Indies Thomas, Tucker, 18
interactions, crop residues, Kissel, Gross, Mengel,
organic manures, N fixation. Moldenha'er Galloway

MENT PURPOSES, emphasizing
topsoil properties or bench-
marks, as technology transfer

Bangladesh, CIAT, FAO
(Dudal), Brazil (2),
Sri Lanka

Hendershott, Mugwira
Young, Cunningham,
Johnson, Uehara
Steckel, Fox,

Table 2 (continued)

Research Priority Proposed by
(not ranked in order of National Interna-
importance) tional Institutions USAID Missions US-based scientists Frequency

8. CORRECTION OF SOIL ACIDITY, Peru (2), Brazil El Salvador Kamprath, Cope,
Al chemistry, Al and Mn toxicity, Mugwira, Kurtz,
liming, base recycling, secondary Lathwell Bouldin, 16
acidity, extension. Blue, Thomas, Stivers
Mengel, Jackson

9. SHIFTING CULTIVATION/AGRO- FAO (Indonesia), Brazil Peru, Indonesia, Simpson, Thomas
FORESTRY, including changing (2), Sri Lanka, Peru Philippines Simons 15
from shifting to continuous ICRAF, CIAT, Ethiopia
cultivation, intercropping
crops with pastures and trees
and promoting nutrient cycling.

10. SELECT PLANTS TOLERANT TO FAO (Indonesia), ICRISAT, Kittrick, Bouldin-
SOIL CONSTRAINTS, (acidity, IRRI (2), CIAT, Peru Lathwell, Simpson, 13
salinity, low P, drought); Tucker, Hsiao, Hill
involves breeding.

11. SALINITY, including correction IRRI Syria, Tunisia, Cope, El-Swaify,
by drainage, assessment, Bolivia, Jamaica, Tucker, Simons, 12
development of tolerant varieties Dominican Republic Jackson, Arscott
secondary (management induced)

SYSTEMS NETWORKS, in small farms,
marginal mountain soils.

IRRI, Indonesia,
Philippines, University
of Wageningen, Sri Lanka

Philippines, Barbados
Salvador, Colombia

Blevins, Kanehiro,

Table 2 (continued)

Research Priority Proposed by
(not ranked in order of National or Interna-
importance) tional Institutions USAID Missions US-based scientists Frequency

FERTILITY MANAGEMENT, and other FAO (Indonesia), Sri Barbados Calhoun, Hill, Cope, 11
low input systems. Lanka, Peru Thomas, Silva

14. PHOSPHORUS FERTILIZER Thailand, CIAT, ICRISAT, Lathwell Bouldin,
MANAGEMENT, fixation, rock Upper Volta, Brazil Blue, Kamprath, Kurtz, 10
phosphate, management, internal Simons
and external requirements

15. MICRONUTRIENT FERTILIZATION Bazil, Peru, Guam, IITA, Bangladesh, Philip- Cope, Young, Mengel 10
RESEARCH, including soil status, Costa Rica pines
plant requirements, responses,
residual effects.

SOIL CONSTRAINTS, including sur- Tucker, Cunningham 10
vival, selection of tolerant Fox, Hill, Gross
strains, use of legumes in crop
rotations and pastures.

17. TRAINING SOIL SCIENTISTS, on- Brazil (2), Kenya, ICRAF, Tunisia Kanehiro, Buol-
the-job, graduate education, Guatemala Nicholaides 9
developed country students,
refresher courses.

18. IRRIGATION, in general, exten-
sion into rainfed areas, drip

Guam, FAO (Indonesia)

Tunisia, Jamaica,

Young, Simkins,
Johnson, Whisler

Table 2 (continued)

Proposed by
Research Priority
(not ranked in order of National or Interna-
importance) tional Institutions USAID Missions US-based scientists Frequency

19. LONG-TERM FIELD RESEARCH, to Fed. Rep. of Germany Kamprath, Cope,
determine residual effects of Peru, CIAT Van Wambeke, 8
liming, P. crop residues, Bouldin, Lathwell
organic matter.

CLEARING SYSTEMS, for the IITA, Brazil (2) Zaire Simons 7
humid tropics, where manual
clearing is impossible.

Table 2 (continued)

Other Research Priorities (not ranked in order of importance) Proposed by Frequency


1. Minimum tillage

2. Potential rooting depth of main crops in main soils

3. Wind erosion

4. Dynamic geochemistry of soil water

5. Integrated watershed management

6. Management of heavy clay soils

7. Soil compaction

8. Reduce energy requirements for breaking soil compaction

9. Soil aggregation

0. Basin tillage

1. Biological subsoiling

2. Soil crusting

3. Conservation tillage

4. Moisture availability indices

USAID/DR, Thomas, Blevins, Hill

Taylor, Hsaio

Lal, Simons

Thailand, Sri Lanka

IITA, Buford

Warkentin, Ahmad

Cunningham, Singer, Moldenhauer-
Galloway Mannering

Nicou (Senegal), Hill







Table 2 (continued)

Other Research Priorities (not ranked in order of importance) Proposed by Frequency


1. Sulfur field fertilizer research

Alternate oxidation-reduction conditions in rice soils

Soil organic matter and its recycling

Soil fertility management for grain legumes

Organic matter

Mycorrhiza inoculation in legumes

Azolla and blue green algae


Use of sulfur to reclaim saline soils

Methods of fertilizer application

Iron toxicity in wetlands adjacent to plinthite

USAID/Bangladesh, Peru, IITA,

IRRI, University of Wageningen

Brazil, Bouldin


Goedert, Bornemisza







Table 2 (continued)

Other Research Priorities (not ranked in order of importance) Proposed by Frequency


1. Delivery of soil management information to the farmer

2. Data bank of soil and crop performance

3. Training planners and decision makers

4. Promote scientific workshops

5. Range management in semi-arid and arid areas

6. Desert encroachment

7. Research on research coordination

8. Logistical support to LDC institutions (reagents, etc.)

9. Open new lands in African wetlands

0. Integrating desert grazing and irrigated pastures

1. Soil management for home gardens

2. Modern teaching aids

3. Soil management to decrease disease incidence

4. Reclamation of acid sulfate soils, peaty clays

5. Soil pollution

6. "Guie" type of shifting cultivation

USAID/Colombia, Cunningham,
Johnson, Kanehiro

Costa Rica, Uehara, Ikawa,

Uehara, Buol-Nicholaides

Peru, Costa Rica, Brazil

Johnson, Rafsnider

USAID/Ecuador, Rafsnider

Brazil, Van Wambeke

Brazil (2)

University of Utrecht





Univ. West Indies



Table 3 Weighed score of criteria by agro-ecological zones.

Criteria* and (Weight)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Agro-Ecological Zone (x4) (x4) (x3) (x3) (x4) (xl) (x2) (x2) (xl) (x2) Sum

Seasonal Acid Tropics

Seasonal, Non-Acid,

Temperate Wetlands

Humid Tropics

Semi-Arid Tropics

Volcanic Highlands

Tropical Wetlands

Humid Temperate

Seasonal Temperate
(Non-Afri ca)

8 -4 6 3 4 2 4 2 1

8 4 3 3 4 2 4 -2 1

4 8 -3 6 -4 2 2 2 2

8 -4 3 3 8 0 4 2 1

4 4 -3 6 -4 2 2 0 1

-8 8 -3 3 4 1 2 2 1
-4 8 -3 6 -4 1 2 2 1

4 4 -3 3 -4 1 2 2 1

4 4 -3 3 -4 1 2 2 1

Mediterranean 4 4 -3 3 -4 1

Non-Volcanic Highlands -4 4 -3 3 4 1

Tropical Wetlands -4 -8 3 3 8 -1


Seasonal Temperate

4 4 -3 3 4 -1

2 2 1

2 -2 1

4 2 -1

2 -2 -1

2 28

2 29

2 21

-4 21

2 14

2 12

2 11

2 12

2 12

2 12

-2 4

-2 4

-2 8

Criteria 1 and 2 were equally applicable to all agro-ecological zones
and therefore were excluded from this table.