Is the use of termite mound material as soil amendment sustainable?

Abstract

In their paper in the August issue of Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environonment (vol. 157, pp. 54–59), Tilahun et al. (2012) concluded that Macrotermes subhyalinus mound material represents a sustainable asset to resource-poor farmers as a soil amendment. Like other scientists before them ( Watson, 1977 and Garba et al., 2011), Tilahun et al. (2012) base their argument solely on analysis of mound soils. Their conclusion is not based on consideration of farmers’ practices, termite ecology and sustainability criteria. Typically the use of termite mound by farmers is restricted to planting high value crops around the mound, and many farmers resist dismantling (Sileshi et al., 2009). Scientists often express concern about why farmers do not level them in order to make full use of the land and to facilitate mechanized tillage operations. Such concerns ignore farmers’ indigenous knowledge, and the cultural and spiritual values they attach to termite mounds (Sileshi et al., 2009). For studies such as those by Tilahun et al. (2012) to be relevant, not only soil analysis but also an understanding of farmers’ knowledge, practices and attitudes is needed. For example, are the pastoralists in Borana willing to use mound materials in their fields?