Org. Agr.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-024-00465-6
Factors influencing adoption of organic matter management
on smallholder farms in the Rwenzori region of Uganda
Deous Mary Ekyaligonza ·
Thaddeo Kahigwa Tibasiima · Bosco Bwambale ·
John Patrick Kanahe Kagorora · Bernhard Freyer
Received: 16 February 2023 / Accepted: 10 April 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract Context specific studies on the factors
influencing the adoption of organic matter manage-
ment (OMM) practices on smallholder farms could be
crucial for soil fertility improvement. This study aimed
to understand the factors influencing the adoption of
OMM practices by smallholder farmers. A hybridized
theoretical framework was used to map the farmers’
adoption process. This framework states: the adoption
process of OMM practices can be facilitated if an indi-
vidual’s characteristics and the institutional-related
factors can support it; information about the OMM
practices and the required inputs are available, and he/
she can apply the required technology with ease. Data
collection involved observations on 100 smallholder
farms, interviews with 10 smallholder farmers and 18
D. M. Ekyaligonza · T. K. Tibasiima · B. Freyer
Division of Organic Farming, University of Natural
Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria
D. M. Ekyaligonza (*) · T. K. Tibasiima · B. Bwambale ·
J. P. K. Kagorora
Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences,
Mountains of the Moon University, Fort Portal, Uganda
e-mail: dmekyaligonza@gmail.com; mary.kyaligonza@
mmu.ac.ug
B. Bwambale
Environmental and Sustainability Studies, THRIVE
Scientific Research Institute, Fort Portal, Uganda
B. Bwambale
Department of Agroecology and Natural Resources,
Uganda Martyrs University, Kampala, Uganda
experts, as well as two focus group discussions with
10 farmers each. The results indicated that a compos-
ite of technical, social, cultural, and economic-driven
factors influence farmer adoption of OMM strategies.
These factors included the farmer characteristics of
age, education status, gender, culture, and knowledge
about the use and application of an OMM practice;
availability of labor and inputs; availability of appro-
priate equipment; the existence of supportive policy
framework and social support. The factors cut across
the adoption components of the hybridized theoretical
framework: nature of technology, farmer characteris-
tics, and input-related, information transfer-related and
institutional-related adoption factors. The study find-
ings can inform decision-makers to make investment
decisions. Future studies should assess the feasibility
of the hybridized theoretical framework before experts
can apply it in devising strategies for the adoption of
OMM practices on smallholder farms.
Keywords Organic matter managment · Rwenzori
region · Smallholder farm · Soil fertility · Technology
adoption
Introduction
The adoption of organic matter management (OMM)
practices can increase soil nutrient recycling (Ekyaligonza
et al. 2022a; Uzoh et al. 2019; Wolz and DeLucia 2018),
which in turn minimizes the negative nutrient balances and
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

low soil fertility that are characteristics of most smallholder
farms (Adugna et al. 2015; Sanchez 2002; Semalulu et al.
2015; Tittonell and Giller 2013). Some of these OMM
practices include agroforestry, mulching, crop residue
incorporation, and manure application. Agroforestry can
be defined as the deliberate integration of trees or shrubs
into a crop and/or animal farm to benefit from the resulting
ecological and economic interactions (Plieninger and Hunt-
singer 2018). In addition, agroforestry systems such as alley
cropping, trees planted as hedgerows, and the multitier sys-
tem are known for improving soil organic matter (Beuschel
et al. 2019; Jakhar et al. 2017; Muoni et al. 2019; Sawadogo
2011; Wartenberg et al. 2020). Mulching is another OMM
practice that involves covering the fields with fresh or dry
biomass such as grass, weeds, or branches with leaves to
conserve soil and water by minimizing erosion and improv-
ing soil ecology (Erenstein 2002). When mulch material
decomposes, it forms organic matter, which improves soil
moisture (Cu and Thu 2014), suppresses weeds, mini-
mizes the spread of pests and diseases, and controls soil
erosion (Iqbal et al. 2020; Kader et al. 2019; Petrikovszki
et al. 2020). Crop residues (CR) can be referred to as the
leaves and stalks that are left behind after crop harvest,
which when incorporated into the field can accumulate
soil organic matter and increase nutrient recycling as they
decompose (Aulakh and Garg 2007; Ekyaligonza et al.
2022a; Kaewpradit et al. 2009; Kibunja et al. 2010; Tur-
mel et al. 2015). Manure can be defined as the decomposed
plant and/or animal material, which when incorporated into
the soil improves soil organic matter, nutrients, and other
physical soil characteristics (Belay and Bewket 2013). For
instance, a research in the Rwenzori region of Uganda dem-
onstrates that the application of a combination of OMM
practices such as alley cropping, farmyard manure appli-
cation, forage legume integration in a rotation system can
improve soil organic matter by 19%, nitrogen by 60–75%,
and potassium by 20- 25% (Ekyaligonza et al. 2022b). In
the same study, the OMM practices increased maize grain
yield by 17% more than the application of 50 kg/ha diam-
monium phosphate fertilizer. The OMM practices also have
an ability to improve Coffee arabica by 54% in comparison
to the farming system without any soil amendment strategy
(Tibasiima et al. 2023).
Not only does the application of OMM practices
improve soil fertility and crop yield but also minimizes
the dependence on inorganic fertilizers whose applica-
tion on soils with low humus content has a low impact
on yield (Fageria 2012; Tittonell and Giller 2013).
Moreover, the application of inorganic fertilizers is
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Org. Agr.
limited due to their prohibitive prices and untrusted
quality as some of them are adulterated during the mar-
keting chain (Bayite-Kasule 2009; Mbowa et al. 2015).
Therefore, improving soil organic matter through com-
prehensive organic matter management (OMM) is,
besides many other positive ecosystem services func-
tions a precondition for the efficient use of mineral fer-
tilizer and a reduction of erosion and water pollution. If
successfully implemented, OMM practices can also con-
tribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) of “Zero hunger” (No. 2), “No poverty”
(No. 1), and “Good health and well-being” (No. 3).
Despite the plenty of research about OMM, soil
fertility has remained low and farmers have continued
to realize only low yields, especially those concen-
trating on the production of annual crops (Karamage
et al. 2017; Muhamud and Joyfred 2015; Roller et al.
2012) due to limited adoption of recommended OMM
practices. For instance, Ekyaligonza et al. (2022b)
demonstrates that the application of OMM prac-
tices can improve maize grain yield by 1.8–5.5 tons/
ha higher than the 1.5 tons/ha average yield reported
on some Ugandan farms with neither organic matter
management nor inorganic fertilizer application. The
situation could be worse in mountain areas where
other factors such as soil erosion are contributing to
the reduction in organic matter hence reducing the
soil nutrient balances further. Previous studies have
concentrated on soil erosion assessment, adoption
of soil conservation technologies, and experimen-
tation of how OMM can improve soil fertility, crop
yield and the economy of the farm (Ekyaligonza et al.
2022a, b; Karamage et al. 2017; Muhamud and Joy-
fred 2015; Tibasiima et al. 2022, 2023) but not on the
factors that influence adoption of OMM. Context-spe-
cific studies on the factors that influence the adoption
of OMM on smallholder farms could be crucial for
sustainable organic matter management. Therefore,
the question remains; which factors influence the
adoption of OMM practices by smallholder farmers?
Based on a combination of three theories: the
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM), and the Rural Technology
Acceptance Model (RuTAM), five adoption theory
components were identified (Ajzen 1991; Tambotoh
et al. 2015). These included 1) the nature of technol-
ogy, 2) farmer characteristics, 3) input-related adop-
tion factors, 4) information transfer-related, and 5)
institutional-related adoption factors. These adoption
Org. Agr.
theory components are inclusive of the factors that
influence the adoption of OMM, which are demon-
strated in several studies (e.g. Jha et al. 2021; Kehinde
and Shittu 2019; Ndambi et al. 2019; Usman et al.
2020). We thus analyzed the adoption factors in the
theories against a specific case of smallholder farms
with soil fertility challenges. The aim was to develop
a model that can be applied to improve interventions
by agricultural extension institutions.
Theoretical perspective on the adoption of organic
matter management practices
To map the complexity of farmers’ adoption pro-
cesses, we developed a hybrid theory from the three
adoption theories: 1) the Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB) (Ajzen 1991; Borges et al. 2015), 2) the Tech-
nology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Michels et al.
2021; Tambotoh et al. 2015), and 3) Rural Technol-
ogy Acceptance Model (RuTAM) (Tambotoh et al.
2015). The theory components ranged from behavio-
ral science to the nature of the technology. The TPB
considers the attitude and subjective norms of an
individual as important factors influencing the adop-
tion processes (Ajzen 1991; Borges et al. 2015). In the
same theory, attitude is related to people’s emotions
Fig. 1  A hybridized theoretical framework
and feelings towards deciding while subjective norms
are related to the perceived social pressure such as
culture and social dimensions (e.g., gender, aware-
ness, and belonging to an organized group) of a per-
son. Besides this, a person can adopt a given practice
if it is perceived as useful and easy to use as described
under the TAM (Michels et al. 2021; Tambotoh et al.
2015). In addition, a practice can further be adopted if
the prevailing conditions support it as described in the
RuTAM model. The conditions that support adoption
under the RuTAM model include the availability of
inputs, information transfer-related factors, the nature
of technology, and the characteristics of an individ-
ual such as gender and ability to process information
about the technology (Tambotoh et al. 2015).
From the TPB, TAM, and RuTAM theories, we
constructed a hybridized theoretical framework
(Fig. 1) that guided this study. This hybridized theo-
retical framework states: The adoption process of a
practice can be facilitated if an individual’s character-
istics and the institutional-related factors can support
it; information about the practice and the required
inputs are available, and an individual can apply the
required technology with ease. This hybridized theo-
retical framework is broader than the three adoption
theories of TPB, TAM and RuTAM as it is developed
from a combination of the adoption components of
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

the three theories. The hybridized theoretical frame-
work could thus be more suitable for mapping the
adoption processes of smallholder farmers than the
application of single theories. From this hybridized
theoretical framework, five adoption components
become vivid i.e., farmer characteristics (knowledge,
age, gender, culture, and education status), informa-
tion-related adoption factors, input-related adoption
factors, institutional-related adoption factors, and the
nature of the technology (use and easiness to apply a
technology or practice). We aim to identify if these
elements form the core basis for the adoption of exist-
ing organic matter management practices and their
relevance in the adoption of the new OMM practices.
Methods
Study area
This study was conducted in the districts of Kabarole,
Kasese, and Kamwenge of the Rwenzori Region in
Fig.2  Location of the Kabarole, Kasese, and Kamwenge Districts in Rwenzori region, Uganda
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Org. Agr.
Western Uganda (Fig. 2). The region has a tropical
climate with an annual temperature of 20–25◦ C and
an elevation of 1160- 1800 m above sea level (FAO
2005). The area receives 400 mm of rainfall annually
in two rainy seasons i.e. the short rainy season that
runs from March to May and the long rainy season
that runs from August to November (FAO 2005).
The three study districts have an estimated total
population of 1,264,644 people: Kabarole district
with 298,989 people, Kasese with 694,987 people
and Kamwenge with 270,668 people (UBOS 2014).
Majority of these people are smallholder farmers with
an average farm size of 2 hectares (Njeru et al. 2016).
The Rwenzori region was selected as a case study
where smallholder-farming systems dominate with a
lot of soil fertility improvement adoption constraints
(Tibasiima et al. 2022). The communities in the
region derive their livelihood from crop and livestock
farming. Both perennial and annual crops are grown
in the area. The dominant perennial crops include
coffee (Coffea spp.), vanilla (Vanilla planifolia),
cocoa (Theobroma cacao), tea (Camellia sinensis),
Org. Agr.
and bananas (Musa spp.), while the annual crops are
maize (Zea mays), beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) and
ground nuts (Arachis hypogaea) (Isgren and Ness
2017; Montserrat et al. 2013). For livestock farm-
ing, the farmers keep various types of animals and
the most common ones are cattle, goats, and poultry
(Montserrat et al. 2013). These indicate the poten-
tial for integration of OMM practices for soil fertility
improvement in this region.
Data collection
To understand the complexity of the farmers’ adoption
process, a multimethod approach was applied. From
August 2018 to January 2019, preliminary obser-
vation on 100 annual crop farms was conducted to
find out if OMM is among the farming practices on
smallholder farms. The first 18 observed farms were
located in three villages within the three study districts
of Kasese, Kabarole, and Kamwenge. These villages
were recommended to the research team by the Moun-
tains of the Moon University (MMU) and Sustainable
Agriculture Trainers Network (SATNET) staff who
had previously worked with the farmers. Sustain-
able Agriculture Trainers Network is a local organiza-
tion which trains farmers on sustainable agriculture.
From each of the selected farms, 15 more neighbor-
ing farms were observed. The observation was guided
by a checklist focusing on the presence of legume for-
age crops, composting sites, and alley crops. This was
followed by 10 interviews with smallholder farmers
Table 1  Summary of data collection methods and criteria for selecting participants and farms
Method Number of Reference in the text Date
participants/
farms
Field observations 100 farms
Interview 10 farmers Fi1-Fi10*
18 experts Ei1-Ei18*
Focus group dis- 10 farmers FGD 1 and FDG2
cussions (FGDs) for each
of the two
FGDs
*Ei=Expert interviewee; Fi=Farmer interviewee; FGD=Focus Group Discussion; MMU=Mountains of the Moon University; SATNET=Sustainable Agriculture Trainers Network
who later hosted OMM trials on their fields for over
two seasons to improve their understanding of the
OMM practices. The selected interview participants
were gender balanced. Interviews followed an inter-
view guide with three themes: 1) the characteristics of
individual farmers, 2) the factors which influence the
adoption of OMM practices with specific considera-
tion of the input related, information transfer related
and institutional related adoption factors, and 3) the
nature of technology. Two focus group discussions
(FGD1 and FGD2) with 10 farmers each (Table 1)
were then conducted to validate the data obtained
from the farmer interviews. The first FGD (FGD1)
involved farmers from Kamwenge and Kabarole since
they have a common local language (Rutoro), while
the second FGD (FGD2) was conducted in Kasese
since the farmers communicate in a different local lan-
guage (Lukonzo). The FGD participants were selected
from the groups that had not received training on
OMM but with care to ensure participation of both
males and females. The groups were recommended for
study by SATNET. A FGD guide was applied in the
collection of data from the focus group discussions.
The farmer interviews and FGD were conducted in
January 2019 (Table 1). To understand the factors
and validate the farmer characteristics that influenced
the adoption of OMM practices, 18 expert interviews
were conducted. The 18 interviewed experts included:
three researchers from MMU, one from the National
Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), six
from the local government (Sub-county and district
Location Selection criteria
August 2018 to January Kabarole, Kasese, and Location in MMU and
2019 Kamwenge districts SATNET field imple-
mentation areas
January 2019 Nyabbani Sub-county Participation in the
in Kamwenge district organic matter man-
agement field trials
January 2019 and April Kabarole, Kasese, and Knowledge of organic
2020 Kamwenge districts matter management
January 2019 Nyabbani, Karangura Ability to communicate
and Kisinga Sub using the same local
counties language
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

production department), and eight from NGOs of Joint
Efforts to Save the Environment (JESE) and SATNET.
The eighteenth expert interview was the data satura-
tion point, as recommended for qualitative studies
(Guest et al. 2006). The selection of participants did
not follow any particular criteria but they were snow-
balled based on their knowledge and experience of the
OMM practices. Expert interview data was collected
between January 2019 and April 2020 (Table 1). With
consent from the participants, the interviews both with
farmers and experts, as well as the FGDs were audio
recorded for easy analysis of the data.
Data analysis
The audio-recorded interviews and FGDs were tran-
scribed manually into text and then content analy-
sis was applied following Velten et al. (2015). This
was done by grouping the transcribed text into five
predetermined themes or categories within a Word
document file. The themes included nature of tech-
nology, farmer characteristics, input-related adop-
tion factors, institutional-related adoption factors and
information transfer-related adoption factors. Further
analysis of expert and farmer interviews and FGDs
was at three levels. The first level involved a sum-
mary of the key terminologies within the context of
the theoretical framework. The second level involved
the interpretation of the ideas of the expert interview-
ees (Ei1-Ei18), farmer interviewees (Fi1-Fi10), and
FGDs (FGD1 and FDG2). The third level of analy-
sis involved comparing the interpreted findings with
existing literature and the hybridized theoretical
framework.
Results and discussions
Nature of technology
The adoption of OMM practices can be driven by
farmers’ perceptions on the usefulness of the tech-
nology. An example is cited in FGD2, 2019: “We
decide based on the previous soil fertility challenges
that reduce food production and if the practices can
improve yield. We also decide based on whether
the practice can increase the yield of beans, maize,
or ground nuts”. Experts reported that they encour-
aged farmers to improve soil organic matter through
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Org. Agr.
various technologies, including manure application,
mulching, crop residue incorporation, and agrofor-
estry. The characteristics, methods, and successes of
OMM applications vary with the OMM technology
type as described below.
Manure application
From the expert interviews, it can be noted that the
extension workers advised farmers to keep animals for
a sustainable supply of manure. However, the farm-
ers only prioritize particular crops e.g. bananas, which
are considered for both food and cash. An example of
this was noted among the farmers who participated in
FGD1, 2019: “I have cows and I apply the farmyard
manure into my banana plantation since bananas
require a lot of nutrients. A plantation with manure
will give many banana bunches[yield]. You know
that is money [income] and food for my family”. The
banana plantations were prioritized for FYM applica-
tion because of the higher importance of economic
and food values farmers derived from them in com-
parison to other crops. This finding was also supported
by Nyombi et al. (2006). Manure such as farmyard
manure could be adoptable by farmers as it does not
require a constant application from season to season, as
indicated in FGD2, 2019: “To our fields here, manure
from livestock continues to supply nutrients even two
years after application. So it is really a slow release
that saves us from continuous application”. Similarly,
farmers at an individual level basis acknowledged the
benefit of farmyard manure concerning their prolonged
contribution to soil fertility improvement. See the
excerpt from Fi7: “Farmyard manure application gives
me peace. As you know it, you do not need to apply
it every season”. The extension workers had always
encouraged farmers to apply FYM because almost all
households owned at least one of the livestock types,
such as cattle, goats, pigs, and chicken, even when
reared in small numbers. The farmers without live-
stock were encouraged by the extension workers to
obtain manure from their neighbors. Other farmers had
adopted the use of slurry from pigsties and abattoirs to
improve their soil. This case was noted in Ei3, 2019:
“The farmers mostly use FYM because it is
accessible… we advise them to use FYM. How-
ever, we always discourage the use of artificial
fertilizers because they are expensive. ... Peo-
Org. Agr.

ple’s kids [children] might even eat it. … Peo- homes while drying and shelling are done at home
ple get slurry from either pigsties or abattoirs to due to the limited capacity to construct processing
create FYM”. and storage facilities in the field. In addition, farmers
who transport harvested products from the field to
For farmers with limited access to dung for FYM
their homes for processing find it laborious to carry
production, the extension workers trained them in
the CR back to the fields for incorporation. (ii) The
compost preparation and application. The training
CR of some cereals such as maize have slow decom-
sessions were mainly on heap compost preparation
position rates when they are not cut into smaller
methods as pointed out in Ei4, 2019: “… these days
pieces. For this reason, some farmers transfer them
we encourage the compost that does not require the
to the perennial crop fields (especially banana and
digging of holes because some farmers are lazy”.
coffee) where they use them as mulch. Some of the
This could be an indicator that the adoption of com-
farmers who only grow annual crops burn the CR
post depends on whether the farmers find its prepa-
either within the fields or at home where threshing is
ration process highly labor-requiring or not. Moreo-
done. (iii) Some farmers burn bean and ground nut
ver, compost preparation was perceived as a highly
residues, as they believe that the residues deplete the
labor-demanding practice by farmers in other African
soil of its nutrients. (iv) Burning of CR within the
areas (Tibebe et al. 2022). Based on this, our results
field has been one of the traditional practices con-
could imply that the pit compost preparation method
ducted by farmers since time immemorial to improve
is labor-intensive hence hindering adoption by small-
soil nutrients. (v) Other farmers burn CR to get rid
holder farmers. The materials used by farmers in com-
of stubborn weeds such as wandering jew (Com-
post manure preparation include kitchen trash, grass,
melina benghalensis) that might have been harvested
livestock dung, and water, as stated by Ei4, 2019. That
along with the crops. (vi) The communities who use
same expert emphasized that compost manure that is
draught animals (ox) claim that the CR make it hard
prepared by combining FYM with other organic mate-
for the ox to till the land. However, literature shows
rials can improve soil nutrients more than the manure
that burning of CR can positively improve the soil
made from plant materials as a sole component. This
nutrients but this positive impact is temporary as the
could be explained by the high organic matter con-
nutrients released by burning can get lost through
tent that results from a combination of the materials
soil erosion or leaching (Gupta et al. 2004; Juo and
used for manure preparation (Mamuye et al. 2021).
Manu 1996). The results indicate that the practice of
In summary, the adoption of manure application into
burning and carrying away of crop residues from the
the field is influenced by its ability to improve yield
field by the farmers is a knowledge gap issue. More-
and income, its accessibility, and the labor required
over, these practices have been blamed for encourag-
to apply it, as also reported in other studies (Mamuye
ing nutrient mining in the fields where the residues
et al. 2021; Nyombi et al. 2006; Tibebe et al. 2022).
were obtained (Ando et al. 2014; Ronner and Giller
2013; Tadele 2017).
Crop residue incorporation
It can be noted that the limited knowledge about
the benefits and the techniques of crop residue man-
There was evidence of burning and ex-situ appli-
agement are the main factors responsible for the low
cation of crop residues in the field. The academia
adoption by smallholder farmers. These results were
and extension workers indicated that they had pro-
similar to what was documented in other studies
moted in-situ CR management on farms. Moreover,
(Raza et al. 2022; Mutwedu et al. 2022).
the burning of crop residues was also highlighted in
the FGD. “We burn the crop residues because they
Mulching
are bulky and can hide rats, which will eventually
destroy our crops” (FGD1, 2019). The interviewed
Since soil erosion was one of the common challenges
farmers and experts pointed out six main reasons
observed on smallholder farms, the experts advised
why the farmers burn or carry away CR from the
farmers to mulch their fields, as one of the strategies for
field. (i) Most annual crops such as beans, ground
its control. Although some farmers were aware of the
nuts, and maize are cultivated a distance away from
importance of mulching their fields, such activity was

Vol.: (0123456789)
13

limited or not applied even among those declared as
organic. “Even among some coffee farmers who claim
that they produce [following the] organic [approach],
the soils are bare and exposed to soil erosion. They are
leaving their coffee to the mercy of God” (Ei1, 2019).
Mulching was only common in vegetable and banana
fields and the farmers used crop residues and dry grass
(especially elephant grass). Mulching of annual crop-
land was not common on farms due to the unsystematic
mixed cropping practices that make it hard for farmers to
conduct mulching: “We would wish to mulch but how do
we mulch a field with a mixture of beans, yams, maize,
and bananas at the same time? It requires a lot of time”
(FGD1, 2019). Other factors that limit farmers from
adopting mulching include the high labor required to cut
and transport the mulch material, and limited access to
appropriate mulch material: “My household is willing to
mulch all our fields but it requires a lot of labor as the
grass can be obtained from the bush that is about a kilo-
meter away from our land” (Fi9, 2019). This was also
reflected within the FGD as shown in this case: “How do
we mulch our fields when we can not access the mulch
material? (FGD2, 2019). Other farmers claimed that
the mulch material harbors rats and termites that end up
damaging their crops. The extension workers mentioned
that mulches can allow the growth of weeds that induce
pathogens and diseases if not properly managed.
Generally, it can be seen that the adoption of mulch-
ing by smallholder farmers is limited by the accessibility
of the mulch material, labor requirements to collect the
mulch material, farmers prioritizing particular crops, and
the limited knowledge of the proper agronomic practices.
These factors are related to the results of other studies. In
the northern part of Uganda for instance, the adoption of
mulching is known to be limited by the competing uses
of mulch material as livestock fodder and farmers’ fear
of being bitten by poisonous snakes during the process of
cutting the mulch material (Kaweesa et al. 2018). Level
of education, land sizes, gender differences, land owner-
ship, climatic conditions such as prolonged drought, and
availability of funds to pay for mulch collection labor are
among the factors influencing the adoption of mulching
(Turyahabwe et al. 2022).
Agroforestry
There was evidence of farmers practicing agrofor-
estry during field observations. Some farmers had a
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Org. Agr.
few scattered trees mainly Grevillea robusta on their
farms. Other farmers had maintained a few scattered
indigenous fruit trees such as mangoes, avocado, and
jackfruit on their farms. To most farmers, the tree
seedlings were availed by the NGOs and the exten-
sion workers. This improved access to tree seedlings
by farmers who are located in remote areas that have
financial challenges and limited technical knowledge
to raise the tree seedlings. Consider this case: “In
some cases, those officers from the government and
other different organizations give us tree seedlings.
This relieves us as we can not access the seeds. Most
of us do not know how to raise the seedlings” (FGD1,
2019). It can be noted that the adoption of agrofor-
estry on smallholder farms is limited by access to
planting materials and techniques for raising trees.
Access to planting materials and knowledge on how
to raise the seedlings are among the factors consid-
ered important for enhancing the adoption of agrofor-
estry in other parts of Uganda (Basamba et al. 2016).
Crop rotation
The integration of crop rotation in the field is influ-
enced by the knowledge of the rotation system appli-
cation. For instance, the farmers who had received a
training in OMM had applied crop rotation principles
on their fields while those without training were either
practicing monocropping or rotating of only two crops.
This is evidenced by the interviews and FGDs as seen
in these two cases: “On this plot, I planted beans in
the previous season, followed by maize in the last sea-
son. I intend to plant cassava when the rains begin”
(Fi6, 2019). “We always plant cotton but if we want to
change, we plant cotton in the August rains and maize
in the March rains” (FGD2, 2019). This indicates that
the implementation of crop rotation systems is influ-
enced by knowledge of the farmer on how to conduct
it. Knowldedge has also been reported as one of the
factors that influence adoption of crop rotation in the
East and West African farms (Tegene 2016).
From the nature of technology adoption compo-
nent, it is evident that knowledge about the usefulness
and how to apply technology, as well as the availabil-
ity of labor and inputs are the main factors influenc-
ing the adoption of OMM. These factors have also
been reported among farmers in other rural areas of
Africa (Akinnifesi et al. 2010; Jha et al. 2021).
Org. Agr.
Farmer characteristics
From our results, we find that the adoption of some
innovations is influenced by the farmers’ characteris-
tics of age, education status, culture, and gender con-
straints. For instance, young farmers are more likely
to adopt the OMM practices than the old ones since
they can easily utilize training opportunities. Consider
this example: “On my side, I used the knowledge I
obtained from the training at the sub-county to plant
diverse crops that can improve nutrition for my son
and wife, and also provide fodder for our goats, which
give us manure for our fields than depend on the bush
burning practice that is practiced by families headed
by men of my father’s age” (Fi4, 2019). In addition,
a family with a household head who is not formally
educated will follow cultural practices that are against
OMM. This was exemplified in the FGD: “In this
community, we learned all the farm management
practices from our parents, which enabled millet to
grow well from burnt fields” (FGD2, 2019). From the
expert point of view, we noted that decision-making
on issues related to soil fertility and OMM is majorly
cultural and gender driven. This manifested in several
ways, for example: “Most of the decisions are taken
by men. The children are normally left out in deci-
sion making because the child has no access to land”
(Ei2, 2019). The experts both academia and extension
workers also expressed a need to integrate cultural and
gender aspects into their implementation and/or devel-
opment plans as they influence production-based deci-
sion-making processes. This case is noted from Ei9,
2020: “I picked one group per Sub-county where we
train farmers with gender and cultural considerations.
I have also included the organic soil fertility improve-
ment measures in my financial plans”.
The farmer characteristics such as age, education sta-
tus, culture, and gender are also reported in other stud-
ies as key in influencing the adoption of OMM prac-
tices (Kehinde and Shittu 2019; Usman et al. 2020).
Input‑related adoption factors
The adoption of suitable OMM practices is influenced
by several input-related factors. The factors men-
tioned by both the farmer (Fi2 and Fi3) and expert
(E1, E3, and E5) interviewees include (i) the limited
availability of planting materials of most of the legu-
minous tree species for implementing alley cropping,
as manifested in farmer interviews. For example: “It
is not easy to get those leguminous trees. If an organi-
zation was providing me with trees, I would plant
them because trees will add fertilizer to my field”
(Fi2, 2019); (ii) the limited availability of FYM as
some farmers do not rear animals and some with ani-
mals practice free grazing or use the cow dung for
other purposes, like house construction. This mani-
fested in various ways, for example: “the availability
of the planting material especially for the tree and the
FYM is limited. The dung is smeared on houses …it is
not that everybody has animals. … Most farmers have
no fences and so the animals graze from communal
land” (Ei3, 2019). Since inputs especially leguminous
tree seedlings were not affordable to farmers, the
experts suggested that the local governments include
the planting materials in their development plans and
budgets, so that they can avail such materials to the
farmers. Consider this example: “Understandably, the
tree seedlings may be inaccessible and unaffordable
by the farmers. Every sub-county is expected to plan
and budget for them. The farmers will plant them”
(Ei1, 2019) (iii) To enhance the adoption of tree inte-
gration into farming systems, the experts and farmers
suggested a strategy of tree nursery establishment and
management at the sub-county to avail ready seed-
lings to the farmers and save them time and labor
required for raising the seedlings. The following is a
citation from one of the interviews: “Perhaps if that
intervention is sought carefully at the sub-county, it
can be adopted. We can procure the seed … put the
seed in the nursery and raise the seedlings from the
sub-county, then they are distributed to the interested
farmers” (Ei2, 2019). Besides planting materials,
labor was identified as another key challenge affect-
ing the adoption of OMM practices by farmers as
indicated by several experts, for example: “… one
challenge is the labor requirements to deal with the
organic matter because manure is bulky. If you are to
do composting, you need a lot of labor” (Ei5, 2019).
Moreover, the experts reported that some farmers had
not adopted alley cropping due to the high labor costs
for planting and weeding under the trees. Some farm-
ers who use draught animals and tractors to till and
weed land find it difficult to integrate trees on their
farms as the trees make it difficult for land tilling with
such technologies. For example:
“Another issue or challenge I am seeing is among
the people who use draught animal technology. … it
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

is common in Kamwenge and Kahunge sub-counties
because for them they have vast land, so they use
animals to plow. They are giving an excuse that the
animals cannot plow where there are crop residues.
Again, they do not want to meet the labor costs of
removing the crop residues (Ei3, 2019). The use of
draught animal technology in some communities
is likely to hinder the adoption of alley cropping as
plowing with such a technology is believed to cause
damage to young trees. For instance: “If someone
wants to use animals, he will say, I don’t want trees
because they will interfere with the plow which will
eventually cut them” (Ei5, 2019).
Inputs play a vital role in enabling the adoption of
OMM practices. In this particular case, the availabil-
ity and affordability of inputs such as tree seedlings
and manure, and the labor requirements to apply the
inputs into the field were the important factors influ-
encing the adoption of OMM practices. These input-
related adoption factors were also reported in other
studies (Ndambi et al. 2019; Basamba et al. 2016;
Tibebe et al. 2022).
Institutional‑related adoption factors
From the farmers’ point of view, it can be seen that
policy formulation and implementation can improve
the adoption of OMM practices as pointed out by
one of the farmers who participated in the FGD2,
2019): “In our area? I do not think that all farmers
can plant trees or mulch their fields without any force
from the sub-county. Formulation and implementa-
tion of the policies can change a lot”. The experts
mentioned that the farming systems in the Rwenzori
region have been faced with governance-related chal-
lenges. These include poor agricultural-related policy
implementation, low prices for agricultural commodi-
ties, no state-owned production associations and only
some farmer production groups existed. These chal-
lenges can be solved in various ways as suggested by
the experts. (i) The implementation of sustainable
agriculture-related policies in Uganda that would
enable local governments to develop ordinances and
bylaws, which when enforced, many farmers would
adopt the appropriate OMM practices. Moreover,
policy enforcement had ever enhanced the adop-
tion of the terraces that exist in the Kigezi region of
Western Uganda (Carswell 2006). (ii) Establishment
of a system where subsidies and premium prices are
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Org. Agr.
placed on organically produced food to compete fairly
with food produced through conventional practices.
This would motivate farmers who apply OMM prac-
tices and enhance adoption among those without such
practices on their farms. (iii) Facilitating farmers to
form state-owned OMM associations at district and
national levels that would force the state to set aside
funds for supporting the farmers. (iv) Encouraging
farmers to form food production groups, which would
aid extension workers in the demonstration and moni-
toring of the OMM practices being implemented. On
the side of the farmers, food production groups would
increase learning and opportunities to revolve labor
hence minimizing labor costs. One opportunity for
this is the existence of academic institutions such as
MMU and Uganda Martyrs University in the region,
with programs for teaching and demonstrating OMM-
related practices to students. This is exemplified in
the following:
“This demonstration farm is set up in such a
way to mimic a sustainable smallholder farm.
We have a farm plan and have established a
homestead with the poultry, goat, rabbit, and
cattle structures arranged in such a way as
to ensure the recycling of kitchen refuse and
manure from livestock. The livestock feed on the
vegetation planted along the soil and water con-
servation structures” (Ei8, 2020).
Ten more agroecology demonstration farms were
developed at the community level in the Rwenzori
region. These farms aimed to enable students to
appreciate the real-life challenges that exist in com-
munities and provide them with an opportunity to
work with farmers in developing localized solutions
to such challenges, following a wide system thinking
approach.
“Since our program is aimed at producing
graduates who are practical-oriented, we have
developed community agroecology demonstra-
tion farms in each of the districts of Kabarole,
Kasese, Kyenjojo, and Bundibugyo. These
farms are expected to aid knowledge co-crea-
tion between farmers and students. … we have
trained farmer groups in proper land use plan-
ning and integration of activities such as mulch-
ing, cover cropping, alley cropping, and crop
rotations” (Ei10, 2020).
Org. Agr.
(v) Involving political leaders both at district and
sub-county levels in the implementation of OMM
activities would enhance adoption by the communi-
ties as they are considered more influential with abil-
ity to lobby funds from government than the technical
people. (vi) To enhance farmer adoption, all projects
related to OMM need to be declared as non-political
as some political parties are regarded as egocentric.
Another hindrance to the adoption of the OMM prac-
tices that was pointed out by experts is related to the
conflicting implementation strategies by some stake-
holders: “… the people supplying chemicals are doing
us an injustice, and they are making most of our inter-
ventions fail to work. So we need joint concepts” (Ei2,
2019). To enhance OMM-related information flow, a
multidisciplinary consortium comprising representa-
tives from farmer groups, technical experts, academia,
political leaders, input dealers, and marketing groups
was suggested by the experts.
The role of institutions in motivating and penaliz-
ing adopters and non-adopters respectively is funda-
mental in enabling the adoption of OMM practices.
This will be cushioned by institutions that provide
knowledge and practical experience in implementing
OMM practices on smallholder farms. Similar results
have been reported in other studies (Carswell 2006;
Nazari and Hasbullah 2010; Ndambi et al. 2019).
Information transfer‑related adoption factors
The information flow gap between the experts and the
farmers came out during interviews as a factor influ-
encing the adoption of OMM practices. Consider this
case: “Those government workers [extension work-
ers] can reach us once in about five years. They only
meet those growing coffee. Moreover, even when they
come, they never talk about OM but rather fertilizers
from the shop” (FDG2, 2019). From the expert point
of view, it can be noted that information flow is lim-
ited by low extension worker staffing rate and limited
transport facilitation to enable them to reach all the
farmers. The case in a point is noted by Ei6, 2019:
“… of course they [Extension workers] are few, at
the same time, the recommended extension worker to
farmer ratio is 1: 500. For us we are at 1 extension
worker: 1800 farmers. The interaction is low … You
know when you have a sub-county of over 1000 farm-
ers and you do not have a motorcycle, it also becomes
a problem”. This is a big challenge since the use of
extension workers to avail information to farmers
has been documented as a sustainable approach for
enhancing adoption (Ndambi et al. 2019). To over-
come those challenges, the experts developed a strat-
egy of sensitizing farmers via radios. Radio programs
have also been organized for the academia to dis-
seminate their research findings and for the farmers to
share their lessons related to food production. Radio
programs could be a sustainable approach for increas-
ing awareness about OMM as it has been documented
as one of the best approaches for educating and
increasing knowledge in agricultural interventions
among farmers (Nazari and Hasbullah 2010). Addi-
tionally, the majority of the people in Uganda listen to
the radio (BBC 2019). However, these radio sessions
do not compensate for the field practical demonstra-
tions but are simply an addition.
There are four major sustainable strategies for
enhancing information flow as raised by the inter-
viewed experts and farmers. These include: (i) organ-
izing sensitization and training sessions that are based
on calculations of profits and cost–benefit analysis of
the different OMM practices. This would bring out a
clear picture of the benefits of OMM implementation
hence enhancing adoption. Such an approach is pos-
sible for smallholder farmers if the extension work-
ers are facilitated to package and transfer such kind of
information to the farmers. (ii) Setting up demonstra-
tion farms at parish and village levels would enhance
field practicals and ease the dissemination of informa-
tion to farmers living in remote areas. Demonstrations
have been regarded as viable for solving barriers to the
adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, includ-
ing OMM (Rodriguez et al. 2009). These are likely to
encourage farmers to participate and learn by doing.
The participatory or learning-by-doing approach has
been reported to improve learning and enable the
development of site-specific innovations (Sánchez‐
Reparaz et al. 2020), hence enhancing the adoption
of locally developed strategies. (iii) The training and
demonstrations should be based on indigenous knowl-
edge, as farmers possess vast knowledge in planning
for their fields. When the expert knowledge builds on
indigenous knowledge, both the experts and farmers
are likely to gain the confidence to develop harmonized
innovative strategies that are adoptable by farmers. (iv)
Formation and use of stakeholder consortia for harmo-
nized implementation strategy of the OMM practices
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

on smallholder farms hence avoiding duplication of
implementation strategies by different stakeholders.
Such consortia can also provide a platform for a com-
mon understanding of solutions to community chal-
lenges and result in the proper utilization of resources.
Besides, consortia are documented for augmenting
innovation development (Hermans et al. 2017).
Under the information transfer-related factors that
influence the adoption of OMM, participatory practical
exchange of knowledge between farmer advisors and
local knowledge enables adoption. The same factors
have also been reported in other studies as key to the
adoption of practices by farmers (Ndambi et al. 2019;
Rodriguez et al. 2009: Sánchez‐Reparaz et al. 2020).
Conclusion
This study applied a hybrid theoretical framework,
which purports: the adoption process of a practice can
be facilitated if farmer characteristics and the institu-
tional related factors can support it; information about
the practice and the required inputs are available, and
he/she can apply the required technology with ease.
This hybrid theoretical framework was developed fol-
lowing three theories: the Theory of Planned Behav-
ior, the Technology Acceptance Model, and the Rural
Technology Acceptance Model to understand the fac-
tors influencing the adoption of OMM practices by
smallholder farmers. Some of the key OMM practices
on smallholder farms included manure application,
mulching, crop residue incorporation, and agrofor-
estry. Our study showed that the farmer character-
istics such as age, education status, gender, culture,
and knowledge about the use and application of a
practice; availability of labor and inputs; availabil-
ity of appropriate equipment; adequate information
from the extension staff, the existence of supportive
policy framework and presence of social support are
the main factors influencing adoption of OMM prac-
tices on smallholder farms. These factors can be cat-
egorized as technical, social, cultural, and political.
The factors cut cross among the five adoption com-
ponents: farmer characteristics, information transfer-
related adoption factors, input-related adoption fac-
tors, institutional-related adoption factors, and the
nature of the technology. All these factors are implied
in the hybridized theoretical framework and it can be
applied by extension workers as a model to improve
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Org. Agr.
soil organic matter and nutrient recycling. These
study findings are of relevance to decision makers to
guide investment decisions. A follow-up study where
this model is tested for its feasibility is recommended
before experts can apply it in developing strategies
for the adoption of OMM practices on smallholder
farms. Moreover, the development of this model was
informed by primary data from three out of six main
cultural groups of the Rwenzori and yet the findings
show that culture is an important adoption factor.
Further studies should include farmers of other cul-
tures to capture all the factors that influence adoption
of OMM in the Rwenzori region.
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge all the farm-
ers and experts of the Rwenzori region who participated in
the study and all the anonymous reviewers of this paper. The
Austrian Partnership Programme in Higher Education and
Research for Development (APPEAR) is also acknowledged
for the funding.
Author contribution Conceptualization: Deous Mary
Ekyaligonza, Bernhard Freyer; Methodology: Deous Mary
Ekyaligonza, Thaddeo Kahigwa Tibasiima, Bosco Bwambale;
Formal analysis and investigation: Deous Mary Ekyaligonza,
Thaddeo Kahigwa Tibasiima; Writing—original draft prepara-
tion: Deous Mary Ekyaligonza; Writing—review and editing:
Deous Mary Ekyaligonza, Thaddeo Kahigwa Tibasiima, Bosco
Bwambale, John Patrick Kanahe Kagorora, Bernhard Freyer;
Supervision: John Patrick Kanahe Kagorora, Bernhard Freyer.
Funding Open access funding provided by University
of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU).
Austrian Partnership Programme in Higher Education and
Research for Development (APPEAR), a program of the Aus-
trian Development Cooperation (ADC) that is implemented
by Austria’s Agency for Education and Internationalisation
(OeAD-GmbH)-0894-01/2020,0894-01/2020.
Data Availability Data is available on request.
Declarations
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Conflicts of interest The authors have no relevant financial or
non-financial interests to disclose.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Com-
mons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea-
tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The
images or other third party material in this article are included
in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
Org. Agr.
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your
intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Adugna A, Abegaz A, Cerdà A (2015) Soil erosion assessment
and control in Northeast Wollega, Ethiopia. Solid Earth Dis-
cuss 7:3511–3540. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​sed-7-​3511-​2015
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav
Hum Decis Process 50:179–211
Akinnifesi FK, Ajayi O, Sileshi G, Chirwa PW, Chianu J
(2010) Fertiliser trees for sustainable food security in the
maize-based production systems of East and Southern
Africa. A Review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:615–629. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1051/​agro/​20090​58
Ando K, Shinjo H, Noro Y, Takenaka S, Miura R, Sokotela SB,
Funakawa S (2014) Short-term effects of fire intensity on
soil organic matter and nutrient release after slash-and-burn
in Eastern Province, Zambia. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 60:173–
182. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00380​768.​2014.​883487
Aulakh MS, Garg AK (2007) Yields and nutrient use-efficiency
in ground nut-sunflower cropping system in Punjab, India.
J Sustain Agric 31:89–110. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1300/​J064v​
31n01_​09
Basamba TA, Mayanja C, Kiiza B, Nakileza B, Matsiko F,
Nyende P, Ssekabira K (2016) Enhancing adoption
of agroforestry in the eastern agro ecological zone of
Uganda. Int J Ecol Sci Environ Eng 3:20–31
Bayite-Kasule S (2009) Inorganic fertilizer in Uganda: Knowl-
edge gaps, profitability, subsidy, and implications of a
national policy, Citeseer. https://​nru.​uncst.​go.​ug/​handle/​
12345​6789/​965. Accessed 26 July 2021
BBC (2019) Uganda – media landscape report. BBC media
action. https://​www.​commu​nitye​ngage​menth​ub.​org/​wp-​
conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​sites/2/​2019/​09/​Uganda-​Media-​Lands​
cape- ​ r eport_ ​ B BC-​ M edia-​ Action_​ F ebru​ a ry-​ 2 019.​ p df.
Accessed 8 Feb 2023
Belay M, Bewket W (2013) Farmers’ livelihood assets and adop-
tion of sustainable land management practices in north-
western highlands of Ethiopia. Int J Environ Stud 70:284–
301. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​233.​2013.​774773
Beuschel R, Piepho H-P, Joergensen RG, Wachendorf C (2019)
Similar spatial patterns of soil quality indicators in three
poplar-based silvo-arable alley cropping systems in Ger-
many. Biol Fertil Soils 55:1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00374-​018-​1324-3
Borges JAR, Foletto L, Xavier VT (2015) An interdiscipli-
nary framework to study farmers decisions on adoption
of innovation: Insights from Expected Utility Theory and
Theory of Planned Behavior. Afr J Agric Res 10:2814–
2825. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​AJAR2​015.​9650
Carswell G (2006) Multiple historical geographies: responses
and resistance to colonial conservation schemes in East
Africa. J Hist Geogr 32:398–421
Cu NX, Thu TTT (2014) The Effects of Fern (Gleichenia lin-
earis) Mulching on Soil Properties, Humus Substance and
Microbial Fauna in Soils Growing Tea in Phu Tho Prov-
ince, Vietnam. Int J Sci Res 3:1915–1919
Ekyaligonza DM, Kahigwa TT, Dietrich P, Akoraebirungi B,
Kagorora JP, Friedel JK, Melcher A, Freyer B (2022a)
Biomass contribution and nutrient recycling of organic
matter management practices in tropical smallholder
annual farming systems. Acta Agric Scandinavic Sect
B-Soil Plant Sci 72:945–956. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
09064​710.​2022.​21348​19
Ekyaligonza DM, Tibasiima TK, Dietrich P, Kagorora JP, Frie-
del JK, Eder M, Freyer B (2022b) Short-term trade-offs
of organic matter management strategies for smallholder
farms. Front Sustain Food Syst 6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​
fsufs.​2022.​10358​22
Erenstein O (2002) Crop residue mulching in tropical and
semi-tropical countries: An evaluation of residue avail-
ability and other technological implications. Soil Tillage
Res 67:115–133
Fageria N (2012) Role of soil organic matter in maintaining
sustainability of cropping systems. Commun Soil Sci
Plant Anal 43:2063–2113. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00103​
624.​2012.​697234
FAO (2005) New_LocClim; local climate estimator. Avail-
able online at: http://​www.​fao.​org/​nr/​climp​ag/​pub/​en3_​
051002_​en.​asp. Accessed 22 July 2020
Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews
are enough? An experiment with data saturation and vari-
ability. Field Methods 18:59–82. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
15258​22X05​279903
Gupta PK, Sahai S, Singh N, Dixit C, Singh D, Sharma C,
Tiwari M, Gupta RK, Garg S (2004) Residue burning in
rice–wheat cropping system: Causes and implications.
Curr Sci 87:1713–1717
Hermans F, Sartas M, Van Schagen B, Van Asten P, Schut M
(2017) Social network analysis of multi-stakeholder plat-
forms in agricultural research for development: Opportuni-
ties and constraints for innovation and scaling. PLoS ONE
12:e0169634. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​01696​34
Iqbal R, Raza MAS, Valipour M, Saleem MF, Zaheer MS,
Ahmad S, Toleikiene M, Haider I, Aslam MU, Nazar MA
(2020) Potential agricultural and environmental benefits
of mulches—a review. Bull National Res Centre 44:1–16.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s42269-​020-​00290-3
Isgren E, Ness B (2017) Agroecology to promote just sustain-
ability transitions: Analysis of a civil society network in
the Rwenzori Region, Western Uganda. Sustainability
9:1357. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su908​1357
Jakhar P, Dass A, Adhikary PP, Sudhishri S, Naik B, Hombe-
gowda H, Madhu M, Lenka N, Chaudhary P, Panda
R (2017) Multitier agroforestry system for integrated
resource conservation on uplands of Eastern Ghats region
in India. Agrofor Syst 91:697–712. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10457-​016-​9976-1
Jha S, Kaechele H, Sieber S (2021) Factors influencing the
adoption of agroforestry by smallholder farmer house-
holds in Tanzania: Case studies from Morogoro and
Dodoma. Land Use Policy 103:105308. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​landu​sepol.​2021.​105308
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

Juo AS, Manu A (1996) Chemical dynamics in slash-and-burn
agriculture. Agr Ecosyst Environ 58:49–60. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/​0167-​8809(95)​00656-7
Kader MA, Singha A, Begum MA, Jewel A, Khan FH, Khan
NI (2019) Mulching as water-saving technique in dryland
agriculture. Bull National Res Centre 43:1–6. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1186/​s42269-​019-​0186-7
Kaewpradit W, Toomsan B, Cadisch G, Vityakon P, Limpinun-
tana V, Saenjan P, Jogloy S, Patanothai A (2009) Mixing
ground nut residues and rice straw to improve rice yield
and N use efficiency. Field Crop Res 110:130–138. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fcr.​2008.​07.​011
Karamage F, Zhang C, Liu T, Maganda A, Isabwe A (2017)
Soil erosion risk assessment in Uganda. Forests 8:52.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​f8020​052
Kaweesa S, Mkomwa S, Loiskandl W (2018) Adoption of
conservation agriculture in Uganda: A case study of the
Lango subregion. Sustainability 10:3375. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​3390/​su101​03375
Kehinde MO, Shittu AM (2019) Effects of gender and women
empowerment on adoption of climate–smart agricultural
practices among smallholders in Northern Nigeria. In: 6th
African conference of agricultural economists, Abuja, Nige-
ria. https://​ageco​nsear​ch.​umn.​edu/​record/​295701/​files/​93.%​
20Gen​der%​20and%​20cli​mate%​20cha​nge%​20in%​20Nig​eria.​
pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2021
Kibunja CN, Mwaura F, Mugendi D (2010) Long-term land
management effects on soil properties and microbial pop-
ulations in a maize-bean rotation at Kabete, Kenya. Afri J
Agric Res 5:108–113
Mamuye M, Nebiyu A, Elias E, Berecha G (2021) Combined
use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources improved
maize productivity and soil fertility in Southwestern Ethi-
opia. Int J Plant Prod 15:407–418. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s42106-​021-​00144-6
Mbowa S, Luswato KC, Bulegeya K (2015) Are Ugandan farmers
using the right quality inorganic fertilizers? Policy brief No.
56. https://​nru.​uncst.​go.​ug/​handle/​12345​6789/​3709. Accessed
20 Sept 2021
Michels M, von Hobe C, von Ahlefeld PW, Musshoff O (2021)
An extended technology acceptance model for the adop-
tion of drones in German agriculture. Precis Agric 22:1–
21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3920/​978-​90-​8686-​916-9_​91
Montserrat LS, Enrique C, Ashley A (2013) Baseline report:
Rwenzori region case study Afromaison project. Moun-
tains of the Moon University. Fort Portal, Uganda. https://​
www.​google.​com/​url?​sa=​t&​rct=​j&q=​&​esrc=​s&​source=​
web&​cd=​&​cad=​rja&​uact=​8&​ved=​2ahUK​Ewj3p​5HhtY​
X9AhW​wUaQE​HUTHD​vcQFn​oECA4​QAQ&​url=​https%​
3A%​2F%​2Fwww.​acade​mia.​edu%​2F366​42819%​2FBAS​
ELINE_​ R EPORT_​ RWENZ​ O RI_​ R EGION_​ C ASE_​
STUDY​&​usg=​AOvVa​w3RNr​1yNdy​RY96A​b8V4g​Tvd.
Accessed 5 Feb 2019
Muhamud NW, Joyfred A (2015) Socio-economic factors
assessment affecting the adoption of soil conservation
technologies on Rwenzori mountain. Indonesian J Geog
47:26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​22146/​ijg.​6743
Muoni T, Öborn I, Mhlanga B, Okeyo I, Mutemi M, Duncan A
(2019) The role of Mucuna pruriens in smallholder farm-
ing systems of Eastern and Southern Africa: A review.
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Org. Agr.
Agronom Crops: 485–498. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​
981-​32-​9783-8_​23
Mutwedu VB, Bacigale SB, Mugumaarhahama Y, Muhimuzi
FL, Munganga B, Ayagirwe RB, Manyawu G (2022)
Smallholder farmers’ perception and challenges toward the
use of crop residues and agro-industrial byproducts in live-
stock feeding systems in Eastern DR Congo. Scientific Afr
16:e01239. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​sciaf.​2022.​e01239
Nazari MR, Hasbullah AH (2010) Radio as an educational
media: Impact on agricultural development. J South East
Asia Res Centre Comm Humanities 2:13–20
Ndambi OA, Pelster DE, Owino JO, De Buisonje F, Vellinga
T (2019) Manure management practices and policies in
sub-Saharan Africa: implications on manure quality as a
fertilizer. Front Sustain Food Syst 3:29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3389/​fsufs.​2019.​00029
Njeru E, Grey S, Kilawe E (2016) Eastern Africa climate-smart
agriculture scoping study: Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda.
Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Addis Ababa. Available online at https://​www.​fao.​org/3/​
i5485e/​i5485e.​pdf. Accessed 10 Jun 2019
Nyombi K, Esser KB, Zake JY (2006) Efforts by small-scale
farmers to maintain soil fertility and their impacts on soil
properties, Luwero district, Uganda. J Sustain Agric 27:5–
23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1300/​J064v​27n04_​03
Petrikovszki R, Zalai M, Tóthné Bogdányi F, Tóth F (2020) The
effect of organic mulching and irrigation on the weed spe-
cies composition and the soil weed seed bank of tomato.
Plants 9:66. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​plant​s9010​066
Plieninger T, Huntsinger L (2018) Complex rangeland systems:
Integrated social-ecological approaches to silvopastoral-
ism. Rangel Ecol Manage 71:519–525. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​rama.​2018.​05.​002
Raza MH, Abid M, Faisal M, Yan T, Akhtar S, Adnan KM
(2022) Environmental and health impacts of crop resi-
due burning: Scope of sustainable crop residue manage-
ment practices. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19:4753.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijerp​h1908​4753
Rodriguez JM, Molnar JJ, Fazio RA, Sydnor E, Lowe MJ
(2009) Barriers to adoption of sustainable agriculture prac-
tices: Change agent perspectives. Renew Agric Food Syst
24:60–71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S1742​17050​80024​21
Roller S, Wittmann H, Kastowski M, Hinderer M (2012) Ero-
sion of the Rwenzori Mountains, East African rift, from
in situ‐produced cosmogenic10Be. J Geophys Res: Earth
Surf 117. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2011J​F0021​17
Ronner E, Giller KE (2013) Background information on agron-
omy, farming systems and ongoing projects on grain leg-
umes in Uganda. Milestone reference number: S 1.2.3.
https://​docpl​ayer.​net/​36009​472-​Backg​round-​infor​mation-​
on-​agron​omy-​farmi​ng-​syste​ms-​and-​ongoi​ng-​proje​cts-​on-​
grain-​legum​es-​in-​uganda-​miles​tone-​refer​ence-​number-​
s-1-​2.​html. Accessed 10 Jun 2019
Sanchez PA (2002) Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science
295:2019–2020. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​10652​56
Sánchez-Reparaz M, De Vente J, Famba S, Rollin D, Dolinska
A, Rougier JE, Tamele HF, Barberá GG (2020) Innovative
soil fertility management by stakeholder engagement in
the Chókwè Irrigation Scheme (Mozambique). Irrig Drain
69:49–59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ird.​2054
Org. Agr.
Sawadogo H (2011) Using soil and water conservation tech-
niques to rehabilitate degraded lands in northwestern Bur-
kina Faso. Int J Agric Sustain 9:120–128. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​3763/​ijas.​2010.​0552
Semalulu O, Kasenge V, Nakanwagi A, Wagoire W, Tukahirwa
J (2015) Financial loss due to soil erosion in the Mt. Elgon
hillsides, Uganda: A need for action. Sky J Soil Sci Envi-
ron Manage 3:29–35
Tadele Z (2017) Raising crop productivity in Africa through
intensification. Agronomy 7:22. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
agron​omy70​10022
Tambotoh JJ, Manuputty AD, Banunaek FE (2015) Socio-
economics factors and information technology adoption in
rural area. Proced Comp Sci 72:178–185. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​procs.​2015.​12.​119
Tegene BG, Tsegay Z, Tefera G, Aynalem E, Wassie M (2016)
Farmers traditional knowledge on teff (Eragrostistef)
farming practice and crop rotation in PGP microbes
enhancement for soil fertility in West and East Gojam.
Comp Biol Bioinformatics 4:45–54
Tibasiima TK, Ekyaligonza DM, Bwambale B (2022) Can
agroecology provide a panacea for sustaining the adoption
of soil erosion control measures? A case of smallholder
Coffea arabica production in the Rwenzori mountain
region, Uganda. Sustainability 14:13461. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​3390/​su142​013461
Tibasiima TK, Ekyaligonza DM, Kagorora JPK, Friedel JK,
Melcher A, Bwambale B, Akugizibwe E, Freyer B (2023)
Impact of integrating annual and perennial legumes under
Coffea arabica on sloping land. Sustainability 15:2453.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su150​32453
Tibebe D, Jembere K, Kidie A, Adugna M, Alem T, Teshome
G (2022) Compost preparation, chemical analyses and
users’ perception in the utilization of water hyacinth,
Ethiopia. BMC Chem 16:1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s13065-​022-​00851-9
Tittonell P, Giller KE (2013) When yield gaps are poverty
traps: The paradigm of ecological intensification in Afri-
can smallholder agriculture. Field Crop Res 143:76–90.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fcr.​2012.​10.​007
Turmel M-S, Speratti A, Baudron F, Verhulst N, Govaerts B
(2015) Crop residue management and soil health: A sys-
tems analysis. Agric Syst 134:6–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​agsy.​2014.​05.​009
Turyahabwe R, Wambede NM, Asaba J, Mulabbi A, Turya-
banawe LG (2022) Factors affecting the adoption of soil
and water conservation practices by small-holder farm-
ers in Muyembe Sub-County, Eastern Uganda. Ghana J
Geography 14:24–49. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4314/​gjg.​v14i2.2
UBOS (2014) The national population and housing census 2014
main report. Available online: http://​www.​ubos.​org/​2014-​
census/​census-​2014-​final-​resul​ts/. Accessed 4 Jul 2017
Usman ZO, Olagunju KO, Ogunpaimo OR (2020) Determi-
nants of adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural
practices among smallholder farmers in Nigeria. Int Soil
Water Conserv Res. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iswcr.​2020.​
10.​007
Uzoh IM, Igwe CA, Okebalama CB, Babalola OO (2019) Leg-
ume-maize rotation effect on maize productivity and soil
fertility parameters under selected agronomic practices in
a sandy loam soil. Sci Rep 9:1–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​
s41598-​019-​43679-5
Velten S, Leventon J, Jager N, Newig J (2015) What is sus-
tainable agriculture? A systematic review. Sustainability
7:7833–7865. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su706​7833
Wartenberg AC, Blaser WJ, Roshetko JM, Van Noordwijk M,
Six J (2020) Soil fertility and Theobroma cacao growth
and productivity under commonly intercropped shade-tree
species in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Plant Soil 453:87–104.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11104-​018-​03921-x
Wolz KJ, DeLucia EH (2018) Alley cropping: Global patterns
of species composition and function. Agr Ecosyst Environ
252:61–68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​agee.​2017.​10.​005
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13