See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342109217 Pastoralist's perceptions on the impact of Vachellia karroo encroachment in communal rangelands of the Eastern Cape, South Africa Article · November 2018 CITATIONS READS 2 122 6 authors, including: Sive Tokozwayo Keletso Mopipi South Africa Government Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources 20 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE ERIC COFIE TIMPONG-JONES Unathi Gulwa University of Ghana South Africa Government 41 PUBLICATIONS   119 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: The influence of cutting browse species on the levels of tannins, saponins, in vitro gas and methane production. View project herder-Farmer conflicts View project All content following this page was uploaded by ERIC COFIE TIMPONG-JONES on 11 June 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Vol.10(11), pp. 222-233, November 2018 DOI: 10.5897/JAERD2018.1001 Articles Number: D9CB41759363 ISSN: 2141-2170 Copyright ©2018 Journal of Agricultural Extension and Author(s) retain the copyright of this article Rural Development http://www.academicjournals.org/JAERD Full Length Research Paper Pastoralist’s perceptions on the impact of Vachellia karroo encroachment in communal rangelands of the Eastern Cape, South Africa S. Tokozwayo1*, U. K. Mopipi2, E. C. Timpong-Jones3, Gulwa1, T. Thubela1 and N. Nyangiwe1 1 Department of Livestock and Pasture, University of Fort Hare, P/Bag x 131, Alice, 5700, Eastern Cape, South Africa. 2 Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, Dohne Agricultural Development Institute, Private Bag x 15, Stutterheim, 4930, Eastern Cape, South Africa. 3 Livestock and Poultry Research Center, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana. Received 4 October, 2018; Accepted 21 November, 2018 The study was conducted in Alice, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. The objective of this study was to evaluate farmers’ perceptions on the impact of Vachellia karroo encroachment on livestock production and vegetation. Forty farmers (62% females and 38% males) were interviewed using semi- structured questionnaires. The results showed that goats and cattle were mainly kept for cash sales and sheep for wool production. Shortage of forage and lack of water points were the main constraints to livestock production, especially during the dry season. Cattle and sheep owners perceived that V. karroo encroachment had a negative impact on grazer production, as it reduces the grazing capacity of the veld. Goat owners viewed V. karroo as an acceptable tree to goats and its abundance favours browsers as compared to grazers. Although farmers have different views concerning the impact of V. karroo encroachment. The mean of livestock composition showed that goats (11.6±1.3) are more favoured by the veld condition compared to cattle (4.9± 1.1) and sheep (2.6±0.7). This study concludes that V. karroo had a negative impact on grazers’ production and sheep and cattle owners observed V. karroo encroachment as a form of land degradation. Pastoralists recommended that veld burning and bush clearing can be used to mitigate encroachment. Key words: Encroachment, degradation, livestock composition, Vachellia karroo. INTRODUCTION Vachellia karroo, commonly known as sweet thorn, native different veld types of Southern Africa (Mapiye et al., to Southern Africa from Angola east to Mozambique, and 2011). V. karroo has the ability to adapt to different soil south to South Africa. V. karroo is classified as a thorn types, precipitation, and temperatures (Bernes et al., tree plant under the family of Fabaceae. V. karroo is a 1996). small to medium-sized tree and is widely distributed to This tree becomes invasive when under disturbed, *Corresponding author. E-mail: furaluke@gmail.com. Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License Tokozwayo et al. 223 over, or underutilized in rangeland ecosystem, (Smet and knowledge (Butt, 2010; Angassa and Beyene, 2003) . Ward, 2005). South African government developed numerous V. Karroo is known as one of the common encroaching approaches for mitigating bush encroachment, which is a woody plant in South Africa (Nyamukanza and Scogings, form of land 2008). Numerous studies have been conducted to test degradation in communal rangelands. Some of those various practices, which can be used to mitigate V. developments were unsuccessful because of the top-to- karroo encroachment. Some of these practices include bottom approach used (Solomon et al., 2014). Berkes et the use of chemicals, bush clearing, use of fire and al. (2000) also reported that the Botswana government browsers. Use of chemical and bush clearing were established many programmes for addressing bush reported as not economically viable because chemicals encroachment, but some of these programs were are too expensive for emerging farmers (Nyamukanza ineffective because program developers did not consider and Scogings, 2008). Use of fire in tandem with browsers pastoralist’s perceptions. Farmers are known as land was cheaper as compared to other practices, but most of users but, their understanding or perceptions on the communal grazing areas have always had insufficient vegetation changes is often ignored by policy makers and fuel load due to continuous grazing. researchers (Roba and Oba, 2009). (Roba and Oba, In South Africa, 80% of the land is used for agricultural 2009). There are many studies, which have been purposes of which 11% is arable and 69% of the land is conducted to assess the scientific causes and possible suitable for livestock production both commercial and solutions to bush encroachment in communal areas. communal (FAO, 2009). Communal farming in South However, there is still lack of documented research Africa contributes 75% of agricultural output and information on the understanding of farmers’ perception communal farming occupies 17% of the land (FAO, 2005; regarding V. karroo encroachment and its impact on Musemva et al., 2008). The transformation of vegetation livestock production and vegetation in communal from grassland to bush encroachment has resulted in a rangelands of the Eastern Cape. The objective of this decline of livestock performance in communal areas of study was to evaluate farmers’ perception on the impact the Eastern Cape (Gxasheka et al., 2013). Bush of V. karroo encroachment in communal rangeland of encroachment has been the main constraint for livestock Eastern Cape. production in communal areas of the Eastern Cape (Solomon et al., 2014). Smet and Ward (2006) described bush encroachment MATERIALS AND METHODS as an economic and environmental problem, which threatened livestock production and the livelihoods of Description of the study area farmers. Causes of bush encroachment are still poorly The study was conducted at Sheshegu village in Alice under understood globally, but, it is linked to poor veld Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality of the Eastern Cape Province management practices and climate change (Ward, 2005). in South Africa. The area lies at 32°53 ′47″58S, 26°47′8″E, and Bush encroachment has a negative impact on livestock altitude of 544 m. The annual rainfall of the area ranges between production by inducing the suppressive effect on forage 450-600mm, with February being the warmest month with an production and subsequently reducing the grazing average of 25°C and July being the coldest with an average temperature of 6.3°C (Gwelo, 2012). Sheshegu village is under capacity (Oba and Kotile, 2001; Lesoli, 2011). Bhisho thornveld vegetation type and soil parent material is that of V. karroo is most reported encroacher woody plant in mud-sandstone (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006) (Figure 1). the Eastern Cape Province (Lesoli, 2011; Solomon et al., 2014). The encroachment of V. karroo is gradual to such an extent that farmers could not even have noticed. Sampling procedure and data collection methodology Communal rangelands of Eastern Cape has no clear rangeland management practices, as a result, every Sheshegu village had about 100 (hundred) households who were livestock farmers. These households formed one farmers’ community member has a free access to rangeland association with the assistance of Extension officers. Forty resources (Lesoli, 2011; Solomon et al., 2014). Lack of households that own livestock were randomly selected for this rangeland regulations might be one of the attributes of V. research. Farmers’ association leaders and extension officers karroo encroachment in communal areas. Lesoli (2011) recommended the selected households. One livestock owner stated that poor veld management practices by (female or male) represented each household during an interview. pastoralists have resulted in bush encroachment (Lesoli, Therefore, 40 pastoralists were interviewed using structured questionnaires (open and closed-ended). No gender restriction, 2011). There is still a lack of documented information on both males and females were included in an interview. Farmers the perceptions of pastoralists concerning the impact of were interviewed based on their knowledge of rangeland vegetation V. karroo encroachment in communal areas. Roba and and livestock production. The questionnaires were divided into four Oba (2009) believed that pastoralists have extensive sections, namely: demographic information, livestock population, indigenous knowledge on the management aspects of and rangeland management, rangeland condition and bush encroachment (Appendix A). The participants were interviewed rangelands. separately using native language (IsiXhosa). Qualitative data for this However, researchers often ignore farmers’ indigenous study was collected in June 2014. 224 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. Figure 1. Map of the Eastern Cape Local Municipalities and Sheshegu indicating study area. 38 % Male 62 % Female Figure 2. Proportion (%) of male and female livestock owners. Statistical analysis compared to 38% of males (Figure 2). The higher percentage of females than males was expected Qualitative data obtained from respondents were coded and because some males were reported to be working during subjected to analyses using Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS, 2011). Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, and the survey. These results disagree with those published percentages) were used. Friedman’s Chi-square (Steel and Torrie, by Admasu et al. (2010) who reported less female 1980) test was used for ranked data. A set of sign tests for multiple participants as compared to males in Southern Ethiopia. comparisons of means were performed on data with significant Respondents in this study were mostly adults with ages variations. The data which Friedman’s test showed significant ranging from 35-75 years. Lack of participation by the variation, a set of sign tests for multiple comparisons of means were youth in this study could result from the fact that the performed. majority of youth were at universities and urban areas during data collection. Baars and Aptidon (2002) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION reported less participation of young people in agricultural activities, but on livestock production. These results Demographic information of pastoralists revealed that 92% of farmers attended primary and secondary schools, and 8% were illiterate (Table 1). This In this study, 62% of females participated in this study as highlights the importance. Education as a very Tokozwayo et al. 225 Table 1. Age distribution, educational status, primary source of income and household size of respondents (n=40). Age Frequency Percentage 35-45 16 40 46-55 9 22 56-65 8 20 66-75 7 18 Educational status Primary school 17 42 Uneducated 3 8 Secondary school 20 50 Primary source of income Livestock production 26 65 Work & social grant 14 35 Household size Adults 97 31 Youth 214 69 important tool for farming, particularly in the adoption of an easy exercise because there are no grazing camps in new technologies (Moyo et al., 2008; Katjiua Ward, communal areas. Pastoralists do not care too much 2007). Moreover, 35% of farmers depended on formal or about the mating ratio of livestock due to the absence of informal jobs and social grants; whereas 65% relied on grazing camps in communal areas of the Eastern Cape livestock farming as a primary source of income (Table (Solomon et al., 2014; Mapekula, 2009). 1). Importance of livestock and constraints faced by Livestock composition farmers This study revealed that Sheshegu village had three Livestock plays an important role in their livelihoods of livestock species such as goats, cattle and sheep. The pastoralists. Pastoralists kept livestock mainly for cash mean livestock numbers owned by farmers were as sales, meat consumption and animal traction (Table 3). follows; 11.6 goats, 4.9 cattle and 2.6 sheep (Table 1). An income generated from livestock is used for school These findings disagreed with the results of Mapiye et al. payments, purchase medication for livestock and (2009) who reported 9, cattle and 7, goats; Mngomezulu household maintenance. Musemwa et al. (2010) reported (2010) also reported 12, cattle and 6, goats in the that income generated from livestock through cash sales Eastern Cape. The mean of goats and sheep from this was used for households’ maintenance, school fees, and study were similar to those reported by Gwelo (2012), food. Cash sales, meat consumption, and animal traction under Bhisho thorn veld vegetation type. showed no significant difference (P>0.05). Pastoralists Large stock comprises of cows and heifers (9.6), calves showed less interest in animal traction because most (4.4) and bulls and oxen (0.9) respectively. The moderate farmers were using tractors instead of animal traction. proportion of bulls and oxen against high number of cows Allsop et al. (2007) reported that animal traction has and heifers observed in this study could improve the become less important because farmers rely on the production rate of the herd. Mating ratio per household government for mechanization and production inputs. perceived by pastoralists was 2 bulls to 20 cows. These Few farmers keep livestock for prestige because majority findings were different from those reported by Solomon et of farmers reported that they sell livestock to generate a al. (2014), who reported a ratio of 1 bull to 20 cows in the source of income for their families. Thus, most of the same province. Small stock consists of ewes (4.4), pastoralists have realized that farming is a business or an lambs (3.0), and rams and wethers (0.6); while goats investment. Mngomezulu (2010) stated that farming for comprise of doe (18.5), kids (13.7) and bucks and prestige has declined in communal areas because most wethers (2.7) according to (Table 2). Farmers perceived of the pastoralists are mainly farming to generating that the control of mating ratio during the breeding is not income. Most of the pastoralists stated that they sell 226 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. Table 2. Mean (±SE) composition of livestock species at Sheshegu village. Livestock species Mean (±SE) b Cattle (4.9±1.1) C Sheep (2.6±0.7) a Goats (11.6±1.3) c Bulls and Oxen (0.9±0.2) a Cows and Heifers (9.6±2.2) ab Calves (4.4±0.9) c Rams and Wethers (0.6±0.2) a Ewes (4.4±1.2) ab Lambs (3.0±0.8) c Bucks and Wethers (2.7±0.4) a Doe (18.5±2.0) b Kids (13.7±1.4) Different superscripts (column) denote significant differences (P<0.05) among livestock species. livestock in local markets such as traditional ceremonies areas. Kgosikoma et al. (2012) stated that sheep and and weddings. These results are in agreement with those goats under encroached rangelands are likely to be of Solomon et al. (2014) conducted in communal areas of preyed upon by predators such as jackal. the Eastern Cape. Shortage of forage, insufficient water points, and stock theft were the most perceived challenges faced by Perceived causes and possible solutions to mitigate pastoralists (Table 3). Shortage of forage, lack of water bush encroachment points, stock theft, and predators showed a significant difference (P<0.05). Livestock diseases and the shortage Uncontrolled veld fires, overgrazing and climate change of forage were most ranked (Table 3). Sheep and cattle were perceived as causes of bush encroachment (Table owners indicated that an increase of V. karroo and 4). Uncontrolled veld fires, overgrazing, and climate prolonged drought has resulted in a shortage of feed and change showed no significant difference (P>0.05). water for livestock. The reliance of pastoralists on native Drought and absence of browsers were significant foraging methods promotes continuous grazing (P<0.05) contributors compared to uncontrolled veld fires, subsequently resulting in loss of perennial grasses overgrazing and climate change (Table 4). Pastoralists (Solomon et al, 2014; Smit and Ward, 2006). Pastoralists perceived that overgrazing, uncontrolled veld fires and reported scarcity of precipitation especial in winter climate change are the drivers of bush encroachment season is a major challenge faced by pastoralist’s (Table 4). Ward (2005) reported that causes of bush community. Pastoralists reported that most of the encroachment are poorly understood, but bush boreholes, which were constructed by the government, encroachment is linked to climate change and poor were not maintained and some were vandalized. Dams management of veld management practices. Pastoralists were properly constructed, but they were reported to be stated that livestock were not kraaled during the winter dry due to prolonged drought and such as have resulted season as result animals graze day and night. in a shortage of forage and poor performance of Uncontrolled grazing in communal areas promotes loss of livestock. Shortage of feed and water due to prolonged soil cover and heavy or selective grazing in communal drought or changes of weather are the most limiting areas. Under heavy grazed area, grasses tend to use factor in livestock production in the Eastern Cape less water due to low photosynthesis rate and such (Goqwana et al., 2008; Raats, 1999). Farmers also creates a very conducive environment for the woody perceived an abundance of bushes in communal areas plant to recruit themselves (Ward, 2005; Smit and Ward, created a very conducive environment for predators. 2006). In addition, some of the pastoralists believed that Predators such as jackal were reported to be the serious the summer season has more rainfall with rapid recovery threat to small stock most especially in encroached growth rate from grazing whereas winter has less rainfall Tokozwayo et al. 227 Table 3. The purpose of livestock keeping and challenges faced by farmers, (1 = most important and 6= least important), (respondents n=40). Purpose Mean Rank (±SE) Rank d Milking purposes 3.0(0.11) 3 a Cash Sales 4.8 (0.13) 1 ab Meat consumption 4.7(0.14) 2 abc Animal traction 4.3(0.24) 4 d Prestige 3.0(0.17) 5 Challenges d Livestock diseases 1.4 (0.12) 1 c Predators 2.2 (0.15) 4 a Shortage of forage 4.7(0.09 ) 2 ab Lack of water points 3.9(0.12 ) 4 cd Stock theft 2.8(0.14 ) 3 Different superscripts (column) denotes significant difference among the reasons and challenges at (P<0.05). Table 4. The perceived causes of bush encroachment and possible solutions to control bush encroachment (1= Most important, 5= least important) (n=40). Causes Mean Rank Rank d Drought 1.7 (0.75) 5 d Absence of browsers 1.4(0.39) 4 a Uncontrolled veld fires 4.6(08.5) 2 abc Climate change 3.4(0.78) 3 ab overgrazing 4.0(0.72) 1 Possible solution to control bush encroachment b Veld burning 2.8(0.08) 3 a Destocking 5.5(0.06) 5 b Increasing browsers 2.2(0.16) 1 b Increasing grazing 2.3(0.25) 2 b Bush clearing 3.3(0.25) 4 Different superscripts denote significant difference (P<0.05) between the causes and possible solutions. with slow regrowth rate hence their livestock were not possible drivers of bush encroachment in communal kraaled in winter. These findings are not in agreement areas. Lesoli (2011) argued that overgrazing, selective with the results of Moyo et al. (2008) who reported that grazing and uncontrolled veld fires in communal areas communal farmer’s kraal livestock at night in all seasons are weakening the competitiveness of grasses against for improving forage for next grazing and preventing woody plants. Pastoralists have a little understanding of stock theft. climate change, but, these farmers believe that Pastoralists are aware of overgrazing of forage material uncontrolled veld fires and prolonged drought due to because in this study they perceived that continuous change in weather patterns have resulted in an grazing has resulted in the loss of perennial grass occurrence of encroacher species. Tainton (1999) species. Loss of perennial grasses through overgrazing reported that fire can be either a good or a bad tool for has resulted in a shift from grasses to bush dominated controlling undesirable, therefore understanding fire ecosystem. Gxasheka et al. (2013) stated that grazing behaviour and its impact on the vegetation is crucial. without resting and unplanned grazing might be the Pastoralists have a different understanding concerning 228 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. bush encroachment because goat owners perceived that believe that V. karroo needs to be controlled to a point V. karroo is highly palatable to goats. Some of the where grazers and browsers can benefit equally from Pastoralists particularly goat owners believed that the rangeland resources. The gradual spread of V. karroo abundance of V. karroo favours goat production, but favours goat production, at the expense of grazers. goats alone cannot control bush encroachment. Tainton Pastoralists have no rules and regulations on the (1999) highlighted that goats cannot completely control management of rangelands resources. Poor bush encroachment, browsers can be used to control the management of veld has resulted in poor veld condition coppicing of woody plant, but goats cannot browse at a and the transformation of grassland to bush dominated height of 1.5 meters. On other hand, sheep owners ecosystem. Pastoralists believed that the use of fire (veld perceived that V. karroo has a negative impact on burning) and bush clearing could be used to mitigate grazers because V. karroo reduces the grazing capacity bush encroachment. Therefore, more studies are still of the veld. V. karroo has long spikes, therefore it causes needed to evaluate the understanding of communal and injuries to livestock animals. Lesoli (2011) reported commercial farmers on vegetation transformation similar findings on the research that was conducted in the adaptability. This study recommends that land care same province. programmes should be implemented to restore The results from this study revealed that destocking rangelands. During the implementation of land care was regarded as a significant (P<0.05) solution to control projects, Pastoralists should receive training and bush encroachment as compared to an increase of demonstrations that can complement their knowledge. livestock (grazers and browsers), and veld burning. An increase of grazers and browsers were the most ranked solution to address to bush encroachment. Although they CONFLICT OF INTERESTS have different views regarding bush encroachment, farmers perceived that the spread of V. karroo need to be The authors have not declared any conflict of interests. controlled because this tree is encroaching even on abandoned croplands and in open grasslands. Some Pastoralists believed that a reduction of livestock ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS numbers (destocking), bush clearing, and veld burning might a possible solution for controlling bush The authors are indebted to the communal farmers for encroachment. Smit (2004) stated that bush clearing, allowing us to do this research. We are also grateful to veld burning, and proper application of veld management University of Fort Hare for the opportunity to conduct this practices can be used to mitigate the spread of research. We also appreciate receiving funding from the encroacher species in communal areas. From a practical National Research Foundation (NRF). Finally, the support point of view, the application of fire (veld burning) might of all technicians, colleagues and field assistants is not work in some communal areas due to the fact fire for greatly appreciated. killing woody plants requires more fuel load for producing higher fire intensity. Grazing without resting reduces fuel, which is essential for the hot fire (Thomas et al. 2000). REFERENCES Application of bush clearing in an overgrazed area might lead to soil erosion. Therefore, veld resting is important Admasu T, Abule T, Tessema Z (2010). Livestock rangeland because it improves biomass production and management practices and community perceptions towards competitiveness ability of grasses against woody plants. rangeland degradation in South zone of Southern Ethiopia. http://www.lrrd.org. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Bille and Assefa (1983) argued that bush clearing and Accessed [30-05-2013]. veld burning under overgrazed landscape cannot be Allsop N, Laurent C, Debeaudoin LMC, Samuels MI (2007). recommended as control measures of bush Environmental perceptions and practices of livestock keepers on the encroachment. Smit (2004) highlighted that the Namaqualand Commons Challenge conventional rangeland management. Journal of Arid Environments 70:740-754. phytomass of V. Karroo can be reduced where there is Angassa A, Beyene F (2003). Current range condition in Southern an adequate fuel load. Ethiopia in relation to traditional management strategies: The perceptions of Borana pastoralists. Tropical Grasslands 37:53-59. Baars RMT, Aptidon SM (2002). Pastoralists perceptions of rangeland degradation in Eastern Ethiopia. Nomadic Peoples 6:114-157. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Barnes RD, Filer DL, Milton, SJ (1996). Acacia karroo: Monograph and Annotated Bibliography. Tropical Forestry Papers 32.Oxford Forestry Institute, Oxford, UK. This study concludes that livestock production plays a Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000). Rediscovery of traditional crucial role in the livelihood of pastoralists. Livestock ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological production is constrained by bush encroachment, Applications 10:1251-1262. shortage of feed and lack of dams or drinking water Bille JC, Assefa E (1983). Rangeland management and range condition: a study in the Medecho and Did Hara areas of the effects points. Pastoralists have a different perception of rangeland utilization. Joint Ethiopian Pastoral Systems Study concerning the impact of V. karroo, but some farmers Research Report No.7, International Livestock Centre for Africa. Tokozwayo et al. 229 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. lands in northern Kenya. Journal of Environmental Management Butt B (2010). Pastoral resource access and utilization: quantifying the 90:673-682. spatial and temporal relationships between livestock mobility, density Smet M, Ward D (2005). A comparison of the effects of different and biomass availability in southern Kenya. Land Degradation and rangeland management systems on plant species composition, Development 21:520-539. diversity and vegetation structure in a semi-arid savanna. African FAO (2005). Grasslands of the world. In: Suttie, JM., Reynolds, SG and Journal of Range and Forage Science 22:59-71. Batello C.(Eds.) Rome. P.514. Smet M, Ward D (2006). Soil quality gradients around water points FAO (2009). Review of evidence on drylands pastoral systems and under different management systems in a semi-arid savanna, South climate change. In Neely. C, Burning S and Wilkes A. (Eds.), Land Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 65:251-269. Tenure and Management Unit (NRLA). Land and Water Discussion Smit GN (2004). An approach to tree thinning to structure southern Paper 8, p.50. African Savannas for long-term restoration from bush encroachment. Goqwana WM, Machingura C, Mdululwa Z, Mkhari R, Mmolaeng O, Journal of Environmental Management 71:179-191. Selomane AO (2008). A facilitated process towards finding options Solomon TB, Mlisa L, Gxasheka M (2014). Local Perceptions of for improved livestock production. Journal of Range and Forage Livestock and Rangeland Degradation in the Highlands of South Science 25(2):63-69. Africa: Implication for Development Interventions. Journal of Human Gwelo AF (2012). Farmers’ Perceptions of Nguni Cattle Feeding Ecology 47(3):257-268. Behaviour and vegetation: Nutrient Dynamics in Two Communal SPSS.2011.Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Version 20. USA. Rangeland, Eastern Cape. MSc. Dissertation, Unpublished. South Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Africa: University of Fort Hare. Biometrical Approach. 2rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gxasheka M, Solomon TB, Lesoli M, Mlisa N (2013). Euryops Thomas DS, Sporton G, Perkins J (2000). The environmental impact of floribundus encroachment in Eastern Cape communal rangelands: livestock ranches in the Kalahari, Botswana: natural resource use, Indigenous and scientific understanding of effects on Range ecology, ecological change and human response in a dynamic dryland and food Security. MSc. Dissertation. University of Fort Hare. system. Land Degradation and Development 11:327-341. Katjiua M, Ward D (2007). Pastoralist’s perceptions and realities of Tainton NM (1999). Veld management in South Africa. University of vegetation change and browse consumption in the Northern Kalahari. Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Namibia. Journal of Arid Environments 69:716-730. Ward, D. 2005. Do we understand the causes of bush encroachment in Kgosikoma O, Mojeremane W, Harvie B (2012). Pastoralist’s perception African savannas? African Journal of Rangeland and Forage Science and Ecological knowledge on Savanna Ecosystem Dynamics in 22:101-105. Semiarid Botswana. Ecology and Society 17:27-38. Lesoli M (2011). Characterisation of communal rangeland degradation and evaluation of vegetation restoration techniques in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. PhD. Thesis, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa. Mapekula M (2009). Milk production and calf performance in Nguni and crossbred cattle raised on communal rangelands of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. PhD. Thesis, University of Fort Hare, South Africa. Mapiye C, Chimonyo M, Dzama K, Raats JG, Mapekula M (2009). Opportunities for improving Nguni in the smallholder farming systems in South Africa. Livestock Science. 124:196-204. Mapiye C, Chimonyo M, Marufu MC, Dzama K (2011). Utility of Acacia karroo for beef production in Southern Africa smallholder farming systems: A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 164:135- 146. Mngomezulu S (2010). Formal Marketing of Cattle by Pastoralists in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. MSc. Dissertation. The Netherlands: Wageningen University. Moyo B, Dube S, Lesoli M, Masika PJ (2008). Communal area grazing strategies: institutions and traditional practices. Journal of Range and Forage Science 25(2):47-54.Mucina L, Rutherford MC, Powrie LW (2006). Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: shapefiles of basic mapping units. SANBI, Cape Town. Musemwa L, Mushenje A, Chimonyo M, Fraser M, Mapiye C, Muchenje V (2008). Nguni cattle marking constraints and opportunities in the communal areas of South Africa: Review. African Journal of Agricultural Research 3(4):239-245. Musemwa L, Mushunje A, Chimonyo M, Mapiye C (2010). Low cattle market off-take rates in communal production systems of South Africa: Causes and mitigation strategies. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 12(5): 209-226. Nyamukanza CC, Scogings PF (2008). Sprout selection and performance of goats fed Acacia karroo coppices in the False Thornveld of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. African Journal of Animal Science 38:83-90. Oba G, Kotile DG (2001). Assessments of landscape level degradation in Southern Ethiopia: Pastoralists versus Ecologists. Land Degradation and Development 12:461-475. Raats JG (1999). Strategies for feeding Animals during the dry period. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Rome, Italy: FAO. Roba HG, Oba G (2009). Community participatory landscape classification and biodiversity assessment and monitoring of grazing 230 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. Appendix A: Questionnaire used to interview farmers at Sheshegu village Title: Pastoralist’s perceptions on the impact of V. karroo encroachment in communal rangeland of the Ea stern Cape, South Africa The objective: to evaluate farmers’ perception toward the impact of bush encroachment on livestock production and vegetation Name of interviewer………………………….Date……………………Village………………. Name of respondent…………………………………..Questionnaire reference number……… INSTRUCTIONS: Fill in the relevant information and where possible mark with an X DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION A.1 Gender Male Female A.2 Age Age 15-30 30-40 40-50 Above 50 Mark with an X A.3 Household size Number of adults Number of children (<21 years) A.4 Level of education Levels of Primary school Secondary Tertiary Other education school education Mark with X A.5. The primary source of income. Sources of income Mark with X Livestock production Work and social grant Other LIVESTOCK POPULATION B.1 Livestock types and numbers Livestock type Numbers Cattle Bulls Cows & heifers Calves total Livestock type Numbers Sheep Ram ewe lambs total Livestock type Numbers Goats Buck Boer kids total Tokozwayo et al. 231 B.2. Why are you keeping livestock? (In order of importance 1= most important, 5=least important) Purposes mark with X Rank Milking purposes Cash Sales Meat consumption Animal traction Prestige B.3 What trend do you observed from livestock population? Trend Increasing Decreasing Remain the same Mark with X B.4 What challenges are you facing on livestock production? (1= most important, 5= Least important). Challenges mark with X Rank Shortage of forage Lack of water points/dams Predators Animal diseases Stock theft B.5. Which type of livestock do you prefer to keep? Grazers [ ] or browsers [ ] and why? ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................ B.6. Which type of livestock is currently increasing? Grazers [ ] or browsers [ ] and what could be the reason such an increase? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………... B.7. Which type of livestock is currently decreasing? Grazers [ ] or browsers [ ] and what could be the reason for such a decrease? ………………………………………….…………………………………………………………..................................................... ........................................................................................................ RANGELAND MANAGEMENT C.1 What type of grazing systems do you practice in your rangeland? Types of grazing systems Continuous grazing Rational grazing Other Mark with X C.2 What time of the year do you experience a shortage of grazing material? Seasons Winter Summer Spring Autumn Mark with X C.3. Do you practice any veld management practices in your rangeland? Yes [ ] or No [ ] If yes fill the table below Practices How often? In which season(s) Veld burning Veld resting Rotational grazing Other (Specify) 232 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. RANGELAND CONDITION AND BUSH ENCROACHMENT D.1 Which woody plant (s) species were dominant before V. karroo encroachment in your rangeland? Name of woody plant species: D.2 Which woody plant species currently dominating in your rangeland? Name of woody species: D.3 Which woody plant species mostly preferred by livestock in your rangeland? Name of woody species: D.4 Do you notice any shift from grassland to bush dominated ecosystem in your rangeland in your rangeland? Yes [ ] or No [ ] If yes what could be the reason …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …............................ D.5 Is there any problem of land degradation in your rangeland? Yes [ ] or No [ ] If yes what could be the reason ............................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................... D.6 How would you describe the rangeland condition under this encroachment of Vachellia karroo? Good [ ], Fair [ ], poor [ ], justify your answer? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… D.7 What do you utilize rangeland for? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………... D.8 Does your community have grazing camps? Yes [ ] or No [ ] If yes, for what purposes? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………....... D.9 Do you notice bush encroachment in your rangeland? Yes [ ] or No [ ] D.10 Do you consider V. karroo as an encroaching woody plant in your rangeland? Yes [ ] or No [ ] and justify your answer ……………………………………………………………………………………………………...…………………………………… ………………………………………………………………... D.11 From your point of view, what should be done in order to eradicate/control V. karroo encroaching species? (1=most important and 5=least important). Possible solution Mark with X Rank Veld burning Destocking Increasing browsers Increasing grazing Bush clearing Tokozwayo et al. 233 D.12 What could be the causes of V. karroo encroachment in your rangeland? (1= most and 5=least). Causes Mark with X Rank Veld burning Drought Absence of browsers Uncontrolled veld fires Climate change overgrazing D.13 Do you think V. karroo encroachment has an impact on livestock production? Yes [ ] or No [ ], justify your answer? .……………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… D.14. Do you think V. karroo encroachment has an impact on herbaceous vegetation? Yes [ ] or No [ ], justify your answer ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Any comment: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. View publication stats