Author's personal copy

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129 (2009) 332339

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee

Chronosequence analysis of two enclosure management strategies in degraded

rangeland of semi-arid Kenya
Ann Verdoodt a,*, Stephen M. Mureithi a,b, Liming Ye a, Eric Van Ranst a
a
b

Laboratory of Soil Science, Department of Geology and Soil Science, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281 (S8), B-9000 Gent, Belgium
Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology - Range Management Section, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053-00625, Nairobi, Kenya

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 2 July 2008
Received in revised form 18 September 2008
Accepted 8 October 2008
Available online 18 November 2008

The establishment of enclosures has become an important measure to combat land degradation in many
of the worlds semi-arid rangelands. In view of the increased pressure exerted by this land reclamation
strategy on the neighbouring agricultural lands, knowledge of the time required for restoring vegetation
cover and soil health, and of the potential positive impact of an adapted management strategy, is highly
required. This paper assesses the vegetation and soil rehabilitation in a 23-year chronosequence of two
different enclosure management types. In the severely degraded, semi-arid Njemps Flats plain of the Lake
Baringo Basin in Kenya communal enclosures characterised by high quality inputs and strict control, and
private enclosures managed by individual farmers, were installed since the 1980s. Six communal
enclosures (317 years since establishment) and six private enclosures (1323 years since establishment) were selected. Vegetation cover was estimated along three 50 m transects set within each
enclosure and in the adjacent open grazing area using the point-to-line transect method. Five 0.5 m2
quadrats systematically placed alongside each transect were sampled for herbaceous standing biomass
and topsoil physical, chemical and biological analyses. Grass cover and herbaceous biomass production
proved to be the most responsive biotic parameters under both management types, whereas the recovery
of the forbs was unsuccessful. Under communal management, the biomass production fully recovered up
to its optimal level as recorded in the neighbouring nature reserves. Within private enclosures however,
the adopted management strategies seriously restricted biomass production to a signicantly lower
level. Soil quality generally recovered more slowly with time. Signicant improvements compared to the
open rangeland were recorded in topsoil bulk density, organic C and total N stocks, and microbial biomass
C and N stocks of the communal enclosures. Unlike the communal enclosures, only topsoil bulk density
and the microbial biomass C stock showed a signicant difference in the private enclosures. With respect
to C and total N stocks, and the microbial biomass N a non-signicant improving trend was recorded. The
level of chemical and biological soil quality obtained under both management types is still low and draws
the attention to the importance of careful monitoring of grazing and grass cutting activities under both
enclosure management strategies. The chronosequences further highlight the potential of some wellmanaged private enclosures, whereas intrinsic soil properties such as high alkalinity, as well as changes
in management, limit the rehabilitation of some other private as well as communal enclosures.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Enclosures
Semi-arid rangeland
Vegetation structure
Soil quality
Rehabilitation

1. Introduction
In many of the worlds semi-arid regions, rangeland degradation caused by grazing has been extensively documented (Downing, 1978; Perevolotsky, 1991; Tefera et al., 2007; Abule et al.,
2007). The effect of overgrazing generally is recognized as the loss

* Corresponding author at: Laboratory of Soil Science, Department of Geology and

Soil Science (WE13), Krijgslaan 281 (S8), B-9000 Gent, Belgium.
Tel.: +32 9 2644693; fax: +32 9 2644997.
E-mail address: ann.verdoodt@ugent.be (A. Verdoodt).
0167-8809/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.006

of forage species, the increasing dominance of non-forage

herbaceous plants, bush encroachment, and a decreasing fodder
production, while the regenerative capacity is often compromised
leading to loss of biodiversity.
A well-known management tool to restore these degraded
rangeland ecosystems, is the establishment of enclosures, denoting
areas closed off for agriculture and grazing for a specic period of
time. In most cases, the restoration starts from relict vegetation or
from the seed bank (Whisenant et al., 1995; Tefera et al., 2007), but in
the most severely degraded semi-arid rangelands, withdrawal of
grazing is often not sufcient to foster the autogenic recovery of the
vegetation (Snyman, 2003; van den Berg and Kellner, 2005). These

Author's personal copy

A. Verdoodt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129 (2009) 332339

rangelands apparently have retrogressed beyond a certain threshold

(Snyman, 2003) as the ecosystem dynamics, affecting the energy
ows, biogeochemical cycles, hydrological cycles (Dregne, 1992)
have been upset, resulting into a downward spiral of ecosystem
structure and function decline (King and Hobbs, 2006). Restoration
techniques in these severely degraded rangelands therefore need to
focus on improvement of the microclimate and seedbed, reduction
of water and wind erosion, installation of water harvesting
structures and over-sowing.
Regeneration of the vegetation inside rangeland enclosures has
positive effects on biodiversity (Asefa et al., 2002; Abebe et al.,
2006) and soil fertility (McIntosh et al., 1997; Su et al., 2005;
Mekuria et al., 2007). It reduces soil erosion (Descheemaecker
et al., 2006) and increases water availability (Hongo et al., 1995).
This clearly illustrates the linkages and feedback loops occurring
between biotic change and the abiotic components of the
rangeland ecosystem (Monger and Bestelmeyer, 2006). Good
measures of the restoration success can be attained when the
evolution of these ecosystem attributes with time is compared to
those measured in reference sites (Society for Ecological Restoration International - Science & Policy Working Group, 2004; RuizJaen and Aide, 2005). However, soil functions recover much more
slowly than the biotic attributes such as vegetation structure and
diversity, while long-term monitoring of the vegetation dynamics
and soil quality inside rangeland enclosures is rare.
Pastoral communities employing a communal resource system
for livestock production occupy the semi-arid rangelands of the Lake
Baringo Basin in the Kenyan Rift Valley. In the early 1900s, this was a
pristine area, very rich in animal and plant diversity (Sanyu
Consultants Inc., 2001). The availability of fresh water, in combination with erratic rainfall, highly erodible soils and an increasing
population pressure, encouraged overgrazing. Evidence of severe
environmental degradation has been published since the 1930s
(Thom and Martin, 1983; Sutherland et al., 1991; Rosenschein et al.,
1999; Hickley et al., 2004). To address the emerging socio-economic
problems, the Rehabilitation of Arid Environments (RAE) Trust
Project, initiated in 1982, established large-scale communal
enclosures by installing water harvesting structures, preparing the
seedbeds and over-sowing the bare rangeland cleared from
undesirable species (Meyerhoff, 1991; de Groot et al., 1992;
Rosenschein et al., 1999). Furthermore, the RAE Project adopted a
participatory approach, subjecting the enclosures to a strict
communal control that after a rest period of only 3 years allows
to open the enclosures for grazing during periods of drought, cutting
grass for fodder, thatching and sale, for grass seed, poles and fuel
wood sale, and bee keeping. By the end of the 1980s, the rehabilitation
success attained in these communal enclosures fostered many local
inhabitants to establish private enclosures, using low cost tools and
inputs and adopting a less strict access control.
The purpose of this paper was to evaluate both enclosure
management strategies through an assessment of several biotic
and abiotic ecosystem attributes, being indicators of the restoration success (Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group, 2004; Ruiz-Jaen and Aide, 2005).
Next to the changes reported with respect to the adjacent open
rangeland and the differences caused by both management
strategies, the study also addresses the actual state of recovery
attained in the long-term (323 years) enclosure chronosequence.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The Njemps Flats range unit is located between 18450 and 08150
northern latitude and 358450 and 368300 eastern longitude in the

333

Baringo District of the Eastern Rift Valley in Kenya, and covers

approximately 305 km2. This at to slightly undulating plain, west
of Lake Baringo, has an average altitude of 900 m a.s.l. (Herlocker
et al., 1994). Its climate is semi-arid with a total annual rainfall
varying between 300 and 700 mm (Meyerhoff, 1991; de Groot
et al., 1992), characterised by a bimodal rainfall distribution with
two peaks in April and November. The temperature shows little
variation throughout the year with mean monthly temperatures
ranging from 24 to 26 8C (Ekaya et al., 2001; Kipkorir, 2002). The
dominant soils in the Njemps Flats, according to the reconnaissance soil survey (USDA-SCS/GoK, 1978), are well drained, silt loam
to clay loam, Eutric and Calcaric Fluvisols (FAO-UNESCO, 1974).
They developed on alluvium from various Tertiary-Quaternary
volcanic rocks and on sediments from basic igneous rocks. The
main vegetation types include Acacia woodland (80%), permanent
swamp and seasonally ooded grassland (15%) and shrub grassland (5%). The dominant land use always has been grazing and
livestock herding by the Il Chamus semi-pastoralist community.
2.2. Enclosure management
Communal enclosures, varying in size from 6 to 140 ha, are
perimeter fenced using a solar-powered electric fence. After
clearing of much of the existing undesirable vegetation, the land is
prepared for planting by the construction of micro-catchments. A
mixture of drought-resistant trees and grasses, such as the fastgrowing exotic Prosopis and Leucaena tree species and the
indigenous grasses Cenchrus ciliaris, Enteropogon macrostachyus
and Eragrostis superba, have been selected for planting and seeding.
The private enclosures, reseeded and managed by individual
farmers with limited nancial and technical means, are much
smaller, with sizes smaller than 1 ha. Fencing is done using cut
thorn bushes (Acacia and Prosopis sp.) and/or planted thorn cactus
(Opuntia sp.).
2.3. Site selection
Six communal and six private enclosures (Table 1), characterised by a similar terrain, soil and land use in the adjacent open
rangeland, were systematically selected for sampling across the
Njemps Flats. Next to the differences in management type, also the
time in years since enclosure establishment constituted an
important selection criterion, with the selected enclosures ranging
in time since establishment from 3 to 23 years.
2.4. Vegetation sampling design
Within each enclosure, site data on herbaceous vegetation were
collected within ve quadrats regularly placed along 3 transects in
Table 1
General characterisation of the selected enclosures.
ID

Management

Area (ha)

Age (year)

Utilisation

C13
C16
C18
C20
C22
C23
P3
P6
P8
P11
P15
P17

Communal
Communal
Communal
Communal
Communal
Communal
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private

140.0
102.3
16.7
22.4
6.6
9.3
13.0
2.0
0.7
1.0
2.5
1.6

13
16
18
20
22
23
3
6
8
11
15
17

GGCBK
GGC
GGCBKGSWC
GGC
GGCBKGSWC
GGCBKGSWC
G
GGC
GGCGS
GGCBK
GGCBK
GGC

G, grazing; GC, grass cutting; BK, bee keeping; GS, grass seeding; WC, wood cutting.

Author's personal copy

A. Verdoodt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129 (2009) 332339

334

a Z-shaped orientation. The transect lines were 50 m long and laid

5 and 30 m away from the boundaries of the private and communal
enclosures, respectively, to avoid edge effects. Along each transect,
ve 0.25 m2 quadrats were laid at intervals of 10 m. The vegetation
characteristics outside the enclosures were determined using the
same sampling design from a total of 60 quadrats placed along 12
transect lines parallel to the 12 enclosures. Quadrat-based
measurements were made of aboveground standing crop biomass
of the herbaceous layer. All standing material rooted within the
quadrat was clipped at 2 cm above the ground level and oven-dried
to a constant weight at 70 8C for 48 h. Aboveground biomass yield
was expressed in kg ha1 on dry matter basis.
Differences in plant cover of the herbaceous layer were assessed
using the pointline transect technique (Brady et al., 1995). The
point data, collected systematically at each meter along the
transects, recorded the species hit, the nearest plant to the hit, or
whether the hit was mineral soil (bare ground), litter, dung, or of
another type such as for instance rocks. The herbaceous plant layer
itself was divided into four major life formsgrasses, forbs, sedges
and, in addition, also the vascular plant seedlings were included,
since tree and shrub recruitment are vital for ground cover and the
rehabilitation process. Percent cover by each of these life forms
was then computed as follows:
Ca

Na
 100
N tot

(1)

with Ca = cover of life-form a (%), Na = number of hits of life-form a,

Ntot = total number of hits.
2.5. Soil sampling design
At the centre of each quadrat, a disturbed soil sample of the
upper 15 cm was collected using a small narrow shovel and mixed
thoroughly to give 3 kg composite samples. A 1 kg sub-sample was
removed from each composite sample for biological analysis.
These soil samples were sieved through a 2 mm mesh to remove
stones, roots, and large organic residues and sealed in plastic bags
to store under refrigeration at 4 8C. The remaining 2 kg composite
samples were air-dried, sieved through a 2 mm mesh and stored at
ambient temperature for use in the various physical and chemical
analyses. Steel cylinders (5 cm diameter and 5 cm height) were
used to obtain undisturbed soil samples in the quadrats for soil
bulk density measurements.
2.6. Soil analyses
The Robinson pipette method was used to analyse the soil
particle size distribution (Van Ranst et al., 1999). Soil bulk density
(BD) was determined on the undisturbed soil samples according to
the method described by Rhoades (1982). The calcimeter Bernard
method described by Nelson (1982) was used to determine the
calcium carbonate percentage (CaCO3), dened as the total
carbonate contained in 100 g of dry soil. Soil pH was measured
in water (pH) using a 1:2.5 soilsolution ratio. Soil organic carbon
content (Corg) was determined using the WalkleyBlack method,
while total nitrogen content (Ntot) was quantied using the
Kjeldahl method as described by Bremner and Mulvaney (1982).
The electrical conductivity (EC) was determined by measuring the
electrical resistances of a 1:5 soilwater suspension and the
exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) was calculated from the
exchangeable Na content and cation exchange capacity, both
measured using ammonium acetate buffered at pH of 8.2
(Anderson and Ingram, 1993). Soil microbial biomass C (Cmic)
and N (Nmic) contents were determined by the chloroform
fumigationextraction method (Brookes et al., 1985; Vance

et al., 1987; Anderson and Ingram, 1993) using 24-h chloroform

fumigation in a closed desiccator at 25 8C, and a 0.5 M K2SO4
extracting solution. kC- and kN-factors of 0.45 were used to
estimate Cmic (Wu et al., 1990) and a Nmic (Jenkinson, 1988).
2.7. Data analyses
Private enclosure P15 as well as the neighbouring open
rangeland were omitted from the statistical analyses as they
showed a marked difference in ESP compared to all other sites.
After conrming the normality or near-normality of the various
parameter distributions, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA)
including the robust Welch test, were run to assess the impact of
the enclosure strategies on the rehabilitation of vegetation
structure and soil quality. Parameter values recorded along the
transects, and within the quadrants of each enclosure, have been
used as replicates to take into account variation in biotic and
abiotic conditions within each enclosure. The least signicant
difference (LSD) test was used to detect differences between the
treatment means at P < 0.05. In view of (1) the absence of
important site differences in inherent soil properties of all other 11
enclosures and the open rangeland, (2) the extreme land
degradation reported throughout the range unit since many years,
and (3) the non-autogenetic rehabilitation strategies involving
clearance of the undesirable vegetation and seedbed preparation
actions, it was reasonable to assume similar vegetation and soil
properties in the retained pre-enclosure sites, as reected by the
actual characteristics of the open rangeland. Linear as well as nonlinear regression procedures were run to characterise the
evolution of the diagnostic biotic and abiotic properties with time
since establishment. After omitting strongly deviating parameter
values obtained in the enclosures P17 and C20, asymptotic
regressions, comprising an exponential decay function, best
described the changes in grass and bare ground cover as well as
in BD and Cmic stock. Directional changes in Corg, Ntot, and Nmic
stocks followed logistic trends.
3. Results
3.1. Herbaceous vegetation structure
Table 2 summarises the average vegetation structure of the open
rangeland compared to the private and communal enclosures.

Table 2
Aboveground herbaceous biomass production and cover under open grazing and in
the privately and communally managed enclosures (mean  S.D.).
Variables

Dry herbaceous
biomass (kg ha1)
Grass (%)
Forbs (%)
Sedges (%)
Vascular plant seedlings (%)
Litter (%)
Dung (%)
Other (rocks) (%)
Bare ground (%)

Open
grazinga

Controlled grazing
Privateb

Communalc

489  219a

1602  368b

4404  1144c

4  7a
12  5a
7  5a
6  3a
0  0a
3  2b
1  2a
66  10c

34  9b
14  5a
6  5a
10  5a
6  6b
4  2b
1  1a
25  11b

51  5c
16  2a
7  5a
9  5a
10  5b
0  0a
0  1a
7  6a

Means with different letters in a variable indicate signicant (P < 0.05) differences.
a
n = 55 for dry herbaceous biomass measurements and n = 11 for vegetation
cover measurements.
b
n = 75 for dry herbaceous biomass measurements and n = 15 (3  5) for
vegetation cover measurements in the private enclosures.
c
n = 90 for dry herbaceous biomass measurements and n = 18 (3  6) for
vegetation cover measurements in the communal enclosures.

Author's personal copy

A. Verdoodt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129 (2009) 332339

335

Table 3
Herbaceous standing biomass and cover of the open rangeland (OG) and the private
(xP) and communal (xC) enclosures of various ages (x) since establishment
(mean  S.D.).
Site

Biomassa

Coverb (%)
1

(kg DM ha
OG
P3
P6
P8
P11
C13
P15c
C16
P17
C18
C20
C22
C23

489  219a
1000  100b
1830  135de
1680  147d
2000  169e
3430  145g
1950  231
4830  172i
1500  79c
5250  316j
2597  366f
4400  233h
5920  219k

Bare

Grass

Forb

Sedge

Vascular

66  10a
36  3b
33  4b
17  5c
12  5cd
13  3c
14  4
10  5cd
34  7b
2  0d
13  7c
4  1d
0  0d

4  7a
18  3b
39  6cd
40  5cde
39  3cd
48  5ef
45  3
49  4ef
32  3c
52  4fg
49  3f
50  4fg
58  5g

12  5
12  3
11  3
14  4
17  5
15  2
14  2
15  4
19  6
18  2
16  1
14  2
17  4

7  5abc
6  3ab
10  3b
2  2a
10  3b
9  3b
41
10  2b
0  0a
3  3a
13  5bc
4  2a
2  2a

6  3ab
18  4d
5  2b
9  4bc
9  5bc
9  2bc
62
9  2bc
9  3bc
11  5bc
3  2a
13  4cd
11  6c

Means with different letters within a variable indicate signicant (P < 0.05)
differences.
a
n = 55 within open rangeland and n = 15 within each enclosure.
b
n = 11 within open rangeland and n = 3 within each enclosure.
c
Excluded from the ANOVA.

Details on the parameter values reported at the individual sites are

shown in Table 3. Signicant differences were reported in the dry
herbaceous biomass production (Table 2), which averages to
489 kg DM ha1 in the open rangelands and attains average values
ranging between 1000 kg DM ha1 in the 3-year-old private
enclosure and 5920 kg DM ha1 in the 23-year communal enclosure
(Table 3). This 2- to 10-fold increase in rangeland productivity is
largely realised by a relatively fast rehabilitation of the grass cover
from an average 4% in the open rangelands to 34% in the private
enclosures and 51% under communal enclosure management,
thereby almost completely dissolving the bare ground cover, which
averaged to about 66% in the degraded open rangeland. The
signicant site differences summarised in Table 3 suggest a fast
recovery of the grass cover and decline of the bare ground cover in
the rst 6 years followed by gradually decreasing rehabilitation rates
in the following years. This trend is conrmed by high coefcients of
determination (r2 = 0.93 and r2 = 0.94) of the asymptotic regression
equations of respectively grass and bare ground cover with time as
illustrated in Fig. 1(a) (y = 54.6  50.4 exp(0.144x)) and (b)
(y = 0.2 + 65.2 exp(0.149x)). Whereas one asymptotic regression
equation sufces to describe the temporal changes recorded in both
private and communal enclosures with respect to grass and bare
ground cover, the scatter plot of the herbaceous biomass production
(Fig. 1(c)) on the other hand, reveals a distinct difference between
the privately and communally managed enclosures. The latter
enclosures attain biomass productivities varying between 2600 and
5900 kg DM ha1, and clearly outweigh the maximum herbaceous
biomass produced in the private enclosures, being restricted to
about 2000 kg DM ha1 (Table 3). The quadratic recovery pattern for
the private (r2 = 0.95) enclosures is shown in Fig. 1(c). Though the
signicantly lower biomass productivity attained in enclosure P17
suggests this quadratic recovery, more sites at similar or higher age
since establishment are required to conrm this trend. As there are
no recently established communal enclosures, a regression analysis
for herbaceous biomass production under the communal management has not been performed.
Signicantly lower biomass productivities have been attained
in both private enclosure P17 and communal enclosure C20. The
restricted rehabilitation success of these enclosures is also
reected in high and variable (large standard deviation) bare
ground covers reported within both enclosures (Table 3, Fig. 1(a)),

Fig. 1. Bare ground (a), grass cover (b) and herbaceous aboveground biomass
production (c) of the open rangeland and the private (Px) and communal (Cx)
enclosures of different ages (x) since establishment (error bars indicating the
standard deviation).

whereas also the restoration of the grass cover of private enclosure

P17 is signicantly less successful (Table 3, Fig. 1(b)).
In contrast to the clear trends in herbaceous biomass, bare
ground, and grass cover, no signicant differences could be
identied in the forbs, sedges and vascular plant seedlings cover
recorded in the open rangeland, and private and communal
enclosures, averaging to about 14, 6, and 9% (Table 2). According to
Table 3, the sedges cover ranges from 0 to 13%, whereas the
vascular seedlings cover varies between 3 and 18%.
3.2. Soil quality
The average physical, chemical and biological soil quality
indicators reported in the open rangeland and under both types of
enclosure management have been summarised in Table 4. Figs. 25
illustrate the evolution of some selected soil quality indicators
with age since establishment, whereas Table 5 shows the reported
results in each enclosure as well as in the open rangeland.
3.2.1. Granulometry and bulk density
No signicant differences could be identied in the granulometric composition of the topsoil at the different sites (Table 4).

Author's personal copy

A. Verdoodt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129 (2009) 332339

336

Table 4
Physical, chemical and biological topsoil properties under open grazing (n = 11) and
in the privately (n = 5) and communally (n = 6) managed enclosures (mean  S.D.).
Variables

Open grazing

Controlled grazing
Private

Communal

Physical fertility
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
Bulk density (Mg m3)

11  6a
57  7a
32  8a
1.54  0.11a

12  6a
46  8a
42  13a
1.31  0.08b

9  3a
56  8a
35  10a
1.19  0.06c

Chemical fertility
pH
CaCO3 (%)
EC1/5 (dS m1)
ESP (%)
Corg(g m2)
Ntot (g m2)

8.2  0.6a
3.8  2.4a
0.12  0.07a
1.1  1.2a
841  265a
89  27a

8.3  0.3a
3.1  1.4a
0.22  0.22a
2.2  1.5a
1019  205a
111  16ab

8.3  0.2a
4.2  2.3a
0.09  0.02a
0.3  0.3a
1633  207b
142  18b

Biological fertility
Cmic (g m2)
Nmic (g m2)

13.3  1.1a
6.8  0.7a

19.4  2.7b
8.0  1.3a

24.5  1.3c
11.0  0.9b

Means with different letters within a variable indicate signicant (P < 0.05)
differences.

Topsoil bulk density signicantly decreased from an average

1.54 Mg m3 reported in the open rangelands to 1.31 Mg m3
under private enclosure management and 1.19 Mg m3 under
communal management. The decreasing recovery rate of the bulk
density as shown in Fig. 2 suggests an asymptotic regression with
time (r2 = 0.79, y = 1.15 + 0.39 exp(0.14x)), decreasing sharply
during the rst 6 years, after which the BD ranges between 1.12
and 1.28 Mg m3, with the lowest values being recorded in the
oldest enclosures. Private enclosure P17, being characterised by a
bulk density of 1.35 Mg m3, strongly deviates from this general
trend and was omitted from the regression analysis.

Fig. 3. Topsoil exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) recorded at the different sites.

management, whereas there is a non-signicant trend towards

higher stocks reported in the private enclosures compared to the
open rangelands. Average Corg stocks double from 841 g m2 in the
open rangelands, over 1019 g m2 in the private enclosures to
1633 g m2 under communal enclosure management, corresponding to a Corg content of 0.36, 0.53 and 0.92%, respectively. The
average Ntot stocks range from 89 g m2 (0.04%) over 111 g m2
(0.06%) to 142 g m2 (0.08%), respectively. Chronosequence
analysis (Fig. 4) suggests a logistic increase with time since
establishment in topsoil Corg (r2 = 0.77, y = 794 + (1082/(1 + 28
exp(0.28x))) and Ntot (r2 = 0.60, 73 + (82/(1 + 4 exp(0.23x)))
stocks, though the trend in this latter parameter is not really
clearly expressed and needs to be interpreted with some
reservation. The enclosures P17 and C20, with signicantly lower
Corg and Ntot stocks, are strongly deviating from the general trend.
3.2.4. Biological soil fertility
Microbial biomass C and N stocks in the communal enclosures,
attaining average values of 24.5 g m2 (139 mg g1) and

3.2.2. Acidity, salinity and alkalinity status

There are no signicant differences in the soil properties related
to the acidity status of the open rangeland and the enclosures
(Table 4). Fig. 3 illustrates the high exchangeable sodium
percentages of 10 and 29 reported inside private enclosure P15
and its surrounding open rangeland, respectively. All other sites
have ESP values below 4.2, with a non-signicant trend towards
lower ESP values in the communal enclosures than in the private
enclosures.
3.2.3. Chemical soil fertility
Clearly signicant increases in topsoil Corg and Ntot
stocks (Table 4) have been noted under communal enclosure

Fig. 2. Topsoil bulk density of the open rangelands and the private (Px) and
communal (Cx) enclosures of different ages (x) since establishment (error bars
indicating the standard deviation reported in the open rangelands; all other sites
characterised by composite soil samples).

Fig. 4. Topsoil organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks of the open rangelands and
the private (Px) and communal (Cx) enclosures of different ages (x) since
establishment (error bars indicating the standard deviation reported in the open
rangelands; all other sites characterised by composite soil samples).

Author's personal copy

A. Verdoodt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129 (2009) 332339

337

4. Discussion
Largely devoid of any vegetation cover, the Njemps Flats are
seriously degraded, leaving the silt loam to silt clay topsoil
exposed to moisture loss, wind and water erosion. The rangeland topsoils were found to be alkaline with an average pH of 8.2
due to the presence of carbonates. The kind of dominant
herbaceous plants present, low grass cover and possible blowing
to off-site areas by wind, results in the absence of any litter
cover within the open rangelands and consequently also the
Corg, Ntot as well as Cmic and Nmic are very low. The high degree of
rangeland degradation in the semi-arid Njemps Flats is
furthermore conrmed by its low standing dry biomass
production. It is clear that with topsoil seed banks depleted
through severe erosion, the rehabilitation of the rangelands is
largely dependent on reseeding and tree planting, rather than on
natural regeneration.
4.1. Evidences of rangeland rehabilitation

Fig. 5. Topsoil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen stocks of the open rangelands
and the private (Px) and communal (Cx) enclosures of different ages (x) since
establishment (error bars indicating the standard deviation reported in the open
rangelands; all other sites have been represented by composite soil samples).

11.0 g m2 (63 mg g1) respectively, almost doubled compared to

the open rangeland (Table 4) that is characterised by an average
Cmic stock of 13.3 g m2 (58 mg g1) and a Nmic stock of 6.8 g m2
(29 mg g1). Increases reported in the Cmic and Nmic stocks of the
private enclosures are smaller, but still clearly signicant in
the case of Cmic (P < 0.05), attaining 19.4 g m2 or 100 mg g1.
The chronosequence of Cmic (Fig. 5a) suggests an asymptotic trend
with enclosure age (r2 = 0.97; y = 27.9  14.7 exp(0.086x))
when the relatively low values reported in the enclosures P17,
and C20 are again omitted from the regression analysis. The
slow recovery of the microbial biomass N as reported in the
youngest private enclosures, suggests a logistic (r2 = 0.91,
y = 6.5 + 5.3/(1 + 20.7 exp(0.296x))) rather than an asymptotic
trend with time. As for the other soil quality indicators, the Cmic
and Nmic stocks indicate a problematic recovery in private
enclosure P17.

ANOVA analysis proved that both private and communal nonautogenic enclosure management strategies induced biotic as well
as abiotic rehabilitation of the range unit.
Grass cover and herbaceous biomass production were most
responsive to the enclosure management, with on average 7- to
10-fold increases in grass cover, and 3- to 9-fold increases in
biomass production (Table 2). Difculties in establishing subdominant forbs species in grassland restorations, as indicated in
this case by the absence of any signicant change in forbs cover,
has been reported in many other studies as well (Baer et al., 2004).
The variation in sedges and vascular seedlings cover (Table 3),
showing not any clear trend with age since establishment neither
with enclosure management type, is related to other environmental variables such as the micro-topography of the Baringo plain
and the seed bank composition.
The rehabilitation strategy also resulted in an improved soil
quality as evidenced by the signicant changes reported in the
physical, chemical and biological soil properties (Table 4) compared to the open degraded rangelands. Unlike the marked
response of the vegetation structure, rehabilitation of the chemical
and biological soil quality was generally conned to the communal
enclosures, characterised by a twofold increase in Corg and Cmic, and
a 1.5-fold increase in Ntot and Nmic on average (Table 4). The
chemical and biological topsoil quality improvements realised in
the private enclosures are less important, but signicant with
respect to Cmic stocks, whereas there are non-signicant trends
towards higher Corg, Ntot and Nmic stocks. Whereas rangeland

Table 5
Physical, chemical and biological topsoil properties of the open rangeland (OG) and the private (xP) and communal (xC) enclosures of various ages (x) since establishment.
Site

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

Bulk density
(Mg m3)

pH

CaCO3 (%)

EC1/5
(dS m1)

ESP (%)

Corg
(g m2)

Ntot
(g m2)

Cmic
(g m2)

Nmic
(g m2)

OG
P3
P6
P8
P11
C13
P15
C16
P17
C18
C20
C22
C23

11  6
14
19
7
5
8
12
10
15
3
11
9
12

57  7
58
48
36
40
64
45
48
48
46
54
64
59

32  8
28
33
57
55
28
43
42
37
51
35
27
29

1.54  0.11
1.39
1.34
1.24
1.21
1.20
1.34
1.28
1.35
1.24
1.15
1.14
1.12

8.2  0.6
8.8
8.1
8.3
8.0
8.1
8.7
8.5
8.2
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.4

3.8  2.4
3.0
5.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
5.5
2.5
6.3
7.0

0.12  0.07
0.13
0.60
0.14
0.09
0.05
0.16
0.10
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11

1.1  1.2
1.6
3.4
4.1
1.2
0.9
10.7
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2

841  265
717
1061
997
1292
1512
1471
1452
1029
1800
1387
1772
1875

89  27
107
113
119
129
115
159
162
85
145
128
142
158

13.3  1.1
15.2
19.7
19.9
22.7
23.6
20.3
24.0
19.2
26.0
22.9
24.3
26.2

6.8  0.7
7.1
7.0
8.9
9.8
9.7
6.4
10.6
6.9
11.9
10.4
12.1
11.1

Author's personal copy

338

A. Verdoodt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129 (2009) 332339

enclosure furthermore induced signicant reductions in topsoil

bulk density of both private and communal enclosures, it did not
affect the acidity status of the topsoil neither led to signicant
changes in granulometry.
4.2. Impact of enclosure management on rangeland rehabilitation
The absence of dung inside the communal enclosures illustrates
the limited entrance of cattle for long periods of time, and contrasts
with the unaltered dung cover inside the private enclosures
compared to the open access rangelands (Table 2), reecting
important differences in enclosure management. Large discrepancies in capital investment between communal and private
enclosures furthermore affect the land preparation techniques
and seed mixture quality.
The impact of management on rangeland rehabilitation was
assessed by combining the ANOVA with regression analyses,
allowing discriminating time effects from management effects and
thus explaining the signicant differences reported in the
herbaceous biomass, grass and bare ground cover, BD, Corg, Cmic
and Nmic under both types of enclosure management (Tables 24).
The fast recovery of the herbaceous vegetation (Ruiz-Jaen and
Aide, 2005; Su et al., 2005; Mekuria et al., 2007) is characterised by
an asymptotic increase of the grass cover, obtaining a more or less
constant cover of about 50% after 13 years of establishment.
Regression analysis however, reveals a large discrepancy in
herbaceous biomass production of the private and communal
enclosures, which cannot be solely explained by time effects. More
frequent grazing as evidenced by the presence of dung cover
associated with uncontrolled grass cutting activities seriously
restrict the biomass production recovery in the private enclosures.
Unlike the obvious management effect on biomass production,
no clear evidence of improved soil rehabilitation under communal
management compared to the actions taken by private farmers
could be identied based on the present chronosequence. The
asymptotic decrease in BD within the enclosures results from the
seedbed preparation loosening the crusted topsoil, followed by
vegetation restoration with extensive shallow root systems and
litter input. This furthermore also triggered the biological activity,
reected in the asymptotic increase in Cmic stocks, though the soils
however prove to be decient in N, as seen in the logistic increases
in Nmic, Corg and Ntot. In future experimental set-ups, it can be
recommended to include a higher number of recent enclosures,
enabling a further validation of these suggested trends.
The chronosequence did however identify private as well as
communal enclosures where the ecosystem rehabilitation is
clearly hampered. The high ESP restricts the physical, chemical
and biological soil quality of private enclosure P15 (Table 5) as well
as the herbaceous biomass production (Table 3). Both the
rehabilitation of soil and vegetation prove obviously decient in
the oldest private enclosure P17, which needs more careful
monitoring of the grazing and grass cutting activities in future. Yet,
also the communal enclosures are subjected to variable success,
with enclosure C20 showing an, at the moment inexplicable, less
satisfactory rehabilitation of the biomass production, the Corg, Ntot,
Cmic and Nmic stocks.
4.3. Assessment of the rehabilitation success
Compared to the herbaceous biomass production of 2100
3900 kg ha1 in the national parks and research stations of the
semi-arid Kenyan rangelands with similar bimodal rainfall
patterns (de Leeuw and Nyambaka, 1988), the herbaceous biomass
production has not yet completely restored in the private
enclosures (9002500 kg ha1). The records obtained in the

communal enclosures on the other hand, ranging from 2000 to

6340 kg ha1, prove a successful rehabilitation strategy.
Autogenic recovery of degraded rangelands generally results in
very slow rehabilitation of the chemical soil quality. The adopted
enclosure management strategy in the Baringo rangelands, involving reseeding of the vegetation, clearly succeeds in signicantly
increasing both the microbial biomass and Corg and Ntot contents.
Cmic contents ranging from 160 to 326 mg C g1 were reported by
Holt (1997) and Northup et al. (1999) under heavy and light grazing
in sandy soils of semi-arid Queensland, Australia. Consequently,
though there are differences in Cmic in response to different grass
species, comparison of the microbial biomass contents attained in
the Baringo rangeland enclosures (73156 mg g1 soil) with literature data suggest that the higher Cmic noted inside the enclosures is
still relatively low. Also the reported Corg and Ntot stocks are very low,
even after 20 years of rangeland enclosure, and conrm the slow
rehabilitation of the chemical soil quality.
5. Conclusion
The communal enclosure strategy focussing on seedbed
preparation and installation of micro-catchments, seeding a
selection of drought-resistant herbaceous species, and strict
control of cattle grazing, proves to be successful in improving
both rangeland vegetation and soil health. A good vegetation cover
and high above ground biomass production have been reported
within these enclosures, resulting in a very sharp contrast between
the communal enclosures and the surrounding rangeland. The
presence of fresh or partly decomposed plant litter is a positive
indicator of restoration success due to its tremendous effects on
organic matter input, enhancing biological activity and thus
promoting nutrient cycling and the formation of good soil
structure. As such, critical soil functions such as the capture,
storage and supply of water, and the availability of roothold for
plants are rehabilitating, increasing the ecosystem resilience to
natural disturbances such as drought. Nevertheless, the establishment of (leguminous) forb species and the chemical and biological
soil quality obtained after more than 20 years of communal
enclosure are both poor and reect a very slow rehabilitation of
especially the soil quality under the proposed management
practices.
Whereas the ANOVA analysis suggests a signicantly lower
rehabilitation success in the private enclosures with respect to
herbaceous biomass production, grass cover, bulk density, Corg,
Ntot, Cmic and Nmic, the chronosequence analysis only conrms a
signicant discrepancy in rehabilitation of the herbaceous biomass
production. The variability in all other biotic and abiotic indicators
can be explained by asymptotic or logistic increases with time,
though the results need to be interpreted with care as more
information on especially recent communal enclosures is required
to conrm the suggested distinction between management and
time effects.
Further analysis of the chronosequences reveals obvious
deviations from the restoration success in both enclosure management types. This could be explained by changes in the available
inputs and techniques since enclosure initiation in 1982 (communal enclosure C20), or actual variations in enclosure management, affecting the frequency of grazing and grass cutting among
others (private enclosure P17). In the case of private enclosure P15,
the rehabilitation is clearly restricted by the high ESP. As such, this
study reveals the importance of enclosure management, which
needs to focus on both biotic and abiotic ecocystem processes, as
well as carefully monitor the grazing and grass cutting activities in
order to attain successful restoration of the severely degraded
semi-arid rangeland of the Njemps Flats.

Author's personal copy

A. Verdoodt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129 (2009) 332339

Acknowledgments
This study was made possible through the nancial support
provided by the Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR) of Belgium
in support of the MSc programme of the second author at Ghent
University. We are indebted to all the private enclosure farmers
who warmly welcomed us to their elds. Special thanks go to the
staff of the Range Management Section, Department of Land
Resources Management & Agricultural Technology, University of
Nairobi, for kind assistance during the eldwork and sample
analysis.
References
Abebe, M.H., Oba, G., Angassa, A., Weladji, R.B., 2006. The role of area enclosures and
fallow age in the restoration of plant diversity in northern Ethiopia. African
Journal of Ecology 44, 507514.
Abule, E., Snyman, H.A., Smit, G.N., 2007. Rangeland evaluation in the middle Awash
valley of Ethiopia. I. Herbaceous vegetation cover. Journal of Arid Environments
70 (2), 253271.
Anderson, J.M., Ingram, J.S.I., 1993. Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility: A Handbook of
Methods. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, England, 221 pp.
Asefa, D.T., Oba, G., Weladji, R.B., Colman, J.E., 2002. An assessment of restoration of
biodiversity in degraded high mountain grazing lands in northern Ethiopia.
Land Degradation and Development 14, 2538.
Baer, S.G., Blair, J.M., Collins, S.L., Knapp, A.K., 2004. Plant community responses to
resource availability and heterogeneity during restoration. Oecologia 139,
617629.
Brady, W.W., Mitchell, J.E., Bonham, C.D., Cook, J.W., 1995. Assessing the power of
the point-line transect to monitor changes in plant basal cover. Journal of Range
Management 48, 187190.
Bremner, J.M., Mulvaney, C.S., 1982. Total soil nitrogenKjedahl method. In: Page,
A.L., Millner, R.H., Keeney, D.R. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical
and Microbiological Properties. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, WI, USA.
Brookes, P.C., Landman, A., Pruden, G., Jenkinson, D.S., 1985. Chloroform fumigation
and release of soil nitrogen; a rapid extraction method to measure microbial
biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 17, 837842.
de Groot, P., Field-Juma, A., Hall, D.O., 1992. Reclaiming the Land: Revegetation in
Semi-arid Kenya. ACTS Press, Nairobi, 105 pp.
de Leeuw, P.N., Nyambaka, R., 1988. The prediction of rangeland production
from rainfall data in arid and semi-arid Eastern Africa. In: Pasture Network
for Eastern and Southern Africa (PANESA). African forage plant
genetic resources, evaluation of forage germplasm and extensive livestock
production systems. Proceedings of the Third Workshop held at the International Conference Centre, Arusha, Tanzania, 2730 April 1987. ILCA, Addis
Ababa.
Descheemaecker, K., Nyssen, J., Rossi, J., Poesen, J., Haile, M., Raes, D., Muys, B.,
Moeyersons, J., Deckers, J., 2006. Sediment deposition and pedogenesis in
exclosures in the Tigray highlands. Ethiopia Geoderma 132, 291314.
Downing, B.H., 1978. Environmental consequences of agricultural expansion in
South Africa since 1850. South African Journal of Science 74, 420422.
Dregne, H.E., 1992. Degradation and Restoration of Arid Lands. International Centre
for Arid and Semi-arid Studies. Texas Tech. University.
Ekaya, W.N., Kinyamario, J.I., Karue, C.N., 2001. Abiotic and herbaceous vegetation
characteristics of an arid rangeland in Kenya. African Journal of Range and
Forage Science 18, 18.
FAO-UNESCO, 1974. Soil Map of the World, 1; 5,000,000 vol. I: Legend. UNESCO,
Paris, 57 pp.
Herlocker, D., Shaabani, S.B., Buigutt, K.S.A. (Eds.), 1994. Range Management
Handbook of Kenya, vol. 1, Introduction of Range Development in Kenya..
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing, Nairobi.
Hickley, P., Muchiri, M., Boar, R., Britton, R., Adams, C., Gichuru, N., Harper, D., 2004.
Habitat degradation and subsequent shery collapse in Lakes Naivasha and
Baringo, Kenya. International Journal of Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 4,
503517.
Holt, J.A., 1997. Grazing pressure and soil carbon, microbial biomass and enzyme
activities in semi-arid northeastern Australia. Applied Soil Ecology 5,
143149.

339

Hongo, A., Matsumoto, S., Takahashi, H., Zou, H., Cheng, J., Jia, H., Zhao, Z., 1995.
Effect of exclosure and topography on rehabilitation of overgrazed shrubsteppe in the Loess Plateau of Northwest China. Restoration Ecology 3, 1825.
Jenkinson, D.S., 1988. Determination of microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in
soil. In: Wilson, J.R. (Ed.), Advances in Nitrogen Cycling in Agricultural Ecosystems. CAB, Wallingford.
King, E.G., Hobbs, R.J., 2006. Identifying linkages among conceptual models of
ecosystem degradation and restoration: towards and integrative framework.
Restoration Ecology 14 (3), 369378.
Kipkorir, E.C., 2002. Analysis of rainfall climate on Njemps Flats, Baringo District,
Kenya. Journal of Arid Environments 50, 445458.
McIntosh, P.D., Allen, R.B., Scott, N., 1997. Effects of exclosure and management on
biomass and soil nutrient pools in seasonally dry high country, New Zealand.
Journal of Environmental Management 51, 169186.
Mekuria, W., Veldkamp, E., Haile, M., Nyssen, J., Muys, B., Gebrehiwot, K., 2007.
Effectiveness of exclosures to restore degraded soils as a result of overgrazing in
Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments 69, 270284.
Meyerhoff, E., 1991. Taking Stock: Changing Livelihoods in a Agropastoral Community. ACTS Press, Nairobi, 58 pp.
Monger, H.C., Bestelmeyer, B.T., 2006. The soil-geomorphic template and biotic
change in arid and semi-arid ecosystems. Journal of Arid Environments 65,
207218.
Nelson, R.E., 1982. Carbonate and gypsum. In: Page, A.L., Millner, R.H., Keeney, D.R.
(Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 181197.
Northup, B.K., Brown, J.R., Holt, J.A., 1999. Grazing impacts on the spatial distribution of soil microbial biomass around tussock grasses in a tropical grassland.
Applied Soil Ecology 13, 259270.
Perevolotsky, A., 1991. Goats or scapegoatsthe overgrazing controversy in Piura,
Peru. Small Ruminant Research 6, 199215.
Rhoades, J.D., 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, 2nd ed. American Society of
Agronomy, Madison.
Rosenschein, A., Tietema, T., Hall, D.O., 1999. Biomass measurement and monitoring
of trees and shrubs in a semi-arid region of central Kenya. Journal of Arid
Environments 42, 97116.
Ruiz-Jaen, M.C., Aide, T.M., 2005. Restoration success: how is it being measured?
Restoration Ecology 13, 569577.
Sanyu Consultants Inc., 2001. The Study on the Integrated Rural Development
Project in the Baringo Semi-arid Land Area. Master Plan. Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Snyman, H.A., 2003. Revegetation of bare patches in a semi-arid rangeland of South
Africa: an evaluation of various techniques. Journal of Arid Environments 55,
417432.
Society for Ecological Restoration International - Science & Policy Working Group,
2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society for
Ecological Restoration International, Tucson, Consulted at www.ser.org.
Su, Y.Z., Li, Y.L., Cui, J.Y., Zhao, W.Z., 2005. Inuences of continuous grazing and
livestock exclusion on soil properties in a degraded sandy grassland, Inner
Mongolia, northern China. Catena 59, 267278.
Sutherland, R.A., Bryan, R.B., Wyendes, D.O., 1991. Analysis of monthly and annual
rainfall climate in a semi-arid environment, Kenya. Journal of Arid Environments 20, 257275.
Tefera, S., Snyman, H.A., Smit, G.N., 2007. Rangeland dynamics in southern Ethiopia:
(1) botanical composition of grasses and soil characteristics in relation to landuse and distance from water in semi-arid Borana rangelands. Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2), 429442.
Thom, D.J., Martin, N.L., 1983. Ecology and production in Baringo-Kerio valley,
Kenya. The Geographical Review 73 (1), 1529.
USDA-SCS/GoK, 1978. Reconnaissance Soil Survey. Lake Baringo-Kerio Valley Area.
Government of Kenya, Ministry of Agriculture Project Evaluation and Management Division, Nairobi.
Vance, E.D., Brookes, P.C., Jenkison, D.S., 1987. An extraction method for measuring
soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 19, 703707.
van den Berg, L., Kellner, K., 2005. Restoring degraded patches in a semi-arid
rangeland of South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 61, 497511.
Van Ranst, E., Verloo, M., Demeyer, A., Pauwels, J.M., 1999. Manual for the Soil
Chemistry and Fertility Laboratory-Analytical Methods for Soils and Plants,
Equipment, and Management of Consumables. NUGI 835, Belgium, 243 pp.
Whisenant, S.G., Thurow, T.L., Maranz, S.J., 1995. Initiating autogenic restoration on
shallow semi-arid sites. Restoration Ecology 3, 6167.
Wu, J., Joergensen, R.G., Pommerening, B., Chaussod, R., Brookes, P.C., 1990. Measurement of soil microbial biomass C by fumigationextractionan automated
procedure. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 22, 11671169.