Coupling of soil regeneration, food security, and nutrition outcomes inAndean subsistence agroecosystems: Supplementary Information
Detailed methods for empirical data gathering on manure input rates, crop yields, and child nutrition
Manure inputs to fields.
Crop and manure sampling was undertaken to provide an empirical basis of soil fertility management and yields on a subset of farmers across the range of environments encountered in the research area. Data about qualitative yields and phosphorus content of manure was then used scale up the findings about soil fertility management and production from the direct sampling to a larger number of communities. (1). Soil available P also varied strongly across this near/far management gradient (2), and P is therefore a limiting nutrient in these cropping systems. As a result, farmers’ ability to deploy P in manure likely supports higher yields in these systems and would therefore drive production and food security goals.
Prior to the survey, manure P inputs were measured on farms of households in the same area and at the same range of elevations as the survey communities. Seven of the nine communities where manure sampling was carried out were communities included in the survey. See table S1 below for the manure results for phosphorus (P) content Two systems of manure application are in use by farmers in the survey area and more broadly throughout the Bolivian Andes. At lower elevations (2500-3400 masl), fields receive two to four nights of manuring when animals are corralled at night in fields prior to cropping (‘field-corral’). At elevations generally above 3500 masl a second ‘fixed-corral’ system is used: manure accumulates over an entire year in fixed sleeping pens, and is then transported to fields using pack animals for direct application to crops at seeding.
For the field-corral system, manure was gathered from three stratified, randomly selected quadrats of 0.25 m2 within the corral after at least two nights of corralling. Small amounts of soil (<2%) adhering to manure was included to maximize capture of manure and urine nutrients. Manure was weighed and subsampled for dry matter (DM) calculation and nutrient analysis (below). Mean DM per 0.25 m2 for three quadrats gave a field-level nutrient application rate. The nightly rate was multiplied by the intended number of nights of manuring to give a total manure input rate. See below for analysis methods.
Fixed-corral manuring using manure from household pens was measured late in the dry season before potato and maize seeding. Small, regularly spaced piles of manure are placed on fields at planting, so that manuring rate could be measured by estimating the weight of 15-20 piles within rectangular control areas. Manure weight in each rectangle was estimated by weighing two piles with a calibrated spring scale. Manure bulk density was then calculated as mean weight divided by mean volume of the piles (modeled as cones with rounded tops, using their heights and average diameters). The weight of remaining piles in the field area was then found by multiplying the volume of each pile (measured as for the weighed piles) by the manure bulk density. Manuring rate was computed as the total DM of the piles divided by the rectangle area. A bulked sample was taken from all piles in the field for nutrient analysis.
Manure from field sampling was dried in paper bags on pavement in strong sunlight (45ºC), followed by oven-drying at 58 ºC. Dry weight over field fresh weight gave DM content. Total P in crops and manures was determined using nitric acid digestion followed by P analysis by ICP-AES (3). Manure nutrient contents, elevation, and near/far status of field where sampled is shown below as table SI1.
Table S1. Manure sampling results for phosphorus (P) content used to derive a mean P content and calculate P inputs from survey-derived manure application rates. Mean, median, and standard deviation of the 66 manure samples are shown at bottom. Samples were taken in the same geographic region where the survey was carried out. Elevation and field location (near to or far from farmer dwellings) of the sampling sites are shown in the left hand column, in order to demonstrate that manure sampling was widely distributed throughout communities representative of the communities where surveys were taken.
Elevation / near/far field where sampled / %P` / g P kg-13360 / far / 0.53 / 5.3
3350 / far / 0.49 / 4.9
3420 / far / 0.48 / 4.8
3450 / far / 0.54 / 5.4
3400 / far / 0.29 / 2.9
2780 / far / 0.29 / 2.9
2970 / far / 0.42 / 4.2
2920 / far / 0.39 / 3.9
3330 / far / 0.7 / 7.0
2850 / near / 0.59 / 5.9
2830 / near / 0.41 / 4.1
2830 / near / 0.36 / 3.6
2840 / near / 0.46 / 4.6
2840 / near / 0.32 / 3.2
2850 / near / 0.27 / 2.7
2870 / near / 0.33 / 3.3
2880 / near / 0.34 / 3.4
2970 / far / 0.59 / 5.9
3030 / far / 0.48 / 4.8
2980 / far / 0.45 / 4.5
3000 / far / 0.48 / 4.8
2990 / far / 0.53 / 5.3
3050 / far / 0.61 / 6.1
3000 / far / 0.43 / 4.3
3050 / far / 0.44 / 4.4
2970 / near / 0.58 / 5.8
3085 / near / 0.28 / 2.8
3085 / near / 0.27 / 2.7
3080 / near / 0.38 / 3.8
3080 / near / 0.42 / 4.2
3180 / near / 0.88 / 8.8
3480 / far / 0.39 / 3.9
3430 / far / 0.2 / 2
3410 / far / 0.47 / 4.7
3430 / far / 0.41 / 4.1
3270 / far / 0.36 / 3.6
3450 / far / 0.41 / 4.1
3267 / far / 0.44 / 4.4
3200 / far / 0.37 / 3.7
3980 / far / 0.4 / 4.0
3970 / far / 0.32 / 3.2
3860 / far / 0.39 / 3.9
3860 / far / 0.37 / 3.7
3910 / far / 0.4 / 4.0
3890 / far / 0.33 / 3.3
3740 / near / 0.32 / 3.2
3810 / far / 0.34 / 3.4
3690 / far / 0.44 / 4.4
3740 / far / 0.29 / 2.9
3710 / far / 0.43 / 4.3
3730 / near / 0.39 / 3.9
3660 / near / 0.52 / 5.2
3750 / far / 0.44 / 4.4
Table S1 (continued)
3740 / far / 0.44 / 4.4
3620 / far / 0.29 / 2.9
3640 / near / 0.33 / 3.3
3680 / far / 0.33 / 3.3
3610 / far / 0.26 / 2.6
3660 / far / 0.37 / 3.7
3920 / far / 0.32 / 3.2
3940 / near / 0.35 / 3.5
3950 / near / 0.35 / 3.5
3940 / near / 0.36 / 3.6
4040 / far / 0.33 / 3.3
4090 / far / 0.31 / 3.1
3950 / near / 0.33 / 3.3
mean / 0.407 / 4.07
Std. deviation / 0.11 / 1.13
median / 0.390 / 3.90
Crop and residue exports
Crops and residues were weighed from three random, stratified quadrats in each field (1 m2 for cereals, 3 m2 for other crops). Harvested weight was divided by the quadrat area, giving yield (kg•ha-1), and the mean of the three quadrat DM yields was calculated. For maize, stalks and ears with grain were weighed separately, and subsamples of two ears and two stalks were taken to measure DM and nutrient content. Dry subsample grain and stalk weight allowed calculation of yields from total ear and stalk weight. Maize stalk biomass was added to cob and husk DM to calculate residue export for each quadrat. For broadcast forage oats, wheat, and barley, mature whole shoots from three one-m2 quadrats per field were weighed. A random subsample of 25 stems was dried and threshed to calculate grain and straw DM yields per quadrat. Maize and cereal residues were treated as exports reflecting local practices of threshing and feeding residues off-field. Crops and weeds were cut at 3cm height to reflect post-harvest grazing of fields.
Survey methods for yields and manure sampling
Measured crop yields and manure applications from sampling were divided into quartiles and assigned the qualitative values of poor, good, and very good yields or manure application. Farmers were asked about crop yields in the past three years and three independent assessments of yields were made: 1) A direct survey response of kg of crop removed from the field at harvest, referenced to the area of the field that was independently determined by asking how much potato seed was used in the field at the start of the survey; 2) A statement of the ratio of kg harvested: kg seeded which is a typical way of describing yields among farmers in the region, reference to typical seeding rates for that crop in the area; and 3) a qualitative statement of yield, either “very poor”, “poor”, “good” or “very good” referenced to the ranges generated from field sampling. The mean of yields 1) and 2) was used as a yield if there was agreement between these two measures, defined as (standard deviation/mean) for the two measures being less than 0.75, and in addition if these two agreed with the qualitative yield given by farmers. If this condition was not met then whichever of 1) or 2) agreed better with the qualitative estimate was used, and if no agreement among the three measures was found or there was no data at all regarding yield, the household’s record was discarded. Likewise, manuring rates were measured via a survey response of the type of manuring used (application of manure from fixed pens versus field corralling, see above), the number of sacks of manure or nights of corralling used, referenced to the area of the field calculated from the amount of potato seed used on the field; and a qualitative statement of the level of manuring reference to the quartiles of manuring rates from field sampling. For fields with agreement between the qualitative and quantitative estimates of manuring, a P application rate (kg·ha-1) was calculated using the quantitative rate mean P concentration in manure DM from field sampling.Lack of agreement and missing data for yields and manuring led to the discarding of 38 records and resulted in the final survey sample size of 297. All such data cleaning on yields and manure application was completed prior to data analysis.
Nutrition and Anthropometry Assessments
Child dietary assessment. Dietary diversity and feeding frequency scores that in part composed the ICFI were calculated using data from quantitative 24-h dietary recalls (4) and 7-d food group frequency questionnaires. Information on the type, amount, consistency and preparation method of foods fed to children, including food fed outside the home, as well as the amount left unconsumed by children was collected to estimate children’s dietary intakes on the day preceding interviews. The frequency of feeding liquid, soft, semi-solid, and solid foods was also recorded. Standard serving dishes were presented to caregivers so they could directly indicate the amount of food served to the child as well as the amount left in the child’s dish after finishing the meal. Caregivers were also asked in detail about any foods fed to the child outside the home throughout the day. The ICFI was validated for this population using data on the nutrient and energy adequacy of child diets based on the data collected from these quantitative 24-h dietary recalls.
Anthropometry. Child heights and lengths were measured by trained anthropometrists child measuring boards (Shorr productions, Olney, MD, USA) and child weight data were collected using Seca spring scales (Seca Medical Scales and Measuring Systems, Hamburg, Germany) calibrated daily using standardized weights and recalibrated between individual weighings. Intra‐ and inter‐anthropometrist error in measuring child length were assessed during anthropometry reliability trials prior to both survey rounds. Mean intra‐observer measurement imprecision for child length for the four survey teams, expressed as the technical error of measurement (TEM), was 0.19 and 0.29 in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Mean inter‐observer TEM was 0.33 in 2009 and 0.42 in 2010. These figures are within the upper limits of total TEM for a high level of reliability (5). Anthropometric indices (i.e. height‐for‐age, weight‐for‐age, and weight‐for‐height Z-scores) were calculated in SAS using macros provided by the World Health Organization based on data from the Multicentre Growth Reference Study (6).
References for the online supplementary information SI
- Vanek, S. J., & Drinkwater, L. E. (2013). Environmental, Social, and Management Drivers of Soil NutrientMass Balances in an Extensive Andean Cropping System. Ecosystems, 16(8), 1517–1535.
- Vanek, S, 2011. Legume-phosphorus synergies in mountain agroecosystems: field nutrient balances, soil fertility gradients, and effects on legume attributes and nutrient cycling in the Bolivian Andes. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
- Kalra, YP, 1998. Handbook of Reference Methods for Plant Analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 300p.
- Berti PR, Jones AD, Cruz Y, Larrea S, Borja R, Sherwood S. Assessment and characterization of the diet of an isolated population in the Bolivian Andes. Am J Hum Biol. 2010;22(6):741–9.
- Ulijaszek SJ. Measurement error. In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Growth and Development (Ulijaszek SJ, Johnston FE, Preece MA, eds.), p. 28. UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
- World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. WHO child Growth Standards: Length/Height for Age, Weight for Age, Weight for Length, Weight for Height and Body Mass Index for Age. Methods and Development. World Health Organization: Geneva, 2006.
Livestock Owned
(TLU, tropical livestock units) / Cropped land area (Ha) / Mean manure P application in near and far fields (kg P Ha-1) / Whole-farm standardized yield of staples (potato, maize, cereals)
N / 289 / 285 / 280 / 265
Mean response / 7.9 / 0.78 / 12.9 / -0.019
RMSE / 4.5 / 0.37 / 6.3 / 1.50
Regressors / Coefficient / Signif.
p-value / Coefficient / Signif.
p-value / Coefficient / Signif.
p-value / Coefficient / Signif.
p-value
NPP (kg C ha-1) / 1.77 x 10-3 / 0.016 * / -- / 4.5 x 10-3 / 0.0002 *** / --
Elevation, masl / -- / -0.049 / 0.09 + / -- / --
Distance to town (km) / -- / -7.5 x 10-3 / 0.12 NS / -- / 0.052 / 0.085 NS
Population density
(HHs km-2) / -0.122 / 0.002 ** / 0.01 / 0.11 NS / -- / --
% Flat terrain (% area with slope < 12° ) / -0.013 / 0.028 / 0.006 / <0.0001 / -- / --
Livestock owned (TLU) / -- / 0.027 / <0.0001 / 0.33 / 0.0003 *** / --
Cropped land area (Ha) / 3.58 / <0.0001 / -2.31 / 0.015 * / -0.52 / 0.025 *
Mean fallow duration of near/far survey fields (yr) / -- / -- / -0.44 / 0.037 * / 0.12 / 0.039 *
Table S2. Stepwise regression outputs for regressions relating farm assets, soil P inputs, and standardized whole-farm standardized yields of crops to community environment and assets. Significance values indicated by symbols are +, p0.10;*, p <0.05; **,p <0.01; and ***, p <0.001.
Soil Fertility and Food Security in the Bolivian Andes: SI
Table S3. Factor analyses used to test multivariate alignment within environment, soil management, and production variables from survey data and geographic analyses of community environment. Percent variability summarized by each factor is shown in parentheses, and variables within each factor with over 50% loading on the factor are shown in bold. Variables that group together within the factor analysis are likely to be significantly correlated in univariate analyses which were undertaken separately (see text). Table 2c omits a third factor summarizing cereal yields (22% variation), a variable that lacked significance in FS and nutrition regressions.
2a. Community environment / Distance/NPP(47%) / Elevation
(34%)
Elevation (masl) / -0.13 / 0.99
NPP (g C·m-2y-1) / 0.86 / -0.02
Distance to market town (km) / 0.80 / -0.21
2b. Soil management / Fallow length
(37%) / Manure P rate
(31%)
Near field fallow length / 0.85 / -0.02
Far field fallow length / 0.84 / 0.00
Near field manure P rate
(kg P·ha-1y-1) / -0.18 / 0.78
2c. Yield and total production / Farm production (27%) / Survey field yields
(25%)
Far field per- ha yield
(standardized) / 0.14 / 0.77
Near field per- ha yield
(standardized) / 0.04 / 0.79
Farm mean cereal yield (kg·ha-1) / 0.02 / -0.01
Farm mean potato yield (kg·ha-1) / 0.91 / 0.04
Total farm staple
crop production (kg) / 0.73 / 0.21
Table S4. Factor analysis combining Nutrition and Food Security, community environment, household assets, management, and production variables.
Factor 1 (12.2%) / Factor 2 (11.7%) / Factor 3 (11.5%) / Factor 4 (10.4%)Household food security (-HFIAS) / 0.49 / 0.24
Household diet diversity (HDDS) / -0.14 / 0.12 / 0.10 / 0.56
Child Growth (Height for age, HAZ) / -0.01 / 0.61
Child Care and Feeding (ICFI) / -0.16 / 0.27 / 0.66 / 0.21
Distance to town/NPP§ / -0.50 / 0.26 / 0.16
Elevation (masl) / -0.12 / 0.76 / 0.11
Community flatness (% land <12° slope) / 0.29 / 0.17 / -0.21 / 0.54
Population density (households·km-2) / -0.22 / 0.70
Animals owned (TLU) / 0.58 / 0.45 / -0.20
Cropped acreage (Ha) / 0.78 / -0.11 / 0.24
CropDiversity (number of crops) / 0.52 / 0.22 / -0.13
Staple crop production§ / 0.63 / -0.16
Fallow length§ (years) / 0.67 / 0.19 / -0.25
Manure P rate§ (kg·ha-1) / 0.21 / -0.24 / 0.56 / -0.13
Survey field yields§ / 0.15 / 0.39 / 0.35
§ Factors derived from separate factor analyses for environment (Table 2a, main article text), management (Table 2b) and production (Table 2c).
Figure S1. Factor biplots for the factor analysis combining Nutrition and Food Security, community environment, household assets, management, and production variables (Table S2). S1a: Factor 2 versus factor 1; S1b: factor 2 vs. factor 3.
Soil Fertility and Food Security in the Bolivian Andes: SI
Elevation / Distance to market town / % land below 12° slope / % land below 12° slope in 500 m radius of community / Average NPP in community territory / Density of households per km2 / Number of livestock owned, TLU / Crop diversity (# of crops) / Total cropped area, Ha / Total staple production kg / Mean standardized yield across crops, kg·ha-1 / Mother’s age / Number of children / Fallow length of near field / Fallow length of far field / Manure P in for near field, kg P·Ha-1 y-1 / Manure P in for far field, kg P·Ha-1 y-1 / Standardized yield of near field / Standardized yield of far field / Factor analysis: fallow length / Factor analysis: manure P inputs / Factor analysis: total production/ whole farm mean potato yield / Factor analysis: near and far field yields, kg·ha-1 / Factor analysis: whole-farm cereal yields / Reported food insecurity (HFIAS) / Household diet diversity (HDDS) / Child growth, height for age (HAZ) / Child care and feeding (ICFI)Elevation / 1
Distance to market town / -0.18* / 1
% land below 12° slope / 0.13 / -0.09 / 1
% land below 12° slope in 500 m radius of community / -0.15* / -0.13 / 0.79*** / 1
Average NPP in community territory / -0.42*** / 0.37 *** / -0.06 / 0.14* / 1
Density of households per km2 / -0.01 / 0.04 / 0.29*** / 0.18* / 0.24*** / 1
Number of livestock owned, TLU / 0.02 / -0.04 / -0.08 / -0.01 / 0.11 / -0.13 / 1
Crop diversity (# of crops) / 0.02 / -0.04 / -0.08 / -0.09 / 0.03 / 0.03 / 0.26*** / 1
Total cropped area, Ha / -0.04 / -0.13 / 0.33*** / 0.30*** / 0.01 / 0.14 / 0.28*** / 0.36*** / 1
Total staple production kg / -0.06 / 0.00 / 0.25*** / 0.31 *** / 0.08 / 0.09 / 0.33*** / 0.22** / 0.59*** / 1
Mean standardized yield across crops, kg·ha-1 / 0.05 / 0.09 / 0.02 / 0.10 / 0.05 / -0.04 / 0.06 / 0.08 / -0.13 / 0.51 *** / 1
Mother’s age / -0.05 / 0.01 / 0.00 / 0.04 / -0.04 / -0.03 / 0.13 / 0.07 / 0.09 / 0.05 / -0.03 / 1
Number of children / -0.21** / 0.03 / -0.04 / 0.06 / 0.08 / -0.01 / 0.12 / 0.05 / 0.13 / 0.01 / -0.06 / 0.72 / 1
Fallow length of near field / 0.49*** / -0.06 / 0.09 / 0.01 / -0.15* / -0.12 / 0.05 / 0.05 / 0.03 / 0.04 / 0.05 / -0.03 / -0.11 / 1
Fallow length of far field / 0.36*** / -0.14 / -0.10 / -0.16* / -0.07 / -0.11 / 0.09 / 0.15 / -0.02 / 0.07 / 0.16* / -0.10 / -0.15* / 0.38*** / 1
Manure P in for near field, kg P·Ha-1 y-1 / -0.07 / 0.18* / 0.03 / 0.03 / 0.18* / 0.03 / 0.16* / -0.01* / -0.02 / 0.10 / 0.03 / -0.03 / 0.04 / -0.15* / -0.07 / 1
Manure P in for far field, kg P·Ha-1 y-1 / -0.01 / 0.01 / -0.17* / -0.14 / 0.17* / -0.04 / 0.30*** / 0.14 / 0.01 / 0.08 / 0.00 / -0.06 / -0.06 / 0.06 / 0.03 / 0.24*** / 1
Standardized yield of near field / -0.02 / 0.08 / 0.07 / 0.06 / 0.05 / 0.08 / 0.13 / 0.03 / 0.12** / 0.23** / 0.08 / 0.05 / 0.02 / -0.04 / 0.03 / 0.10 / 0.13 / 1
Standardized yield of far field / -0.06 / 0.04 / 0.04 / 0.16* / 0.10 / 0.02 / 0.13 / -0.12 / 0.05** / 0.20** / 0.07 / 0.03 / 0.03 / 0.01 / -0.02 / 0.08 / 0.06 / 0.22** / 1
Factor analysis: fallow length / 0.51*** / -0.16* / -0.04 / -0.12 / -0.14 / -0.11 / 0.07 / 0.13 / 0.00 / 0.05 / 0.12 / -0.10 / -0.17* / 0.79*** / 0.84*** / -0.22** / 0.14* / 0.00 / -0.02 / 1
Factor analysis: manure P inputs / -0.05 / 0.12 / -0.09 / -0.07 / 0.23 ** / -0.01 / 0.30 *** / 0.09 / 0.00 / 0.11 / 0.02 / -0.06 / -0.01 / -0.06 / 0.00 / 0.78*** / 0.80*** / 0.15* / 0.09 / -0.03 / 1
Factor analysis: total production/ whole farm potato yield / -0.13 / -0.01 / 0.18* / 0.28*** / 0.09 / 0.05 / 0.17* / 0.10 / 0.30 *** / 0.77 *** / 0.61*** / -0.03 / 0.00 / 0.01 / 0.03 / 0.05 / 0.03 / 0.08 / 0.13 / 0.02 / 0.05 / 1
Factor analysis: near and far field yields, kg·ha-1 / -0.05 / 0.07 / 0.08 / 0.12 / 0.10 / 0.07 / 0.16* / -0.05 / 0.14** / 0.23** / 0.00 / 0.05 / 0.03 / -0.03 / 0.00 / 0.12 / 0.13 / 0.79*** / 0.77*** / -0.02 / 0.16* / 0.04 / 1
Factor analysis: whole-farm cereal yields / 0.13 / 0.04 / -0.05 / -0.04 / -0.01 / -0.06 / 0.19** / 0.22* / 0.02 / 0.41*** / 0.58*** / 0.01 / -0.06 / 0.08 / 0.19 / 0.08 / 0.08 / 0.05 / -0.05 / 0.16* / 0.10 / 0.07 / -0.03 / 1
Reported food insecurity (HFIAS) / -0.24*** / 0.11 / -0.09 / 0.04 / 0.17* / 0.03 / -0.14* / 0.13 / -0.03 / -0.13 / -0.11 / 0.14 / 0.19** / -0.02 / -0.05** / 0.02 / 0.12 / 0.01 / -0.04 / -0.03 / 0.09 / -0.12 / 0.00 / -0.02 / 1
Household diet diversity (HDDS) / 0.10 / 0.03 / 0.02 / -0.10 / -0.12 / 0.19** / -0.07 / 0.08 / 0.03 / -0.01 / -0.03 / -0.08 / -0.08 / -0.15* / -0.05 / 0.02 / -0.13 / 0.10 / 0.06 / -0.11 / -0.07 / -0.07 / 0.11 / 0.02 / -0.15* / 1
Child growth, height for age (HAZ) / 0.01 / -0.01 / -0.01 / -0.01 / 0.07 / 0.01 / 0.13 / 0.09 / -0.10 / -0.06 / -0.03 / -0.20** / -0.19** / -0.02 / 0.08 / 0.11 / 0.18* / 0.07 / 0.01 / 0.04 / 0.18** / -0.03 / 0.05 / -0.02 / 0.08 / -0.06 / 1
Child care and feeding (ICFI) / 0.11 / 0.05 / -0.10 / -0.15* / -0.03 / 0.04 / 0.14 / 0.07 / -0.06 / -0.07 / -0.06 / -0.12 / -0.15* / 0.09 / 0.15* / 0.05 / 0.07 / 0.16* / 0.08 / 0.14 / 0.08** / -0.13 / 0.17* / 0.04 / -0.13 / 0.16* / 0.31*** / 1
Table S5. Pairwise correlations among environment, management, production, and nutrition variables and factors from factor analysis. Table shows the R for each pairwise correlation, with significance: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
Table S6. Number of households surveyed, community environment variables, and community level means for agricultural asset and crop management variables. Standard deviations of each parameter are given in parentheses. Summary statistics at bottom give the standard deviation for each variable among the community means, compared to the mean value of the standard deviations drawn from each community.
Community / Number of households surveyed / Elevation, masl / Proportion land with slopes below 12° / NPP,g C·m-2y-1 / Tropical livestock units (TLU) per household / Mean farm cropped land area (Ha) / Mean near field years in fallow / Mean near field P input, kg P·ha-1y-1 / Mean far field years in fallow / Mean near field P input, kg P·ha-1y-1
1 / 3 / 2807 / 40% / 310 / 7.4 (2.3) / 1.2 (0.5) / 1.3 (1.5) / 4.7 (4.8) / 2.3 (1.2) / 2.3 (4.0)
2 / 15 / 2810 / 53% / 316 / 6.9 (4.4) / 1.0 (0.5) / 0.9 (0.8) / 12.4 (6.1) / 3.8 (2.8) / 9.3 (8.6)
3 / 3 / 2813 / 81% / 326 / 5.7 (2.5) / 0.7 (0.2) / 0.7 (0.6) / 6.9 (8.4) / 2.7 (0.6) / 9.3 (2.0)
4 / 15 / 2932 / 40% / 325 / 10.3 (6.5) / 1.1 (0.6) / 0.5 (0.7) / 18.9 (5.6) / 2.6 (2.5) / 9.2 (6.1)
5 / 8 / 2945 / 78% / 259 / 10.2 (5.7) / 1.1 (0.6) / 0.8 (0.7) / 15.2 (6.3) / 1.8 (0.5) / 6.1 (8.6)
6 / 12 / 2953 / 18% / 325 / 9.5 (2.7) / 0.7 (0.3) / 0.8 (1.1) / 24.8 (7.8) / 2.4 (1.9) / 16.9 (9.1)
7 / 9 / 2977 / 10% / 251 / 7.6 (2.4) / 0.5 (0.3) / 0.3 (0.5) / 16.1 (11.3) / 2.0 (1.7) / 13.0 (10.8)
8 / 11 / 3023 / 21% / 275 / 12.5 (7.2) / 0.9 (0.4) / 0.5 (0.7) / 20.9 (6.2) / 1.5 (1.9) / 18.4 (6.8)
9 / 11 / 3086 / 13% / 343 / 11.3 (5.1) / 0.7 (0.4) / 0.8 (0.9) / 25.6 (8.6) / 2.7 (1.9) / 17.2 (9.2)
10 / 2 / 3195 / 51% / 349 / 6.9 (3.6) / 0.8 (0.3) / 1.0 (0.0) / 7.9 (11.1) / 1.5 (2.1) / 13.6 (6.2)
11 / 2 / 3202 / 11% / 254 / 7.7 (0.4) / 0.6 (0.0) / 0.0 (0.0) / 11.5 (0.0) / 2.5 (0.7) / 9.7 (5.5)
12 / 6 / 3202 / 14% / 239 / 8.4 (2.8) / 0.7 (0.2) / 0.8 (0.8) / 16.6 (8.1) / 4.7 (3.7) / 10.2 (3.6)
13 / 10 / 3275 / 7% / 324 / 9.4 (4.0) / 0.9 (0.4) / 0.6 (1.0) / 9.3 (8.7) / 6.1 (4.0) / 13.1 (5.2)
14 / 9 / 3286 / 11% / 238 / 9.1 (6.9) / 0.8 (0.4) / 0.1 (0.4) / 9.5 (10.2) / 2.3 (1.8) / 9.5 (8.3)
15 / 5 / 3375 / 40% / 229 / 5.3 (2.9) / 0.9 (0.7) / 0.2 (0.4) / 12.3 (10.5) / 3.2 (1.1) / 6.3 (2.0)
16 / 3 / 3388 / 11% / 257 / 9.1 (5.8) / 0.7 (0.3) / 1.0 (1.0) / 23.3 (11.5) / 3.0 (0.0) / 9.2 (2.2)
17 / 4 / 3416 / 23% / 242 / 6.7 (1.5) / 0.7 (0.2) / 0.3 (0.5) / 9.0 (2.0) / 2.3 (1.0) / 6.0 (4.9)
18 / 5 / 3417 / 25% / 245 / 5.1 (1.6) / 0.5 (0.2) / 1.0 (1.4) / 11.1 (13.6) / 2.6 (1.7) / 9.6 (4.6)
19 / 8 / 3441 / 14% / 267 / 8.5 (3.9) / 0.8 (0.3) / 0.9 (0.8) / 16.6 (10.6) / 5.1 (0.8) / 13.8 (5.5)
20 / 3 / 3445 / 13% / 280 / 8.7 (4.5) / 0.4 (0.1) / 0.3 (0.6) / 2.9 (5.1) / 1.5 (0.7) / 5.8 (5.3)
21 / 6 / 3468 / 21% / 264 / 6.8 (3.7) / 0.9 (0.3) / 0.2 (0.4) / 21.4 (10.5) / 2.5 (0.8) / 11.0 (10.0)
22 / 6 / 3559 / 38% / 241 / 8.6 (6.6) / 1.0 (0.6) / 2.3 (2.1) / 10.9 (9.0) / 4.2 (2.1) / 5.1 (4.6)
23 / 6 / 3565 / 7% / 261 / 5.9 (5.8) / 0.8 (0.2) / 0.2 (0.4) / 9.8 (6.7) / 1.3 (1.0) / 4.7 (8.2)
24 / 8 / 3612 / 31% / 241 / 8.6 (3.2) / 0.8 (0.4) / 2.6 (2.6) / 8.0 (7.1) / 4.1 (3.5) / 4.7 (3.4)
25 / 5 / 3621 / 17% / 299 / 5.7 (2.7) / 0.6 (0.4) / 1.8 (0.4) / 10.2 (1.9) / 4.2 (1.5) / 7.4 (5.5)
26 / 8 / 3652 / 21% / 241 / 11.1 (5.1) / 1.1 (0.5) / 2.0 (2.0) / 13.5 (10.2) / 5.5 (2.1) / 13.0 (3.8)
27 / 3 / 3676 / 29% / 236 / 7.9 (2.4) / 1.1 (0.4) / 0.3 (0.6) / 8.8 (8.4) / 4.7 (1.5) / 13.6 (6.1)
28 / 7 / 3744 / 19% / 280 / 7.3 (1.0) / 0.7 (0.2) / 2.1 (0.9) / 10.7 (8.4) / 5.0 (1.8) / 9.6 (5.2)
29 / 6 / 3758 / 39% / 257 / 8.2 (2.8) / 1.2 (0.5) / 1.7 (1.0) / 7.7 (5.3) / 3.5 (1.0) / 10.2 (13.4)
30 / 21 / 3787 / 89% / 262 / 7.2 (3.2) / 1.4 (0.7) / 1.4 (1.0) / 14.6 (8.2) / 3.0 (1.8) / 9.1 (7.1)
31 / 6 / 3811 / 40% / 259 / 9.5 (9.3) / 0.8 (0.3) / 3.3 (1.4) / 12.6 (6.5) / 3.5 (1.0) / 12.2 (10.6)
32 / 3 / 3820 / 43% / 241 / 4.4 (2.2) / 0.5 (0.3) / 1.3 (0.6) / 11.4 (5.8) / 3.7 (3.8) / 4.2 (7.3)
33 / 4 / 3889 / 30% / 297 / 4.9 (5.6) / 0.4 (0.2) / 0.5 (1.0) / 22.3 (11.8) / 3.8 (1.5) / 11.3 (6.1)
34 / 4 / 3902 / 50% / 247 / 4.2 (2.0) / 0.6 (0.4) / 2.3 (1.5) / 14.2 (8.6) / 3.0 (0.0) / 9.5 (5.0)
35 / 6 / 3903 / 46% / 270 / 6.0 (5.5) / 0.7 (0.4) / 1.7 (1.5) / 7.3 (4.6) / 3.0 (0.9) / 8.8 (7.1)
36 / 6 / 3913 / 41% / 293 / 8.9 (5.0) / 0.9 (0.4) / 1.5 (1.2) / 13.4 (4.9) / 4.0 (1.3) / 10.7 (4.1)
37 / 7 / 3951 / 40% / 244 / 12.4 (9.7) / 0.5 (0.2) / 3.7 (3.2) / 19.3 (14.1) / 5.5 (4.1) / 16.0 (12.7)
38 / 9 / 3959 / 21% / 244 / 7.1 (3.3) / 0.8 (0.4) / 4.1 (1.9) / 17.5 (11.7) / 4.9 (2.6) / 7.7 (7.2)
39 / 5 / 3975 / 50% / 308 / 8.3 (3.7) / 0.6 (0.4) / 1.6 (1.5) / 16.3 (14.4) / 3.6 (2.1) / 8.4 (5.1)
40 / 8 / 3990 / 30% / 276 / 10.6 (6.4) / 0.9 (0.4) / 4.1 (2.4) / 15.0 (10.1) / 6.8 (2.3) / 11.8 (7.1)
41 / 2 / 4017 / 22% / 262 / 13.1 (9.1) / 0.5 (0.2) / 5.0 (1.4) / 2.1 (3.0) / 9.0 (1.4) / 13.1 (2.7)
42 / 9 / 4049 / 42% / 292 / 11.1 (4.3) / 0.9 (0.5) / 2.9 (1.2) / 20.7 (9.9) / 4.9 (2.3) / 12.3 (6.9)
43 / 5 / 4064 / 16% / 269 / 13.5 (4.6) / 0.5 (0.2) / 6.0 (1.0) / 14.4 (5.1) / 5.8 (1.3) / 9.1 (6.5)
44 / 3 / 4091 / 30% / 269 / 12.6 (5.1) / 0.8 (0.1) / 4.7 (2.3) / 14.3 (11.2) / 7.3 (2.1) / 17.6 (14.9)
Inter-community standard deviation / 18% / 218 / 2.42 / 0.23 / 1.48 / 5.6 / 1.7 / 3.8
Mean intra-community standard deviation / -- / 284 / 4.30 / 0.35 / 1.09 / 8.0 / 1.7 / 6.6
Table S7. Elevation and community level means for production, food security, diet diversity, and child nutrition variables. Standard deviations of each parameter are given in parentheses. Summary statistics at bottom give the variance for each variable among the community means, compared to the mean value of the standard deviations drawn from each community. Staple yield is the sum of kg dry matter harvested for potato (at 25% dry matter), maize, wheat, and barley for each household estimated from survey responses.