10 Farmer-Scientist Collaboration- for Research and Agricultural

Development on the Zuni IndianReservation, New Mexico, USA

"

Jay B. Norton

Utah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Jonathon A. Sandor

Iowa State UniversityAmes, Iowa

Roman R. Pawluk

Zuni Conservation ProjectPueblo o/Zuni, New Mexico ("

Local knowledge and indigenous agricultural systems can provide valuable foun-dations for sustainability as developing economies scale up to join modem worldmarkets (Bomke et al., 1994). But understanding how small-scale market- or sub-sistence-oriented agricultures operate in complex local settings may require care-ful research combining sociology, ethnoscience, and agroecology (Nortonet al.,1998). Even with careful study, subtleties of highly specialized systems can be elu-sive because of faulty assumptions, distrust, or lack of clearly stated advantages for

cooperation.The complex interplay of environment, culture, and agriculture can be diffi-

cult for scientists from the western academic tradition to understand (Kloppenburg,1991), especially in highly variable, disturbance-driven environments like those ofmany semiarid regions. Such complexity too often causes well-intentioned scien-tists or development agents to assume locals behave irrationally with respect to ecol-ogy (Pawluk et al., 1991). Such assumptions substitute for and prevent real under-standing. Relatively recent advances in the comprehension of variability, complexity,and unpredictability in natural systems suggest that misconceptions about local agri-cultural knowledge stem not only from failure to conceive complex cultural tradi-tions, but from failure to comprehend ecological subtleties as well (Ellis & Swift,

1988).

Copyright@ 2001. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, 677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711, USA. Sustainability ofAgricultural Systems in Transition. ASA Special Publication no. 64.

107

108 NORTONET AL.

New conceptual views of ecosystem processes that emphasize external en-vironmental factors such as disturbance, short-term climate change, and local vari-ation as drivers of ecosystem dynamics (e.g., Botkin, 1990; Pieper, 1994; Seastedt& Knapp, 1993; Westoby et al., 1989) open the door to alternative definitions ofsustainability (Ellis et al., 1993) and may hold redeeming concepts for local knowl-edge that seemed irrational under theories guiding ecology for most of the 20th cen-tury (e.g., Brookfield & Padoch, 1994; Fujisaka. 1997; Peet & Watts, 1996). How-ever, bridging the gap between accepted scientifically derived concepts and localknowlcdgc dcrivcd from long-tCirm livCilihood in ~pecific environment~ remains a

challenge. -ow: experiellUC3 3[UUying agroccology or a IMming system Of the ZunI In-dians in western New Mexico may offer some transferable methods for achievingreal understanding between scientists and local agriculturists. In this case, scien-tists and local farmers were each so deeply indoctrinated with their own ways ofknowing about the Zuni farming system that they assumed common understand-ing of its function. Unanticipated differences emerged when we (the research team)worked together with local people to construct and manage an in situ, controlledinvestigation of aspects of our version of their farming system. While each situa-tion is unique, this aspect of our research-collaborative hands-on labor to inves-tigate an exogenous perception of a local system-may provide a setting for mean-ingful interactions in other research/development settings.

ZUNI FARMING: AN ANCIENT AGRICULTURE IN TRANSITION

Zuni is an agricultural tribe of the southwestern U.S. Pueblo cwture; one of19 Native American groups known for dryland farming expertise, distinctive ar-chitecture, and unique cultural traditions (Ferguson. 1996). The Zuni Indian Reser-vation lies in the heart of the Zuni's original homeland, at around 2000-m eleva-tion in the southeastern Colorado Plateau province (Ferguson & Hart, 1985). Thelandscape is marked by the high, sandstone-capped mesas and broad alluvial val-leys characteristic of that region. The growing season ranges from 90 to 120 d andprecipitation averages about 300 mm, though the climate is highly variable withina distinct seasonal pattern (Fig. 10-1).

Zuni subsistence relied heavily on agriculture for over 2000 yr (Kintigh,1985). Com (Zea maysL.) grown in nonirrigated fields was a staple, as noted bythe Spanish Conquistador Coronado in his report to the Viceroy Mendoza in 1540:"(the people) are all well nurtured and condicioned... The victuals which the peo-ple of this countrey have, is Maiz, whereof they have great store..." (Cushing, 1920).Pueblo archaeology shows nearly constant agricultural transition as populationsgrew, new crops and farming methods were introduced, and environmental condi-tions fluctuated (Cordell, 1984; Hack, 1942; Plog, 1997). Until the mid-19th cen-tury, when U.S. occupation began, agricultural transition built upon transgenera-tionallocal knowledge of the unique climate and dynamic landscape. Large U.S.-sponsored irrigation projects constituted a major transition that disregarded and dis-credited local knowledge and traditional farming systems (Cleveland et al., 1995).Completion of the large dams accompanied re-allotment of irrigable lands without

.

.FARMER-SCIENTIST COLLABORATION ON THE ZUNI RESERVATION 109

70 ~ 140

60 20

~50 100 ~""" gS .-S ~i 40 .. 80 '5.- >

5 '0.- 30.90 ~~ .~

It 20 tu

10 0

0 0

Jan Feb Mar Apri.I May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dee

Fig. 10-1. Long-tenn average precipitation at Zuni, New Mexico. Compiled from National Weather Ser-vice records for 1950 to 1996. Annual average = 300 mrn :I: 87 mrn, CV = 29%. Error bars represent

standard deviation and black line refers to CV.

regard to ancient, clan-based tenure systems. After 1900 combined population de-pletion, rapid sedimentation of irrigation reservoirs, and insidious land disputes fromforced re-al1otment precipitated steady decline in agriculture and transition to de-pendency. However, traditional crops remain vital to religious traditions and cul-tural identity, even now, while unique farming expertise declines due to modem pres-sures.

The Zuni Sustainable Agriculture Project: Grassroots Transition

The 1990 court settlement in the Zuni Tribe vs. the USA over mismanage-ment offederal trust lands (the Zuni Reservation) funded Zuni-controlled programsto restore the basis for a natural resource economy (Hart, 1995). The Zuni Sus-tainable Agriculture Project (ZSAP) became one component of the effort and waspartly funded by the Ford Foundation. The ZSAP is run by a group of traditionalZunis who, in their early 50s, may represent the last generation to grow up in tra-ditional farming and herding lifestyles. Their goal is to revitalize farming on thereservation, first for its cultural values and, in the long run, as an economic optionfor Zuni people. Their methods address local control of irrigation systems, help-ing settle land disputes, and acquiring farming equipment for a rental program. How-ever, the leaders see their most important role as reawakening Zuni people, espe-cially younger generations, to their agricultural heritage, reminding them thatplanting seeds each spring is part of being Zuni. While hunger and abject povertyare not as devastating as in many developing countries, more than a century of de-pendence and cultural repression has culminated in today's main killers of Zuni peo-ple: diabetes, depression, alcoholism, and suicide. The ZSAP's leaders directly con-nect these problems with separation of people from their agricultural heritage. Anunderlying component ofZSAP is to re-establish credibility of Zuni knowledge in~

~---~~---~ " ~

110- NORTON ET AL.

the minds of tribal and government decision makers and, perhaps most significantly,in the minds of the Zuni people themselves.

INVESTIGATING SUSTAINABILITY IN TRANSITION

Runofffarming is an important component of historic and prehistoric South-western Native American agriculture (Kintigh, 1985; Nabhan, 1984). Authors typ-ically describe runoff farming as a type of water harvesting where farmers captureand divert ephemeral storm water flows to make up moisture and nutrient deficitsimposed by the semiarid climate (Cushing, 1920; Hack, 1942; Nabhan, 1984).Runoff farming and other water harvesting schemes have been recognized, de-scribed, and developed in many agricultural systems of dry lands (e.g., Bryan, 1929;Critchley & Siegert, 1991; Evenari et al., 1982; Frasier, 1980; Gardner & Hubbell,1942; Kowsar, 1991; Nabhan, 1981; Neimeijer, 1993; Tabor, 1992, 1995). Most de-scriptions of Native American runoff farming describe a scenario where timelyephemeral flows and specialized water management techniques supplement depletedsoil moisture and fertility as crops approach late summer rapid growth periods; avision of runoff from uplands as irrigation and fertilizer for crops planted in low

landscape positions.The objectives of our initial studies were to investigate apparent sustainability

in long-term traditionally farmed fields, to explore watershed contributions to soilfertility and moisture renewal, and to explore underlying soil knowledge associatedwith runoff agriculture. Our study of the Zuni farming system began in 1991 as aloose collaboration with the Zuni Archaeology Program and independent of Tribalinitiatives for ecological restoration and agricultural revitalization. The Tribe wasjust beginning development of those priorities at that time.

Fields of the Zuni Indian Reservation offer unique opportunities to evaluatevery long-term effects of agriculture on soils. Excellent historic documentation andarchaeological records allow verification of fields having been farmed at least in-termittently for more than 1000 yr, some of the oldest documented fields in NorthAmerica. As such, Zuni fields offer a look at time intervals much longer than mostdocumented farming systems (Sandor & Eash, 1991). Data from our initial ex-ploratory studies are presented below as a summary of what we believe constitutesustainable components of the long-term farming system. The results are reportedmore completely in Norton (1996) and Pawluk (1995).

Soils

We analyzed surface soils and profiles at three fields that continue to be farmedby what has been described as runoff agricultural methods and have excellentlong-term documentation as well as geomorphically paired uncultivated controls.The three paired sites include: an alluvial field below the mouth of an ephemeralstream draining approximately 130 ha (Fig. 10-2, Pescado Field), a stream terracefield on the former flood plain of a now-incised ephemeral stream; and a hillslopefield on a lower backslope. Concentrations of organic matter components (total N,organic C, and mineral N) in the surface soils (Table 10-1) are significantly higherin the cultivated alluvial field soils than the uncultivated controls, while those of

~

FARMER-SCIENTIST COLLABORATION ON THE ZUNI RESERVATION 111

the terrace and hillslope fields are depleted on a scale similar to conventionally cul-tivated soils (Aguilar et al., 1988; Davidson & Ackerman, 1993). These differencessuggest fluvial inputs of organic matter and mineral N, as well as increased min-

JOO 0 100 ~ V y"

I ;114'

Contour Intetval = 2.5 treters

N

W+'ES

"

'i"'~~

If,1'"""'-'

."

',"

"C; '" :'r}~ _:~~~;:;:; ;:r;:':-~~:;~i~-1;;, ~-:-:!t] ':':'->5 ~~,~);ft

j ) f1f~!E"~":~~':'A';::::.~;-" ~

Fig. 10-2. Pescado field and watershed showing location of cross-watershed and paired cultivated-un-cultivated transects.

112 NORTON ET AL.

Table 10-:1. Soil fertility changes along three paired transects. Each site represents 10, 0- to 15-cm depthreplicate samples from each side of the field boundaries.

Site Uncultivated Cultivated A. Uncultivated Cultivated A.

~ Or~anic C1-gm-2 % -kgm-2 %

Active alluvial (0-15 cm) 194 (76.5)t 282 (79.5) +45* 2.68 (1.16) 3.73 (1.40) +39*Terrace (0-15 cm) 231 (59.8) 133 (10.0) -45**Hillslope (0-15 cm) 114 (11.1) 92.7 (10.8) -19** 0.98 (0.24) 0.79 (0.11) -20*

Bulk densi~ Mineral N§

-gm-2 % gm-2 %

Active alluvial (0-15 cm) 1.42 (0.18) 1.63 (0.07) +15** 3.21 (1.58) 6.01 (1.39) +88**Terrace (0-15cm) 1.49 (0.05) 1.55 (0.08) +4* 4.93 (1.87) 4.15 (0.30) -16Hillslope (0-15cm) 1.61 (0.06) 1.68 (0.05) +4** 2.50 (0.31) 2.28 (0.17) -9*

*, ** Significant at the 0.1 and 0.01 proQability levels, respectively.

t Standard deviation in parentheses.~ No data for terrace field.§ Sum of anunonium-N and nitrate-No

erallzaiion,' at. the alluvial field. Bulk density differences in the surface soils sug-gests some compaction, especially at the alluvial site, perhaps from moldboard plowsused for planting during recent decades. The average bulk density for the solum,however, is nearly equal for cultivated and uncultivated soils (Table 10-2). Solumthickness, A horizon thickness, depth to argillic horizons, and depth to carbonatesall suggest increased sedimentation and leaching in the alluvial cultivated soils, dif-ferences that appear to be absent at the terrace site and less pronounced at the hill-slope field. There is evidence of leaching at the hillslope field, probably from in-creased water infiltrating the extremely sandy soil (-80% sand) from contourplowing, decreased evapotranspiration, or both.

While the different landscape settings were not replicated in this exploratoryinvestigation, we believed the results supported our hypothesis and created impe-tus for further study. The results suggest that cultivated soils in active alluvial zonesare altered, but not degraded relative to uncultivated controls, while cultivated soilsof areas cut off from alluviation or on erosive landforms are depleted similarly tocultivated soils of other semiarid regions.

Table 10-2. Change in horizon thickness and average bulk density at three paired soil profiles. Profileslocated central to the transects reported in Table 10-1. Solum thickness = depth to massive structure.

Solum A Depth Depth Bulkthickness thickness to Bt to carbonates density~

Site Ut Ct A. U C A. U C A. U C A. U C A.

cm % cm % cm % cm % g cm-3 %

Active alluvial 116 155 +34 7 23 +229 18 88 +389 47 30 -361.59 1.56 -2Terrace 31 29 -6 31 29 +29 -- -- 0 0 0 1.53 1.63 +7

Hillslope 126 129 +2 9 36 +300 9 36 +300 26 54 +108 1.61 1.66 +3

t U = uncultivated, C = cultivated.

~ Weighted averages.

FARMER-SCIENTIST COLLABORATION ON THE ZUNI RESERVATION 113

Watershed Contributions

To analyze piant-soil-landfonn composition, distribution, and interactions inthe 130-ha watershed above the Pescado field we collected soil samples, soil mor-phology data, and ground cover infonnation at points every 5 m along cross-wa-tershed transects (Fig. 10-2). The most important relationship with respect torunoff agriculture, perhaps, is the erosiveness of backs lope positions that have rel-atively shallow, clayey argillic horizons, little ground cover vegetation, and rela-tively thick pinyon (Pinus edulis Engelm. )-juniper (Juniperns spp.) forests and as-sociated litter (Fig. 10-3). This combination on steep slopes suggests potential formovement of water, sediment, and organic matter toward fields during thunderstonnevents. Data from studies of sediment movement at the Pescado watershed (not pre-sented) suggest a "build up and flush" scenario of sediment and organic mattermovement through hillslope and fluvial systems.

Zuni Soil Terms

We combined our soil science understanding of the area with past descrip-tions or Zuni 'fanning techniques to design an interview instrument probing soiltenDS and landscape processes of selected long-time Zuni farmers. The importantcharacteristics reflected in Zuni tenninology were soil texture, especially as it re-lates to water penneability and mode of transport of parent material. Of the two termsidentified for clay soils, one was a static description for clayey or sticky soils; thesecond tenD was a more complex tenD indicating a clay area or location with poorinfiltration. There was a tenD for organically enriched soils from beneath the treesof the upland forest, and mention of enrichment from runoff that washes onto fields.Other tenDS included geomorphic features such as salt and alkali pans, descriptivetenDS for benD structures to capture water in gardens and orchards, horizonationand its impact on soil moisture levels and the mixing of soils to produce a work-able field sUrface and, presumably, a loamy texture. Generally, with respect to whatwe referred to as runoff fanning, farmers focused on alluvial sediment and the val-ues of fresh sandy surface soil. They did not talk about values of ephemeral flows

45 4040 ;';...~.cl.:~.i::.!_..::.- 35,...

,... ~t 35 30 ~

~ 30 25 i ~- S~~-~ 25 f ---HetbaCIX)Us= 20 c/J.- 20D g. -6-Trees< 15 15 - ---Litter

J 10 10 i5 5 ~

0 0; Summit Shoulder BacksJope Foots.. ToeslopeI (0=9) (0=11) (n=89) (0=48) (0=35)

Fig. 10--3. Relationships between slope position, slope steepness and aerial cover along cross-water-shed transects above the Pescado field.

114 NORTON ET AL.

as irrigation or methods for conveying runoff to fields. They did not relate to theconcept of "runoff farming" preferring "rainfed farming." This contrasts somewhatwith observations of earlier workers who reported farming systems that seemed morefocused on conveying water than on the texture of the alluvial soils (Cushing, 1920;Hack, 1942). It appears clear when considering the literature on runoff farming andrainwater harvesting by historic and prehistoric native farmers, that this discrep-ancy may result at least partly from loss of traditional knowledge as socioeconomicconditions changed during the 20th century. In hindsight, the discrepancy may partlyresult from failure of earlier researchers to completely comprehend farmers prior-ities and motivations in the dynamic environment and unpredictable climate.

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

In the context of existing runoff farming literature, we concluded that long-term agricultural sustainability indicated by soil attributes was likely supported bywatershed materials conveyed to fields in ephemeral storm water flows. With theinformation we had available to us, and in the context of our understanding of thefarming system, Zuni farmers' recognition of the value of fluvial processes and trans-ported materials seemed to support our hypothesis that watershed contributions al-leviate immediate moisture and nutrient deficits for crop growth. These initial re-sults formed the basis for design of our more comprehensive study.

We began an expanded study in 1996 that consisted of three scientific ob-jectives designed by an interdisciplinary research team and two objectives designedin collaboration with a group of Zuni farmers and natural resource managers. Thelatter focused on knowledge exchange and interpreting scientific results to reflectTribal land use priorities. This approach helped to develop relationships betweenthe research team and traditional Zuni people that led eventually to valuable un-derstanding of each others' perceptions. However, we did not directly involvefarmers in design of scientific objectives, partly because we assumed that our un-derstanding of the farming system from the literature was similar to their under-standing from experience. For the same reason, our Zuni collaborators did not scru-tinize our scientific approach; they assumed our basic understanding of how the sys-tem works was similar to theirs. This led to inevitable misunderstandings that re-quired working through-deepening our mutual understanding of differences in per-spectives. The research program is complete and the results are in preparation (San-dor et al., 1999). Specifically, the five objectives included (Sandor et al., 1996; ref-erences refer to preliminary presentations of results):

1. Determine effects of long-term Zuni runoff agriculture on soil morphol-ogy, organic matter, and nutrients: An extension of the soil productivityinvestigations (Havener et al., 1999b; Homburg et al., 1999; Thomas &White, 1999a)

2. Define ecosystem structure and function as they affect runoff inputs tomaize fields: An extension of the watershed soil-plant-landform andrunoff-erosion investigations (Havener et al., 1999a; Laahty & Norton,1999; Norton et al., 1999; Thomas & White, 1999b; White & Thomas,

1999).

FARMER-SCIENTIST COLLABORATION ON THE ZUNI RESERVATION 115

3. Evaluate effects of watershed moisture and nutrient inputs on crop pro-ductivity: A new study consisting of in-field controlled investigations ofcomponents of the "irrigation and fertilizer" hypothesis, including runoffwater and runoff water plus sediment, against rain only, irrigated, and fer-tilized treatments (Kuratomi et al., 1999; Muenchrath et al., 1999).

4. Develop criteria for identifying potential use of runoff agriculture in aridand semiarid lands: Extrapolate the results for use in current priorities forland use, restoration, and development at Zuni and elsewhere.

5. Develop a'technological exchange between the Zuni Tribe and the researchteam: Included practical and training components as well as exchange ofmore abstract concepts and perceptions (Norton & Laahty, 1999; Nortonet al., 1998; Norton & S.andor, 1997).

By this time Tribal authorities had defmed priorities such that any researchmust show direct benefits to Zuni people. TheZSAP's leaders agreed to supportour project and collaborate because they felt scientific study could help to validatethe traditional farming system; The leaders served on our "Zuni Advisory Com-mittee" with whom we met almost daily during field seasons. The ZSAP's leaderstook the decision to support our program very seriously because, in the eyes of Zunipeople whose trust and respect they sought, our actions would reflect directly onthem. They understood better than we, that this created an investment. in our pro-ject and a responsibility to see that we represented their farming system accurately.For our part, the collaboration with traditional people presented valuable opportu-nities for learning about farming methods and local perceptions about climate andagriculture. This "technological exchange" became integral to the research.

Our Zuni Advisory Committee's knowledge of local people, places, andfarming methods were invaluable, but when they helped us establish and managethe crop productivity investigation (Objective 3) they began to realize that our per-ceptions of their farming system were different from their own. Although we hadreviewed and discussed each objective and hypothesis, it took hands-on laborgrowing Zuni com under what we perceived to be the traditional system, alteredto apply controlled treatments, to transcend language and cultural barriers that pre-vented recognition of alternative perceptions by us and them. When we began toactually apply the treatments it became clear to the farmers that, from their per-spective, we were asking the wrong questions. The ensuing discussions became con-tentious at times as we struggled to explain our perceptions and motivations and tounderstand theirs. The realleaming that resulted from these unforeseen differencesbetween our understanding, gained from the literature and short-term observations,and their understanding, from experience and transgenerational knowleqge, broughtsome changes to our basic assumptions, took our research in some new and valu-able directions, and will ultimately make our fmdings far more valuable to restora-tion and development efforts at Zuni as well as to scientific knowledge of NativeAmerican agroecology.

Specifically, only when we captured runoff and sediment in catchments con-structed above the productivity study and began to apply it to selected plots, andto apply fertilizer and irrigation water to other plots, did it become clear to the farm-ers that we viewed the silty water as a type offertilizer. As they arduously explained

116 NORTON ET AL.

to US, they do not view the silty runoff water as beneficial to the current crop andin fact see intentional application of silty sediment over sandy loam field soils asdetrimental, plugging pores and ruining hydrological characteristics that drive se-lection of field locations. Interestingly, young Zuni employees working for uswere skeptical of applying silt to com plants, though they could not explain pre-cisely why, only that we were "killing their sisters" or that we "only grow com tokill it." As we worked closely with the ZSAP leaders to address their concerns webegan to better understand their perspective and several pieces of incongruous in-, formation began to fall into place. For instance, we had experienced problems ap-

plying treatments; soils were often too wet for several days after runoff events, sug-gesting that in a natural situation the runoff we captured may not have infiltratedthe soil; as we applied runoff, silt accumulated over the soil slowing infiltration sothat we could apply only a fraction of the runoff water that we had planned. Also,we had observed that our rain-only plots, as well as farmers' fields that clearly re-ceived no runoff, actually yielded quite well. Farmers' tendency to focus on soilcharacteristics rather than diverting runoff water, the value they place on sandy, al-luvial soils, and their insistence on calling the system "rainfed" rather than "runoff'farming all began to make more sense.

Insights from the farmers enabled us to reconsider some our own perspec-tives and gave us a somewhat different paradigm from which to evaluate our find-ings. We began to conceive an alternative model that may be more analogous tofloodplain farming than to water harvesting. Farmers clearly recognize the valueof fresh sandy alluvial deposits and silty organic matter to subsequent crops, asshown in the soil knowledge study, but view floods themselves as detrimental tocurrent crops. Gentle daily rains and short-distance sheet flow, along with wintermoisture stored in the sandy alluvium and finer subsoils, are viewed as sustainingthe current crop while larger, infrequent arroyo flows occasionally refresh soils.After a number of seasons without a high energy flow that scours fields and depositsnew layers of sand, the low energy, silty sheet flows may begin to degrade agri-cultural value of alluvial soils. As in floodplain farming, low frequency largefloods are responsible for the depositing parent materials for the most fertile soilson the landscape but the floods themselves often destroy crops.

Long-term precipitation data and our own short-term rainfall and runoffrecords lend tentative support to the alternative perception described by local farm-ers. Figure 10-4 shows that the bulk of summer precipitation comes as relativelylow intensity rains of less that 13 mm d-l (Balling & Wells, 1990). Our observa-tions concur with the long-term data; during the 1997, 1998, and 1999 growing sea-sons summer convection storms were very common, but the most intense, runoff-generating part of the storms was generally of very limited areal extent, typicallysurrounded by a much larger area of lower intensity showers. So the chances ofre-ceiving rain on any given day may be quite large for particular field locations butthe chance of an intense storm culminating in ephemeral stream flow is probablyquite small. In other words, low intensity daily rains can be quite dependable dur-ing late summer, but the occurrence of stream flow is unreliable. The relationshipbetween rainfall frequency (79 d), hillslope sheet flow (26 d), and ephemeralstream flow (3 d) in the 1997 and 1998 growing seasons at one of our study sites

FARMER-SCIENTIST COLLABORATION ON THE ZUNI RESERVATION 117

140 ~-~i

120

100

e5 80 -IW7

~ --1896-1985

c.; 60~

40

20

, ""0<12.7 >12.7 >19 >25.4

Precipitation per Day (rnm)

Fig. 10--4. Summer precipitation divided into 24-h intensity categories for Zuni, New Mexico, and 1-yr records from weather station at research site. Indicates that daily rains totaling more than 25.4 mrn,considered a minimum to generate substantial ephemeral stream flow, occur less than once a year onaverage. Long-term data compiled and thresholds determined by Balling and Wells (1990).

supports the notion that ephemeral stormwater flow is an unreliable source of im-mediate soil moisture renewal.

While water harvesting approaches do playa role in diverse and dynamic set-tings of nonirrigated Zuni farming, our interactions with the local farmers revealedthat success in any given year does not hinge on the ability to divert ephemeral flowsto crops. The farmers take a longer view and recognize the value of flood distur-bances for refreshing soil hydrologic properties that allow crops to make the mostof relatively dependable low intensity rains during winter and late summer.

As a result of our discussions with the farmers we initiated two lines of in-vestigation: (i) the effects of flood disturbances on soil properties and organic mat-ter dynamics, and (ii) effectiveness of traditional techniques for maintaining or en-hancing depositional regimes and protecting fields from gully incision. Preliminaryresults of the first suggest that active alluviation enhances soil fertility and hydro-logical attributes. In the second, simple, economical, and rapid techniques fortreating incised arroyos facilitated backfilling and drastically enlarged the area im-pacted by overland flows in three treated fluvial systems (Norton & Laahty, 1999).Besides offering insights on aspects of the farming system not previously consid-ered, these investigations speak more directly to modern day issues on the reser-vation. Recognition of the value of active alluvial zones for farming, forage pro-duction, and biodiversity may impact land use planning while the traditional ero-sion control techniques may offer an economical approach to protecting and restor-ing some of the Tribes most fertile lands.

118 NORTONET AL.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We believe the alternative model revealed to us by Zuni farmers representsa conceptual departure from many past descriptions ofN ative American runoff agri-culture. Though this fascinating and diverse farming system has been studied formany years by many researchers, our study may be the first where locals played anactive role in critiquing an in situ investigation of the accepted scientific model. Thisinteraction may have allowed insights not available to earlier authors who basedtheir findings on observations filtered through their own experiences and cultur-ally based perceptions. These earlier authors' perceptions may in part have beenshaped by a desire to "systemize" the farming knowledge as water and nutrient har-vesting so well defined in other P&rts of the world.

As one of the ZSAP leaders succinctly explained, "you scientists keep try-ing to describe our farming system; we don't have any system because everythingchanges every year!" This proclamation uttered in a moment of frustration under-scores the alternative perception of the Zuni farmers. Successfully drawing a liveli-hood from the highly variable, in some respects unpredictable, environment requiresdynamic approaches that draw on a long history of interaction but may be more op-portunistic than systematic. Farmers apply combinations of innovation and in-digenous knowledge to ever-changing situations. These concepts define an alter-native notion of sustainability perhaps difficult for many from the West's scientifictradition to grasp.

In this study of Zuni agriculture, hands-on collaboration to investigate par-ticular aspects of the research perception of the farming system revealed unantic-ipated differences between scientific and local perceptions. This type of structured,hand-on interaction may be valuable in other scenarios because resulting insightsmay transcend language barriers and gaps in experiential perception.

Acknowledgements

This work was made possible by NSF grant DEB-9528458. The authors wishto acknowledge the work of the research team members whose preliminary workis cited in this chapter. We are particularly indebted members of the Zuni Sustain-able Agriculture Project, the Zuni Conservation Project, and to the Zuni Tribe forpermitting, supporting, and guiding our work at Zuni. We wish to pay special trib-ute to the memory of Andrew Laahty who, as director of ZSAP, guided our col-laborative project toward success. His insights about Zuni agriculture, land, and cul-ture, as well as his rigid insistence that we listen to and understand local perspec-tives, enriched the research program and were essential to creating meaningful out-comes for the Zuni people and the team of ecosystem scientists. We also wish tothank Tom DeLuca and Urszula Choromanska for thoughtful review of this chapter.

REFERENCES

Aguilar, R., E.F. Kelley, and R.D. Reil. 1988. Effects of cultivation of soils in northern Great Plains range-land. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:1081-1085.

FARMER-SCIENTIST COLLABORATION ON THE ZUNI RESERVATION 119

Balling, R.C.J., and S.G. Wells. 1990. Historical rainfall patterns and arroyo activity within the ZuniRiver drainage basin, New Mexico. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 80:603-{)17.

Bornke, A., J. Wojcik, and B. Kutkowska. 1994. Change in Polish agriculture: Building from strength.J. Sust. Agric. 4:5-19.

Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant harmonies: A new ecology for the twenty-first century. Oxford Univ.Press, New York.

Brookfield, H., and C. Padoch. 1994. Appreciating agrodiversity: A look at the dynamism and diver-sity of indigenous farming practices. Environment 36:6--45.

Bryan, K. 1929. Floodwater farming. Geograph. Rev. 19:444-456.Cleveland, D.A., F.J. Bowannie, D.F. Eriacho, A. Laahty, and E. Perramond. 1995. Zuni farming and

United States Government policy: The politics of biological diversity in agriculture. Agric.Human Values 12:2-18.

Cordell, L.S. 1984. Prehistory of the Southwest. Acad. Press, New York.Critchley, W., andK. Siegert. 1991. Water harvesting. A manual for the design and construction of water

harvesting schemes for plant production. U.N. FAO, Rome.Cushing, F.H. 1920. Zuni breadstuff. Museum Am. Indian, Heye Found., New York.

Davidson, E.A., and I.L. Ackerman. 1993. Changes in soil carbon inventories following cultivation ofpreviously untilled soils. Biogeochemistry 20:161-193.

Ellis, J.E., M.B. Coughenour, and D.M. Swift. 1993. Climate variability, ecosystem stability, and theimplications for range and livestock development. p. 248. In R.H.J. Behnke et al. (ed.) Rangeecology at disequilibrium: New models of natural variability and pastoral adaptation in Africansavannas. Overseas Develop. Inst., London.

Ellis, J .E., and D.M. Swift. 1988. Stability of African pastoral ecosystems: Alternate paradigms and im-plications for development. J. Range Manage. 41 :45(}-459.

Evenari, M.L., L. Shanan, and N. TadriIor. 1982. The Negev: The challenge of the desert. Harvard Univ.Press, Cambridge.

Ferguson, T.J. 1996. Historic Zuni architecture and society. Anthropol. Pap. Univ. Arizona Rep. no. 60.Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

Ferguson, T.J., and E.R. Hart. 1985. A Zuni atlas. Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman.Frasier, G.W. 1980. Harvesting water for agricultural, wildlife, and domestic uses. J. Soil Water Con-

serv.35:125-128.Fujisaka, S. 1997. Research: Help or hindrance to good farmers in high risk systems? Agric. Syst.

54:137-152.Gardner, J.L., and D.S. Hubbell. 1942. A study of the effects of silty irrigation water from an intermit-

tent stream on crops and soils in controlled plots. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 34:1090--1101.Hack, J. T. 1942. The changing physical environment of the Hopi Indians of Arizona. Pap. Peabody Mu-

seum Am. Archaeol. Ethnol. (Harvard) 35:1-85.Hart, E.R. 1995. Zuni and the courts: A struggle for sovereign land rights. Univ. Press, Lawrence, KS.Havener, C.I., J.B. Norton, and S.E. Williams. 1999a. Nutrient contribution to Zuni runoff agricultural

fields of watershed vegetation and soils. p. 44. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.Havener, C.I., P.D. Stahl, and S.E. Williams. 1999b. Traditional Zuni runoff agriculture and soil mi-

crobiota. p. 44. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.Homburg, J.A., J.A. Sandor, and J.B. Norton. 1999. Soil properties associated with a Native American

farming system: Zuni, New Mexico. p. 39. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.Kintigh, K. W. 1985. Settlement, subsistence, and society in late Zuni prehistory. Univ. Arizona Press,

Tucson.Kloppenburg, J., Jr. 1991. Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: Local knowl-

edge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociol. 56:519-548.Kowsar, A. 1991. Floodwater spreading for desertification control: An integrated approach. Desertifi-

cat. Bull. 19:3-18.Kuratomi, M., D.A. Muenchrath, and J.A. Sandor. 1999. Exploratory study of maize production sys-

tems in traditional runoff fields of Zuni farmers. p. 38. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madi-son, WI.

Laahty, V., and J.B. Norton. 1999. Organic matter and soils determine field location for Zuni runoff agri-culture. p. 44. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.

Muenchrath, D.A., J.A. Sandor, and M. Kuratomi. 1999. Effects of watershed moisture and nutrient in-puts on maize productivity in a runoff agricultural system, Zuni, NM. p. 45. In 1999 Agronomyabstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.

Nabhan, G. 1981. Runofffarming for dry lands. Arid Lands Newslet. 50--53.

120 NORTON ET AL.

Nabhan, G. 1984. Soil fertility renewal and water harvesting in Sonoran Desert agriculture: The Papagoexample. Arid Lands Newslet. 20:21-28.

Neimeijer, D. 1993. Indigenous runoff farming in a changing environment: The case of Kassa la's bor-der area, Sudan. Univ. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Norton, J.B. 1996. Soil, geomorphic, and ecological factors in Zuni runoff agriculture. MS thesis. IowaState University, Ames, IA.

Norton, J.B., K. Brown, and J.A. Sandor. 1999. Products of hills lope erosion as resources for Zuni runoffagriculture. p. 44. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.

Norton, J.B., and A.H. Laahty. 1999. Traditional Zuni structures for landscape stability and soil fertil-ity renewal. p. 44. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.

Norton, J.B., R. Pawluk"and J.A. Sandor. 1998. Observation and experience linking science and in-digenous knowledge at Zuni, New Mexico. J. Arid Environ. 39:331-340.

Norton, J.B., and J.A. Sandor. 1997. Combating desertification with indigenous agricultural technol-ogy at Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico. Arid Lands Newslet. Vol. 41. Available at http://ag.ari-zona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln41/norton.htrnl (verified 3 Apr. 2001).

Pawluk, R.R. 1995. Indigenous knowledge of soils and agriculture at Zuni Pueblo, NM. MS thesis. IowaState University, Ames, IA.

Pawluk, R.R., J.A. Sandor, andJ.A. Tabor. 1991. The role of indigenous soil knowledge in agriculturaldevelopment. J. Soil Water Conserv. 47:298-302.

Peet, R., and M. Watts (ed.) 1996. Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, and social move-ments. Routledge, London.

Pieper, R.D.1994. Ecological implications of livestock grazing. p. 177-211.In M. Vavra et al. (ed.)Eco-logical implications of livestock grazing in the West. Soc. Range Manage., Denver, CO.

Plog, S. 1997. Ancient peoples of the American Southwest. Thames and Hudson, Ltd., London.Sandor, J.A., M.D. Ankeny, D.A. Muenchrath, C.S. White, and S.E. Williams. 1996. Ecosystem and

soil studies of Native American runoff agriculture. NSF Grant no. DEB-9528458.Sandor, J .A., and N .S. Eash. 1991. Significance of ancient agricultural soils for long-term agronomic

studies and sustainable agriculture research. Agron. J. 83:29-37.Sandor, J.A., J.B. Norton, D.A. Muenchrath, C.S. White, S.E. Williams, M.D. Ankeny, C.L. Havener,

J.A. Homburg, P.D. Stahl, and C.I. Thomas. 1999. Soil, crop, and ecosystem studies of NativeAmerican runoff agriculture. p. 38. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.

Seastedt, T.R., and A.K. Knapp. 1993. Consequences of nonequilibrium resource availability across mul-tiple time scales: The transient maxima hypothesis. Am. Natural. 141:621-633.

Tabor, J .A. 1992. Ethnopedological surveys-surveys that incorporate local systems of land classifi-cation. Soil Surv. Horiz. 33:1-22.

Tabor, J.A. 1995. Improving crop yields in the Sahel by means of water-harvesting. J. Arid Environ.30:83-106.

Thomas, C.J., and C.S. White. 1999a. The effects of a Zuni agricultural practice on potentially miner-alizable nitrogen in Western New Mexico.p. 40. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison,WI.

Thomas, C.J., and C.S. White. 1999b. The effects of sediment addition to field soils on nitrogen min-eralization potentials at Zuni, New Mexico. p. 40. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madi-son, WI.

Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic managment for rangelands not at equi-librium. J. Range Manage. 42:266-274.

White, C.S., and C.J. Thomas. 1999. Nitrogen contributions from precipitation to a corn field at Zuni,New Mexico. p. 40. In 1999 Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.