IMPACTS OF PARTICIPATORY RANGE LAND MANAGEMENT ON RANGE LAND CONDITION AND LIVESTOCK CARRYING CAPACITY IN DALLO MANNA DISTRICT OF BALE ZONE, SOUTHEAST ETHIOPIA

Impacts of Participatory range land Management on range land Condition and Livestock<br> Carrying Capacity in Dallo Manna District of Bale Zone, Southeast Ethiopia<br> A study was conducted in Dallomanadistrict of Bale zone, Oromiya Regional State, with the<br> objectives of the study were to investigate the impacts of Participatory range land Management<br> on range land Condition and Livestock Carrying Capacity in Dallo Manna District of Bale Zone,<br> Southeast Ethiopia. The impact of different range land management program on range land<br> condition and livestock Carrying capacity in Ethiopian rangelands is not well documented. This<br> has hampered efforts to use rangelands management practices in a risk-averse manner in<br> fluctuating rainfall environments, and especially in arid and semiarid areas. To reduce this lack<br> of information, two range land sites from (PRM) and (non-RM) of Dallomana district of Bale<br> zone were taken as study site. The study were conducted in two range land sites of PRM<br> (Malkamana<br> and<br> Barak<br> kebeles)<br> and<br> two<br> range<br> land<br> sites<br> non-RM(Hayaoda<br> and<br> Gomgomakebeles), all located in the pastoral areas of Dallomana woreda. Six sampling sites in<br> each range land sites were selected using a stratified sampling procedure. Within each sampling<br> sites, four rectangular plots of 20mx20m were systematically established, making a total of 240<br> plots in the study areas. Within each plots five 1m2 quadrats were randomly recorded for<br> evaluation of range land condition and carrying capacity. A one-way ANOVA were used to test<br> for significant differences (P &lt; 0.05) of the range land condition and livestock carrying capacity<br> between two range land sites. Were observed that PRM had significantly high levels of range<br> condition index and carrying capacity were compared with the non-RM. Overall canopy density,<br> grass composition, basal cover, litter cover, number of seedling, soil erosion and soil<br> compaction are significantly higher in the PRM areas (P&lt; 0.05) than in the no PRM rangeland.<br> The mean range land condition obtained from PRM zone significantly higher (P&lt;0.01) than the<br> mean range condition obtained from non-PRM zone (Range condition from PRM zone is 41.18<br> and mean range condition from non-PRM is 25.39). Livestock grazing capacity for herbaceous<br> species in PRM and non-PRM were 0.264and 0.57 TLU ha-1, respectively, while the<br> corresponding values of grass dry matter yield were 1951 kg ha-1 and 923.04 kg ha-1 in PRM and non-PRM rangelands, respectively Browsing capacity of browse species in PRM and non-PRM were 0.436 and 0.224 TLU ha-1,<br> respectively, while the corresponding values of dry matter yield produced from browsing species<br> were 4662kg ha-1 and 2607.24kg ha-1 in PRM and non-PRM rangelands, respectively. The<br> non-PRMsites of the study district needs further improvement intervention in present condition.<br> Therefore, appropriate interventions should be planned to improve the range land condition of the study district.2