The challenges of soil degradation and low crop yield are being addressed in East Africa using a number of soil health-promoting farming systems including Conservation Agriculture (CA). CA is based on principles of minimal soil disturbance, continuous soil cover, and crop diversity, though implementation on farms may vary due to local circumstances. This study evaluated the effect of CA, as practiced by farmers, and compared farmer descriptions of soil health with scientific measures. CA and non-CA fields were compared in regions of Ethiopia (23 farms), Kenya (23 farms), and Tanzania (13 farms) with most fields repeatedly sampled for 2 to 3 years. CA and non-CA fields were located within meters, on soils with the same texture, growing similar crops. CA systems used precision planting, mostly with basins. Soil parameters were assessed using a participatory approach where farmers and field technicians collected data. CA practices improved qualitative soil characteristics as sensed by farmers (e.g., hoe-ability, crusting, smell, water infiltration), and this positive response was consistent across most fields. For qualitative data, the logarithm of the odds ratio estimates method was used to test the probability that CA would provide soil improvement. Fields under the CA treatment had a higher probability of rating better than non-CA fields. Quantitative measurements of pH and microbial respiration validated farmer assessments. CA-managed soils were weakly associated with darker colour, indicating higher soil organic matter. Sandy soils did not appear to improve with CA as dramatically as clay and loam soils, suggesting different CA strategies may be required. We discuss both benefits and drawbacks of this type of participatory, on-farm research. We conclude that farmer participation as citizen scientists will advance soil restoration in East Africa and increase the potential for farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange of soil-improving practices.

东非正在利用包括保护性农业 (CA) 在内的许多促进土壤健康的耕作系统来应对土壤退化和作物产量低的挑战。CA 基于最小土壤干扰、连续土壤覆盖和作物多样性的原则，但农场的实施可能因当地情况而异。本研究评估了农民实施的 CA 的效果，并将农民对土壤健康的描述与科学措施进行了比较。在埃塞俄比亚（23 个农场）、肯尼亚（23 个农场）和坦桑尼亚（13 个农场）的地区对 CA 和非 CA 田地进行了比较，大多数田地重复采样 2 至 3 年。CA 和非 CA 田地位于米内，在具有相同质地的土壤上，种植相似的作物。CA 系统使用精确种植，主要使用盆地。使用参与式方法评估土壤参数，农民和现场技术人员收集数据。CA 实践改善了农民感觉到的土壤质量特性（例如，锄头能力、结痂、气味、水渗透），这种积极的反应在大多数领域都是一致的。对于定性数据，优势比估计方法的对数用于测试 CA 将提供土壤改良的概率。CA 处理下的字段比非 CA 字段具有更高评级的概率。pH 值和微生物呼吸的定量测量验证了农民的评估。CA 管理的土壤与较深的颜色相关性较弱，表明土壤有机质较高。沙质土壤似乎没有像粘土和壤土那样显着改善 CA，建议可能需要不同的 CA 策略。我们讨论了这种参与式农场研究的优点和缺点。我们得出结论，农民作为公民科学家的参与将推动东非的土壤恢复，并增加农民之间就土壤改良实践进行知识交流的潜力。