Claim · model-written summary
Indicator number traded off against farmer number for estimating the index.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Outcome
- number of farmers needed to estimate the LFIe0
- Comparator
- number of indicatorse0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingDirectionValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was a trade‐off between the number of indicators and the number of farmers needed to estimate the LFI.”
t0“Cotton‐Based Systems”
Title
Fabèkourè Kambiré; Charles L. Bielders; Marie‐Paule Kestemont Land Degradation and Development 2015. doi:10.1002/ldr.2381
Other claims from this paper (7)
- Observation Farmers identified 13 fertility indicators related to soil, crop status, biological activity and management.
- Association Clay and silt content, pH water and P‐Bray explained 88% of variance in the local fertility index.
- Method / resource The local fertility index could be estimated from one pedo, one bio and one phyto indicator without significant accuracy loss.
- Recommendation The authors recommended six local indicators to permit data cross checking.
- Method / resource Local and analytical fertility indicators showed reasonable agreement.
- Observation Farmers appeared to judge the effects and consequences of fertility more than its actual status.
- Recommendation The authors recommend translating analytical indicators into variables resembling local indicators.