Abstract
In response to the intensive tillage in maize, operating under high seasonal rainfall variability, this study examined the agronomic and economic responses of tillage and water conservation management in the central rift valley (CRV) of Ethiopia. An experiment was laid out as a split plot design with conventional tillage (CT), minimum tillage (MT) and zero tillage (ZT) as main plots and mulch, no mulch and planting basin as subplots. The MT and ZT were considered as conservation agriculture (CA) plots. Results showed that CT had 13–20% higher grain yield than MT and 40–55% higher than ZT; and MT had 27–37% higher yields than ZT. Mulching had 23–33% and 14–19% higher grain yield than no mulch and planting basin respectively. The CT had 28 and 89% higher labor productivity and 6 and 60% higher gross margin than MT and ZT respectively. The MT had 37% higher gross margin than ZT. The highest yield response in CT resulted in its highest gross margin and labor productivity. This shows that regardless of water conservation management, CT yielded better agronomic and economic responses over CA. However, the practice of CT is highly constrained by the availability of draft power and the short window period for planting. Likewise, regardless of tillage management, mulching tended to be more attractive and promising in suppressing weed density and hence reducing labor demand for weeding, despite improving volumetric soil moisture content and maize yield. Yet the viability of practicing mulching is highly constrained by the widely practiced open grazing on stubble after harvest. Therefore, future studies are needed to further identify appropriate tillage and water conservation management which make maize more resilient to the high rainfall variability, and sustainably improve food security, and farmers’ livelihoods in the CRV of Ethiopia.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage yielded 13–20% more grain than minimum tillage.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT had 13–20% higher grain yield than MT”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage yielded 40–55% more grain than zero tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT had 13–20% higher grain yield than MT and 40–55% higher than ZT”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage yielded 27–37% more than zero tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MT had 27–37% higher yields than ZT”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching yielded 23–33% more grain than no mulch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mulching had 23–33% and 14–19% higher grain yield than no mulch and planting basin respectively.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching yielded 14–19% more grain than planting basin.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mulching had 23–33% and 14–19% higher grain yield than no mulch and planting basin respectively.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had 28% higher labor productivity than minimum tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT had 28 and 89% higher labor productivity and 6 and 60% higher gross margin than MT and ZT respectively.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had 89% higher labor productivity than zero tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT had 28 and 89% higher labor productivity and 6 and 60% higher gross margin than MT and ZT respectively.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had 6% higher gross margin than minimum tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT had 28 and 89% higher labor productivity and 6 and 60% higher gross margin than MT and ZT respectively.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had 60% higher gross margin than zero tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT had 28 and 89% higher labor productivity and 6 and 60% higher gross margin than MT and ZT respectively.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage had 37% higher gross margin than zero tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MT had 37% higher gross margin than ZT.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching tended to suppress weed density.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mulching tended to be more attractive and promising in suppressing weed density and hence reducing labor demand for weeding”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching tended to reduce weeding labor demand.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mulching tended to be more attractive and promising in suppressing weed density and hence reducing labor demand for weeding”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching improved volumetric soil moisture.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mulching tended to be more attractive and promising in suppressing weed density and hence reducing labor demand for weeding, despite improving volumetric soil moisture content and maize yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors call for further work on resilient tillage and water management.
- Outcome
- identify appropriate tillage and water conservation managemente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“future studies are needed to further identify appropriate tillage and water conservation management which make maize more resilient to the high rainfall variability”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →mulching · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
51 papers more in this group
See all 55 papers →mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.