Abstract
Abstract Climate variability and declining soil fertility pose a major threat to sustainable agronomic and economic growth in Zambia. The objective of this study was to assess crop yield, land and labor productivity of conservation agriculture (CA) technologies in Eastern Zambia. On-farm trials were run from 2012–2015 and farmers were replicates of a randomized complete block design. The trials compared three CA systems against a conventional practice. Yield and net return ha −1 were determined for maize and legume yield (kg ha −1 ) produced by ridge and furrow tillage, CA dibble stick planting, CA animal traction ripping and direct seeding. The dibble stick, ripline and direct seeding CA systems had 6–18, 12–28 and 8–9% greater maize yield relative to the conventional tillage system, respectively. Rotation of maize with cowpea and soybean significantly increased maize yields in all CA systems. Intercropping maize with cowpea increased land productivity (e.g., the land equivalent ratio for four seasons was 2.01) compared with full rotations under CA. Maize/cowpea intercropping in dibble stick CA produced the greatest net returns (US$312-767 ha −1 ) compared with dibble stick maize-cowpea rotation (US$204-657), dibble stick maize monoculture (US$108-584) and the conventional practice (US$64-516). The net-return for the animal traction CA systems showed that maize-soybean rotations using the ripper were more profitable than the direct seeder or conventional ridge and furrow systems. Agronomic and economic benefits of CA-based cropping systems highlight the good potential for improved food security and agricultural productivity for smallholder farmers.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Dibble stick CA raised maize yield 6–18% over conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- dibble sticke0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 6–18e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage systeme0
- Setting
- Eastern Zambiat0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The dibble stick, ripline and direct seeding CA systems had 6–18, 12–28 and 8–9% greater maize yield relative to the conventional tillage system, respectively”
t0“Eastern Zambia”
Claim · model-written summary
Ripline CA raised maize yield 12–28% over conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- riplinee0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 12–28e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage systeme0
- Setting
- Eastern Zambiat0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The dibble stick, ripline and direct seeding CA systems had 6–18, 12–28 and 8–9% greater maize yield relative to the conventional tillage system, respectively”
t0“Eastern Zambia”
Claim · model-written summary
Direct seeding CA raised maize yield 8–9% over conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- direct seedinge0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 8–9%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage systeme0
- Setting
- Eastern Zambiat0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The dibble stick, ripline and direct seeding CA systems had 6–18, 12–28 and 8–9% greater maize yield relative to the conventional tillage system, respectively”
t0“Eastern Zambia”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea rotation significantly increased maize yield in all CA systems.
- Treatment
- Rotation of maize with cowpeae0
- Outcome
- maize yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- all CA systemse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rotation of maize with cowpea and soybean significantly increased maize yields in all CA systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean rotation significantly increased maize yield in all CA systems.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rotation of maize with cowpea and soybean significantly increased maize yields in all CA systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-cowpea intercropping increased land productivity over full rotations, with a four-season land equivalent ratio of 2.01.
- Treatment
- Intercropping maize with cowpeae0
- Outcome
- land productivitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.01e0
- Comparator
- full rotations under CAe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping maize with cowpea increased land productivity (e.g., the land equivalent ratio for four seasons was 2.01) compared with full rotations under CA”
Claim · model-written summary
Dibble stick maize-cowpea intercropping had the greatest net returns at US$312-767 ha−1.
- Treatment
- Maize/cowpea intercropping in dibble stick CAe0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Value
- US$312-767 ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- US$64-516e0
- Comparator
- conventional practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize/cowpea intercropping in dibble stick CA produced the greatest net returns (US$312-767 ha −1 ) compared with dibble stick maize-cowpea rotation (US$204-657), dibble stick maize monoculture (US$108-584) and the conventional practice (US$64-516)”
Claim · model-written summary
Dibble stick maize-cowpea rotation returned US$204-657.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“dibble stick maize-cowpea rotation (US$204-657)”
e1“produced the greatest net returns”
Claim · model-written summary
Dibble stick maize monoculture returned US$108-584.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“dibble stick maize monoculture (US$108-584)”
e1“produced the greatest net returns”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional practice returned US$64-516.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the conventional practice (US$64-516)”
e1“Maize/cowpea intercropping in dibble stick CA produced the greatest net returns”
Claim · model-written summary
Ripper maize-soybean rotation was more profitable than direct seeder or conventional ridge and furrow systems.
- Treatment
- maize-soybean rotations using the rippere0
- Outcome
- profitablee0
- Direction
- more profitablee0
- Comparator
- direct seeder or conventional ridge and furrow systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize-soybean rotations using the ripper were more profitable than the direct seeder or conventional ridge and furrow systems”
The same questions in other papers
Vigna unguiculata · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 papers →Glycine max · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
154 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
176 papers more in this group
See all 180 papers →transplanting · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
126 papers more in this group
See all 130 papers →rotation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
253 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
318 papers more in this group
See all 322 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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.