Abstract
Conservation agriculture (CA) is defined as sustainable agriculture production system comprising a set of farming practices adapted to the requirement of crops and local condition of each region. This experiment was conducted at three districts: East-Badawaho, Meskan and Hawassa-Zuriya. In each district five farmers hosted the experiment and each farmer was used as a replicate. The experiment was run for six years (2011-2016) at each farmer’s field. The experiment consisted of five treatments (Continuous sole maize, Maize bean rotation, Maize-bean inter-cropping, Bean rotation under CA and farmer practice. BH-543 maize variety and Hawassa-Dume common bean variety were used. Soil moisture content under CA practices was higher than the farmer practice during drought year. Maize yield and yield related traits and soil water data were collected from each site. At East-Badawacho grain yield was 4% higher in CA compared with farmer practice. Maize bean rotation and sole maize under CA out yielded the farmer practice by 13 and 4%, respectively but maize-bean inter-cropping had 5% lower grain yield. At Hawassa-Zuriya, CA maize bean rotation had higher yield than farmer practice in 2011 and 2013. At Meskan, CA had 8% higher than FP. Maize-bean inter-cropping, maize bean rotation and sole maize under CA had 10, 8 and 6% higher grain yield than farmer practice, respectively. Common bean grain yield from bean rotation under CA had 2799, 2908, and 3226 kg ha -1 at East-Badawacho, Hawassa-Zuriya and Meskan district respectively. Inter-cropping under CA had 817, 1065 and 927 kg ha -1 , respectively. Generally, CA cropping systems had random drought stress reduction potential as compared with common practice and even under normal condition cropping systems under CA had higher grain yield and biomass production potential. Keywords: cropping systems, farmer practice, sole maize, rotation, inter cropping; rift valley DOI: 10.7176/JNSR/10-12-01 Publication date: June 30th 2020
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Soil moisture under conservation agriculture exceeded farmer practice in a drought year.
- Treatment
- CA practicese0
- Outcome
- Soil moisture contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- during drought yeare0
- Comparator
- farmer practicee0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil moisture content under CA practices was higher than the farmer practice during drought year.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
At East-Badawacho, conservation agriculture grain yield was 4% higher than farmer practice.
- Treatment
- CAe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 4%e0
- Comparator
- farmer practicee0
- Setting
- East-Badawachoe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At East-Badawacho grain yield was 4% higher in CA compared with farmer practice.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize bean rotation under conservation agriculture outyielded farmer practice by 13%.
- Treatment
- Maize bean rotatione0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- out yieldede0
- Value
- 13e0
- Comparator
- farmer practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize bean rotation and sole maize under CA out yielded the farmer practice by 13 and 4%, respectively”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole maize under conservation agriculture outyielded farmer practice by 4%.
- Treatment
- sole maize under CAe0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- out yieldede0
- Value
- 4%e0
- Comparator
- farmer practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize bean rotation and sole maize under CA out yielded the farmer practice by 13 and 4%, respectively”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-bean intercropping had 5% lower grain yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize-bean inter-cropping had 5% lower grain yield”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
At Hawassa-Zuriya, maize bean rotation under conservation agriculture yielded more than farmer practice in 2011 and 2013.
- Treatment
- CA maize bean rotatione0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- in 2011 and 2013e0
- Comparator
- farmer practicee0
- Setting
- Hawassa-Zuriyae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At Hawassa-Zuriya, CA maize bean rotation had higher yield than farmer practice in 2011 and 2013.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
At Meskan, conservation agriculture yield was 8% higher than farmer practice.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At Meskan, CA had 8% higher than FP.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
At Meskan, maize-bean intercropping under conservation agriculture yielded 10% more than farmer practice.
- Treatment
- Maize-bean inter-croppinge0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 10e0
- Comparator
- farmer practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize-bean inter-cropping, maize bean rotation and sole maize under CA had 10, 8 and 6% higher grain yield than farmer practice, respectively.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
At Meskan, maize bean rotation under conservation agriculture yielded 8% more than farmer practice.
- Treatment
- maize bean rotatione0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 8e0
- Comparator
- farmer practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize-bean inter-cropping, maize bean rotation and sole maize under CA had 10, 8 and 6% higher grain yield than farmer practice, respectively.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
At Meskan, sole maize under conservation agriculture yielded 6% more than farmer practice.
- Treatment
- sole maize under CAe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 6%e0
- Comparator
- farmer practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize-bean inter-cropping, maize bean rotation and sole maize under CA had 10, 8 and 6% higher grain yield than farmer practice, respectively.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean yield under conservation agriculture bean rotation was 2799 kg ha -1 at East-Badawacho.
- Taxon
- Common bean
Phaseolus vulgarise0 - Treatment
- bean rotation under CAe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Value
- 2799e0
- Setting
- East-Badawachoe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Common bean grain yield from bean rotation under CA had 2799, 2908, and 3226 kg ha -1 at East-Badawacho, Hawassa-Zuriya and Meskan district respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean yield under conservation agriculture bean rotation was 2908 kg ha -1 at Hawassa-Zuriya.
- Taxon
- Common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Treatment
- bean rotation under CAe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Value
- 2908e0
- Setting
- Hawassa-Zuriyae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Common bean grain yield from bean rotation under CA had 2799, 2908, and 3226 kg ha -1 at East-Badawacho, Hawassa-Zuriya and Meskan district respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean yield under conservation agriculture bean rotation was 3226 kg ha -1 at Meskan.
- Taxon
- Common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Treatment
- bean rotation under CAe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Value
- 3226 kg ha -1e0
- Setting
- Meskane0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Common bean grain yield from bean rotation under CA had 2799, 2908, and 3226 kg ha -1 at East-Badawacho, Hawassa-Zuriya and Meskan district respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean intercropping under conservation agriculture yielded 817 kg ha -1 at East-Badawacho.
Verbatim
e0“Inter-cropping under CA had 817, 1065 and 927 kg ha -1 , respectively.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean intercropping under conservation agriculture yielded 1065 kg ha -1 at Hawassa-Zuriya.
Verbatim
e0“Inter-cropping under CA had 817, 1065 and 927 kg ha -1 , respectively.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean intercropping under conservation agriculture yielded 927 kg ha -1 at Meskan.
Verbatim
e0“Inter-cropping under CA had 817, 1065 and 927 kg ha -1 , respectively.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture cropping systems had drought stress reduction potential compared with common practice.
- Treatment
- CA cropping systemse0
- Outcome
- drought stresse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Comparator
- common practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CA cropping systems had random drought stress reduction potential as compared with common practice”
t0“Maize-Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture cropping systems had higher grain yield and biomass production potential under normal conditions.
- Treatment
- cropping systems under CAe0
- Outcome
- grain yield and biomass production potentiale0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- under normal conditione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“even under normal condition cropping systems under CA had higher grain yield and biomass production potential.”
t0“Maize-Bean”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →cultivation system · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
109 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
151 papers more in this group
See all 155 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
- negative
- negative
- 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
- negative
- no effect
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.