Abstract
Climate change challenges across sub-Saharan Africa require more resilient food production systems. To improve agricultural resilience, the Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) framework has been proposed including Conservation Agriculture (CA). CA has three key principles; 1) minimum soil disturbance, 2) crop residue cover, 3) crop diversification. Current soil health studies assessing CA’s impact have focused on 'scientific measurements', paying no attention to local knowledge. Local knowledge however influences farmers’ land decision making and their evaluation of CA. In this study, a participatory approach to evaluate CA’s soil health impacts is developed and implemented using farmers’ observations and soil measurements on farm trials in two Malawian communities. The on-farm trials compared conventional ridge and furrow systems (CP), with CA maize only (CAM) and CA maize-legume intercrop systems (CAML). This approach contextualizes the CA soil health outcomes and contributes to understanding how an integrated approach can explain farmer decision-making. Based on a stepwise integrated soil assessment framework, firstly farmers’ soil health indicators were identified as crop performance, soil consistency, moisture content, erosion, colour and structure. These local indicators were consistent with conventional soil health indicators for quantitative measurements. Soil measurements and observations show that CA leads to soil structural change. Both soil moisture (Mwansambo: 7.54%-38.15% lower for CP; Lemu 1.57%-47.39% lower for CP) and infiltration improve under CA (Lemu CAM/CAML 0.15 cms-1, CP 0.09 cms-1; Mwansambo CP/CAM 0.14 cms-1, CAML 0.18 cms-1). Farmers perceive ridges as positive due to aeration, nutrient release and infiltration, which corresponds with higher exchangeable ammonium (Lemu CP 76.0 mgkg -1, CAM 49.4 mgkg -1, CAML 51.7 mgkg -1), and nitrate/nitrite (Mwansambo CP 200.7 mgkg -1, CAM 171.9 mgkg -1, CAML 103.3 mgkg -1). This perspective still contributes to the popularity of ridges, despite the higher yield and total nitrogen measurements under CA. The perceived carbon benefits of residues, and ridge advantages have encouraged farmers to bury residues in ridges. This work shows that an integrated approach provides more nuanced and localized information about land management. The stepwise integrated soil assessment framework developed in this study can be used to understand the role of soil health in farmers’ land management decision-making. Thereby supporting a two-way learning process for scaling agricultural innovations and broadening the evidence base for sustainable agricultural innovations.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers identified crop performance, soil consistency, moisture, erosion, colour and structure as soil health indicators.
- Outcome
- soil health indicatorse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“farmers’ soil health indicators were identified as crop performance, soil consistency, moisture content, erosion, colour and structure”
e1“The on-farm trials compared conventional ridge and furrow systems (CP), with CA maize only (CAM) and CA maize-legume intercrop systems (CAML).”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture changed soil structure.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CA leads to soil structural change”
e1“The on-farm trials compared conventional ridge and furrow systems (CP), with CA maize only (CAM) and CA maize-legume intercrop systems (CAML).”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil moisture improved under conservation agriculture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil moisture (Mwansambo: 7.54%-38.15% lower for CP; Lemu 1.57%-47.39% lower for CP)”
e1“The on-farm trials compared conventional ridge and furrow systems (CP), with CA maize only (CAM) and CA maize-legume intercrop systems (CAML).”
Claim · model-written summary
Infiltration improved under conservation agriculture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“infiltration improve under CA (Lemu CAM/CAML 0.15 cms-1, CP 0.09 cms-1; Mwansambo CP/CAM 0.14 cms-1, CAML 0.18 cms-1)”
e1“The on-farm trials compared conventional ridge and furrow systems (CP), with CA maize only (CAM) and CA maize-legume intercrop systems (CAML).”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture had higher maize yield than ridge farming.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher yield and total nitrogen measurements under CA”
e1“The on-farm trials compared conventional ridge and furrow systems (CP), with CA maize only (CAM) and CA maize-legume intercrop systems (CAML).”
Claim · model-written summary
Total nitrogen was higher under conservation agriculture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher yield and total nitrogen measurements under CA”
e1“The on-farm trials compared conventional ridge and furrow systems (CP), with CA maize only (CAM) and CA maize-legume intercrop systems (CAML).”
Claim · model-written summary
An integrated soil assessment framework gave more nuanced local land management information.
- Outcome
- more nuanced and localized information about land managemente0
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“an integrated approach provides more nuanced and localized information about land management”
e1“The on-farm trials compared conventional ridge and furrow systems (CP), with CA maize only (CAM) and CA maize-legume intercrop systems (CAML).”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 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.