Abstract
Transitioning toward minimum or no tillage is challenging for smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), due to the possible yield penalties during the initial years of a transition. Understanding the early impacts of such transitions is crucial in a cash crop such as cotton, on which farmers rely for their income, and is necessary to inform agroecological strategies to cope with both these challenges. This study explores the combined impact of minimum or no tillage and fertilizer regimes on agronomic parameters of cotton–cereal rotations, as practiced by smallholder farmers in Benin. A multilocation experiment was set up in three different agroclimatic zones, namely, Savalou (7°55′41″, 1°58′32″), Okpara (2°48′15″, 7°72′07″), and Soaodou (10°28′33″, 1°98′33″). In each area, the experiment was laid out as a split-plot design with four replications (main plot = soil preparation; subplot = fertilizers regimes). The treatments consisted of three different forms of soil preparation, namely, tillage, strip tillage, and no tillage or direct seeding, and four fertilization regimes, namely, basal mineral fertilizers (BMF, 200 kg ha 1 of N 14 P 18 K 18 S 6 B 1 + 50 kg ha 1 of urea), BMF + A (200 kg ha 1 of calcium phosphate amendment, 22P 2 O 5 -43CaO−4S), BMF + C (400 kg ha 1 of compost), and BMF + A + C. At all sites, direct seeding led to lower below-ground biomass growth and seed cotton yields compared with conventional tillage in an early transition to conservation agriculture starting from degraded soils (2% to 25%). Weak rooting under direct seeding resulted in lower cotton yields compared with that under tillage (−12%) and strip tillage (−15%). At 45 and 90 days after emergence, cotton plants were shorter under direct seeding compared with tillage (−9% and −13%, respectively) and strip tillage (−23% and −6%, respectively). Fertilizer regimes affected seed cotton yields differently across sites and treatments, with marginal responses within soil preparation methods, but they contributed to increase yield differences between conventional and no tillage. Considering the need for sustainable practices, in the context of degraded soils and poor productivity, such limited yield penalties under CA appear to be a reasonable trade-off in the first year of a transition. Alternatively, the results from the first year of this experiment, which is meant to continue for another 5 years, suggest that strip tillage could be a sensible way to initialize a transition, without initial yield penalties, toward more sustainable soil management.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Direct seeding lowered below-ground biomass growth relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- direct seedinge0
- Outcome
- below-ground biomass growthe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- degraded soils (2% to 25%)e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At all sites, direct seeding led to lower below-ground biomass growth and seed cotton yields compared with conventional tillage in an early transition to conservation agriculture starting from degraded soils (2% to 25%).”
Claim · model-written summary
Direct seeding lowered seed cotton yields relative to conventional tillage by 2% to 25% across sites.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- direct seedinge0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- degraded soils (2% to 25%)e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At all sites, direct seeding led to lower below-ground biomass growth and seed cotton yields compared with conventional tillage in an early transition to conservation agriculture starting from degraded soils (2% to 25%).”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield under direct seeding was 12% lower than under tillage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- direct seedinge0
- Outcome
- cotton yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- −12%e0
- Qualifier
- Weak rootinge0
- Comparator
- tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weak rooting under direct seeding resulted in lower cotton yields compared with that under tillage (−12%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield under direct seeding was 15% lower than under strip tillage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- direct seedinge0
- Outcome
- cotton yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- −15%e0
- Comparator
- strip tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weak rooting under direct seeding resulted in lower cotton yields compared with that under tillage (−12%) and strip tillage (−15%).”
Claim · model-written summary
At 45 days after emergence, direct-seeded cotton was 9% shorter than tilled cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- direct seedinge0
- Outcome
- cotton plants were shortere0
- Direction
- shortere0
- Value
- −9%e0
- Qualifier
- 45e0
- Comparator
- tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At 45 and 90 days after emergence, cotton plants were shorter under direct seeding compared with tillage (−9% and −13%, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
At 90 days after emergence, direct-seeded cotton was 13% shorter than tilled cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- direct seedinge0
- Outcome
- cotton plants were shortere0
- Direction
- shortere0
- Value
- −13%e0
- Qualifier
- 90 days after emergencee0
- Comparator
- tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At 45 and 90 days after emergence, cotton plants were shorter under direct seeding compared with tillage (−9% and −13%, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
At 45 days after emergence, direct-seeded cotton was 23% shorter than strip-tilled cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- direct seedinge0
- Outcome
- cotton plants were shortere0
- Direction
- shortere0
- Value
- −23%e0
- Qualifier
- 45e0
- Comparator
- strip tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At 45 and 90 days after emergence, cotton plants were shorter under direct seeding compared with tillage (−9% and −13%, respectively) and strip tillage (−23% and −6%, respectively).”
Claim · model-written summary
At 90 days after emergence, direct-seeded cotton was 6% shorter than strip-tilled cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- direct seedinge0
- Outcome
- cotton plants were shortere0
- Direction
- shortere0
- Value
- −6%e0
- Qualifier
- 90 days after emergencee0
- Comparator
- strip tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At 45 and 90 days after emergence, cotton plants were shorter under direct seeding compared with tillage (−9% and −13%, respectively) and strip tillage (−23% and −6%, respectively).”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer effects on seed cotton yield varied by site and treatment and were marginal within tillage methods.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Fertilizer regimese0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yieldse0
- Qualifier
- differently across sites and treatmentse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fertilizer regimes affected seed cotton yields differently across sites and treatments, with marginal responses within soil preparation methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer regimes increased yield differences between conventional and no tillage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- Fertilizer regimese1
- Outcome
- yield differencese0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- conventional and no tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“they contributed to increase yield differences between conventional and no tillage”
e1“Fertilizer regimes affected seed cotton yields”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors consider limited early yield penalties under conservation agriculture a reasonable trade-off.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Outcome
- reasonable trade-off in the first year of a transitione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“such limited yield penalties under CA appear to be a reasonable trade-off in the first year of a transition”
e1“cotton–cereal rotations”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest strip tillage to start a transition without initial yield penalties.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Outcome
- strip tillage could be a sensible way to initialize a transition, without initial yield penaltiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“strip tillage could be a sensible way to initialize a transition, without initial yield penalties”
e1“cotton–cereal rotations”
The same questions in other papers
transplanting · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
transplanting · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →transplanting · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 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.