Abstract
Abstract In this study, we assessed responses of adaptation options to possible climate change scenarios on maize growth and yield by using projections of 20 coupled ensemble climate models under two representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5 by means of a DSSAT model. Growth and yield simulations were made across present and future climate conditions using the hybrid maize variety (Shone). Subsequently, simulated yields were compared with farmer’ average and on-farm trial yields. Results showed that on-farm trial yield (5.1–7.3 t ha −1 ) lay in between farmers’ average yield (2.9–5 t ha −1 ) and water-limited potential yield (6.3–10.6 t ha −1 ). Maize yields achieved in farmers’ fields are projected to decline towards mid-century and further towards the end of the century regardless of the adaptation options compared with baseline in low potential clusters. Results of a combination of adaptation options including February planting, use of 64 kg ha −1 N and conservation tillage provided yield advantage of 5.8% over the 30 cm till under medium GHGs emission scenario during mid-century period at Shamana. Mulching with 5 t ha −1 was projected to produce a 4–5% yield advantage in the Hawassa cluster during the mid-century period regardless of changes in tillage or planting window. Under a high GHGs emission scenario, over 13.4% yield advantage was projected in the Bilate cluster due to conservation tillage and June planting during the mid-century period. In the Dilla cluster, the use of 10 t ha −1 mulch, conservation tillage and early planting (February) would result in a 1.8% yield advantage compared with the control either in medium or high GHGs emission scenarios. Thus, the most promising and least risky practices among simulated strategies were the use of nitrogen and mulching in combination with tillage or planting date adjustment. However, adaptation options remained least promising and highly risky if not integrated with mulching or nitrogen use. Hence, the negative impacts of future climate change and subsequent yield gaps would be reduced by optimizing the application of nitrogen, mulch and their interaction with planting date and tillage in high and low potential areas of maize production.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
On-farm trial yield lay between farmer average and water-limited potential yield.
- Outcome
- on-farm trial yielde0
- Value
- 5.1–7.3 t ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- 2.9–5 t ha −1e0
- Comparator
- farmers’ average yielde0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“on-farm trial yield (5.1–7.3 t ha −1 ) lay in between farmers’ average yield (2.9–5 t ha −1 ) and water-limited potential yield (6.3–10.6 t ha −1 )”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer-field maize yield was projected to decline by mid-century and further by century end in low-potential clusters.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yields achieved in farmers’ fields are projected to decline towards mid-century and further towards the end of the century regardless of the adaptation options compared with baseline in low potential clusters.”
Claim · model-written summary
February planting, 64 kg ha −1 N and conservation tillage yielded a 5.8% advantage over 30 cm till at Shamana under medium emissions at mid-century.
- Treatment
- February planting, use of 64 kg ha −1 N and conservation tillagee0
- Outcome
- yield advantagee0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Value
- 5.8%e0
- Comparator
- 30 cm tille0
- Setting
- Shamanae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“February planting, use of 64 kg ha −1 N and conservation tillage provided yield advantage of 5.8% over the 30 cm till under medium GHGs emission scenario during mid-century period at Shamana”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching at 5 t ha −1 projected a 4–5% yield advantage in Hawassa at mid-century.
- Treatment
- Mulching with 5 t ha −1e0
- Outcome
- yield advantagee0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Value
- 4–5%e0
- Setting
- Hawassae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mulching with 5 t ha −1 was projected to produce a 4–5% yield advantage in the Hawassa cluster during the mid-century period regardless of changes in tillage or planting window.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage and June planting projected over 13.4% yield advantage in Bilate under high emissions at mid-century.
- Treatment
- conservation tillage and June plantinge0
- Outcome
- yield advantagee0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Value
- 13.4%e0
- Setting
- Bilatee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“over 13.4% yield advantage was projected in the Bilate cluster due to conservation tillage and June planting during the mid-century period”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Ten t ha −1 mulch, conservation tillage and February planting projected a 1.8% yield advantage in Dilla versus control.
- Treatment
- 10 t ha −1 mulch, conservation tillage and early planting (February)e0
- Outcome
- yield advantagee0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Value
- 1.8%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
- Setting
- Dillae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the Dilla cluster, the use of 10 t ha −1 mulch, conservation tillage and early planting (February) would result in a 1.8% yield advantage compared with the control either in medium or high GHGs emission scenarios.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors favored nitrogen and mulching combined with tillage or planting-date adjustment as least risky.
- Outcome
- use of nitrogen and mulching in combination with tillage or planting date adjustmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the most promising and least risky practices among simulated strategies were the use of nitrogen and mulching in combination with tillage or planting date adjustment”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Adaptations without mulching or nitrogen were judged least promising and highly risky.
- Outcome
- adaptation options remained least promising and highly risky if not integrated with mulching or nitrogen usee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“adaptation options remained least promising and highly risky if not integrated with mulching or nitrogen use”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
177 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
265 papers more in this group
See all 269 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
- negative
- no effect
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
- 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.