Abstract
In Rwanda, maize is a crucial staple crop, serving as a primary food source for both smallholder and commercial farmers. However, national maize yields (1.52 t ha −1 ) remain significantly lower than the global (5.88 t ha −1 ) and African (2.27 t ha −1 ) averages, posing a challenge to food security and economic growth. Key constraints include limited input use, suboptimal agronomic practices, and climate change. Conservation Agriculture (CA) has been promoted as a climate-smart approach to enhance productivity and sustainability in Rwanda. This study evaluates the agronomic and economic performance of CA compared to conventional tillage (CT) using survey data from 222 farms in the Kirehe district. Results show that CA farmers incurred higher total production costs (p < 0.001), particularly for fertilizers, seeds, weeding, and irrigation, while CT farmers had significantly higher land preparation costs (p < 0.001). Despite these cost differences, CA farmers achieved 40 % higher net profitability, 20 % higher maize yields, and 10 % greater phosphorus use efficiency than CT farmers. A Random Forest model identified experience in CA, irrigation frequency, seed rate, and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer application as key determinants of maize yield, with variations between CA and CT systems. Overall, CA significantly improved maize productivity and profitability despite higher initial costs, highlighting its potential as a sustainable intensification strategy for maize production in Rwanda and similar agro-climatic regions in East Africa. • Conservation agriculture (CA) compared with conventional in 222 farms in Rwanda. • CA improved yield (+20 %), profit (+40 %) & phosphorus use efficiency (+10 %). • Years of experience in CA, seed rate, irrigation & fertilizer are yield determinants. • Temperature and rainfall are the top-scoring climate change effects in Kirehe. • CA is a resilient climate change adaptation strategy for maize growers in semi-arid.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture (CA) farmers in Rwanda incurred higher total production costs than conventional tillage (CT) farmers.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study evaluates the agronomic and economic performance of CA compared to conventional tillage (CT)”
e1“CA farmers incurred higher total production costs”
e2“maize is a crucial staple crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage (CT) farmers had significantly higher land preparation costs than CA farmers.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study evaluates the agronomic and economic performance of CA compared to conventional tillage (CT)”
e1“CT farmers had significantly higher land preparation costs”
e2“maize is a crucial staple crop”
Claim · model-written summary
CA farmers achieved 40% higher net profitability than CT farmers in maize production in Rwanda.
- Treatment
- CAe0
- Outcome
- net profitabilitye3
- Direction
- highere3
- Value
- 40 %e3
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study evaluates the agronomic and economic performance of CA compared to conventional tillage (CT)”
e3“CA farmers achieved 40 % higher net profitability”
e2“maize is a crucial staple crop”
Claim · model-written summary
CA farmers achieved 20% higher maize yields than CT farmers.
- Treatment
- CAe0
- Outcome
- maize yieldse4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 20 %e4
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study evaluates the agronomic and economic performance of CA compared to conventional tillage (CT)”
e4“20 % higher maize yields”
e2“maize is a crucial staple crop”
Claim · model-written summary
CA farmers achieved 10% greater phosphorus use efficiency than CT farmers.
- Treatment
- CAe0
- Outcome
- phosphorus use efficiencye5
- Direction
- greatere5
- Value
- 10 %e5
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study evaluates the agronomic and economic performance of CA compared to conventional tillage (CT)”
e5“and 10 % greater phosphorus use efficiency than CT farmers”
e2“maize is a crucial staple crop”
Claim · model-written summary
A Random Forest model identified experience in CA, irrigation frequency, seed rate, and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer application as key determinants of maize yield.
- Treatment
- experience in CA, irrigation frequency, seed rate, and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer applicatione6
- Outcome
- maize yielde6
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“A Random Forest model identified experience in CA, irrigation frequency, seed rate, and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer application as key determinants of maize yield”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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
- positive
- positive
- 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.