Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the sustainability and long-term impacts of Conservation Agriculture (CA) practices on key agricultural metrics, such as soil health, crop productivity, and water retention, in the agroecological transition zone of Western Burkina Faso. Results indicated significant improvements in soil organic matter (22% increase), nutrient availability (15% increase in nitrogen), and water retention (18% higher moisture at flowering stage) in no-tillage plots with mulch application compared to conventional tillage. Maize yields increased by 34% under no-tillage with mulch, highlighting the positive impact of CA on crop productivity. In contrast, conventional tillage plots showed stable or declining yields due to soil degradation. The study concludes that CA, particularly no-tillage with mulch retention, enhances soil health, increases crop yields, and improves water use efficiency, making it a viable solution for sustainable agriculture in semi-arid regions. However, adoption barriers such as residue competition and limited access to equipment must be addressed for widespread implementation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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
No-tillage with mulch significantly increased soil organic matter by 22% compared with conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- no-tillage plots with mulch applicatione2
- Outcome
- soil organic mattere1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 22%e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee2
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Results indicated significant improvements in soil organic matter (22% increase)”
e2“in no-tillage plots with mulch application compared to conventional tillage”
e3“Maize yields increased by 34% under no-tillage with mulch”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage with mulch significantly increased nitrogen availability by 15% compared with conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- no-tillage plots with mulch applicatione2
- Outcome
- nutrient availabilitye4
- Direction
- increasee4
- Value
- 15%e4
- Qualifier
- in nitrogene4
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“in no-tillage plots with mulch application compared to conventional tillage”
e3“Maize yields increased by 34% under no-tillage with mulch”
e4“nutrient availability (15% increase in nitrogen)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage with mulch significantly raised water retention by 18% at the flowering stage compared with conventional tillage.
- Organ / stage
- flowering stagee5
- Treatment
- no-tillage plots with mulch applicatione2
- Outcome
- water retentione5
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 18%e5
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“in no-tillage plots with mulch application compared to conventional tillage”
e3“Maize yields increased by 34% under no-tillage with mulch”
e5“water retention (18% higher moisture at flowering stage)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yields increased by 34% under no-tillage with mulch compared with conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- no-tillage with mulche3
- Outcome
- yieldse3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 34%e3
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“in no-tillage plots with mulch application compared to conventional tillage”
e3“Maize yields increased by 34% under no-tillage with mulch”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage plots showed stable or declining maize yields due to soil degradation.
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee6
- Outcome
- yieldse6
- Direction
- stable or declininge6
- Qualifier
- due to soil degradatione6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Maize yields increased by 34% under no-tillage with mulch”
e6“In contrast, conventional tillage plots showed stable or declining yields due to soil degradation”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend conservation agriculture, particularly no-tillage with mulch, as a viable solution for sustainable maize agriculture in semi-arid regions.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Maize yields increased by 34% under no-tillage with mulch”
e7“making it a viable solution for sustainable agriculture in semi-arid regions”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture, particularly no-tillage with mulch retention, improves water use efficiency of maize.
- Treatment
- CA, particularly no-tillage with mulch retentione1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- improvese1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Maize yields increased by 34% under no-tillage with mulch”
e1“The study concludes that CA, particularly no-tillage with mulch retention, enhances soil health, increases crop yields, and improves water use efficiency”
Claim · model-written summary
Adoption barriers such as residue competition and limited access to equipment must be addressed for widespread implementation of conservation agriculture on maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Maize yields increased by 34% under no-tillage with mulch”
e1“adoption barriers such as residue competition and limited access to equipment must be addressed for widespread implementation”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →mulching · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
107 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
112 papers more in this group
See all 116 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 →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
- negative
- no effect
- negative
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.