Abstract
Yield increases and sustainability of conservation agriculture (CA) systems largely depend on systematic crop rotations and in situ crop harvest residue management coupled with adequate crop nutrition. In this chapter, the beneficial effects of crop residue management and crop rotations on maize (Zea mays L.) grain yield in CA systems under rainfed conditions are explained through a meta-analysis. The effects of crop residue management are most beneficial under rainfed conditions as rainfall distribution is often erratic and seasonal dry spells common. The meta-analysis was based on the weighted mean difference (WMD) effect size using the random effects model. Yield advantages of CA systems over conventional tillage systems were only significant when in rotation, under low rainfall conditions and with large N fertiliser inputs. The WMD for CA with continuous maize ranged from − 1.32 to 1.27 with a mean of − 0.03 t ha−1, and when rotation was included the WMD ranged from − 0.34 to 1.92 with a mean of 0.64 t ha−1. Mulch retention under low rainfall (< 600 mm) had a WMD between −0.2 and 1.0 with a mean of 0.4 t ha−1 while high rainfall (> 1000 mm per season) reduced the yield advantage with the WMD ranging from − 1.2 to 0.02 with a mean of − 0.59 t ha−1. CA is likely to have the largest impact in low-rainfall environments where increased infiltration of rainfall and reduced evaporative losses are achieved by retaining crop residues. However, it is in these areas that achieving sufficient crop residues is a challenge, particularly in mixed crop–livestock systems where crop residues are needed for livestock feed in the dry season. The results suggest that CA needs to be targeted and adapted to specific biophysical as well as socioeconomic circumstances of farmers for improved impact. The ability of farmers to purchase fertiliser inputs, achieve sufficient biomass production as well as produce alternative feed will allow them to practise CA and possibly achieve large yields.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Crop rotation
- Crop residues
- Conservation agriculture
- Maize grain yield
- Meta-analysis
- Weighted mean difference
- Rainfed conditions
1 Introduction
Systematic crop rotations and in situ crop harvest residue management are the pillars of conservation agriculture (CA). Yet, they are also the most pronounced barriers to its widespread practice especially on smallholder farms in the tropics. A crop rotation is the sequence of crop types grown in succession on a specific field (Wibberley 1996; Castellazzi et al. 2008) . Crop rotations play a key role in CA systems where they facilitate soil fertility replenishment while at the same time minimising pest and disease build-up (Trenbath 1993) . Crop rotations with leguminous crops have the potential to increase soil nitrogen (N) concentration through biological nitrogen fixation (BNF; Giller 2001) . Research results have shown that synthetic fertilisers or organic manure do not solve the challenges of soil degradation and fertility decline except when used in combination (Chivenge et al. 2009, 2011) . The use of mineral fertiliser is needed and should be combined with management practices that build up organic carbon and achieve sustainability in the longer term. The underlying hypothesis of this chapter is that yield increases in CA over conventional agriculture systems are underpinned by successful crop residue management and crop rotation, and such yield increases differ according to fertiliser inputs by farmers and the amount and distribution of seasonal rainfall.
The importance of crop residue retention to sustainability of crop production is widely acknowledged. In situ retention of crop harvest residues coupled with no tillage has the potential to increase substantially soil organic carbon (SOC) although current data and knowledge are inconclusive (Govaerts et al. 2009) . However, there is consensus that consistent and sufficient C inputs are the major determinants of SOC changes in soil and not so much the type of tillage (Chivenge et al. 2007) . Reduced tillage is important in reducing decomposition rates but this is only relevant if sufficient organic inputs have been applied (Chivenge et al. 2007) . The absence of soil inversion may lead to SOC accumulation in the top layers of the soil (Franzluebbers and Arshad 1996) . Carbon increases are expected over time if the amount of crop residue retained is more than that dissipated by the oxidation process. Current literature suggests that the importance of crop residue retention in the short term might be related to the maintenance of SOC rather than its absolute increase.
Crop residues provide soil cover which decreases run-off and soil loss especially on low slopes but it is less effective on steep slopes (Adekalu et al. 2007) . In a study on a utisol in Nigeria, Adekalu et al. (2007) reported that water infiltration increased with increasing levels of mulch cover (giant elephant grass) and decreased with increasing slope. The authors suggested that to improve infiltration and reduce run-off and soil erosion , up to 90 % cover may be necessary especially if organic matter is low and sand content is high. Other researchers have suggested mulch application rates of 4–6 t ha−1 as adequate (Lal 1976; De Silva and Cook 2003) but what these quantities translate to in terms of soil cover for different crops is not well known (Morrison et al. 1985) . Some authors suggest that mulch rates of up to 6 t ha−1 may completely eliminate soil loss (Fig. 2.1, Lal 1998; Adekalu et al. 2006, 2007) . Understanding the interactions between the type and rate of mulch application, the contribution to nutrient enhancement in soil and the potential for crop yield improvement are needed (Cook et al. 2006) . Crop residues have low thermal conductivity such that mulching can reduce soil temperature for optimal germination and root development in hot environments (Lal 1978; Riddle et al. 1996) . They insulate the soil surface and increase resistance to heat and vapour transfer leading to increased available soil water (Hatfield and Prueger 1996; Dexter 1997; Cook et al. 2006) . Mulch is also important for intercepting rainfall energy and reduces erosion. In areas of relatively short duration and low-intensity rainfall, mulching may reduce soil water recharge; this could be crucial in areas with frequent and small amounts of rainfall because it can be intercepted before it recharges the topsoil (Sadler and Turner 1993; Savabi and Stott 1994) . It has also been suggested that the crop residue thickness has a direct effect on total interception of rainfall (Savabi and Stott 1994). Thus, mulch application is not always positive and may be detrimental to crop productivity.
In cereal-based systems which dominate the tropics, most crop residues are derived from maize, millet and sorghum, which are rich in lignin and have high C/N ratios that are generally greater than 60 (Cadisch and Giller 1997; Handayanto et al. 1997) . Although crop residues are often on the soil surface, they are more likely to partially incorporate and decompose as the season progresses adding to SOC (Parker 1962) . However, the wide C/N ratio leads to prolonged N immobilization by microorganisms, rendering N unavailable for crop growth in the short term (Giller et al. 1997). Thus, high N inputs are required when poor-quality crop residues are used as mulch cover.
This chapter collates and performs a meta-analysis on existing literature on the effect of crop rotations and crop residue management on maize grain yield under CA. Meta-analysis allows combined quantitative analyses of experimental yield data reported in the literature and estimation of effect sizes (Glass 1976; Rosenburg et al. 2000; Ried 2006; Borenstein et al. 2009) . The analysis increases the statistical power available to test hypotheses and can help unravel differences in responses between treatments under different environments (Gates 2002; Borenstein et al. 2009) . The effect size for each individual study is considered an independent estimate of the underlying true effect size, subject to random variation. All studies contribute to the overall estimate of the treatment effect whether the result of each study is statistically significant or not thus reducing publication bias . Data from studies with more precise measurements or larger studies (many cases) are given more weight, so they have more influence on the overall estimate (Gates 2002). However, meta-analysis has potential weaknesses due to publication bias and other biases that may be introduced in the process of locating, selecting and combining studies (Egger et al. 1997; Noble 2006) . Publication bias arises when researchers, reviewers and editors submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings (Dickersin 1990) . This means that studies reporting contradictory or neutral results are likely to be omitted from publications. To reduce publication bias, data searches were carried out online to find results from all parts of the world under rainfed conditions. Some researchers were also contacted to provide some grey literature. Moderators, i.e. factors likely to influence effect sizes such as mean annual precipitation (MAP) and N fertiliser input, were identified during data collation and the random effects model was used during the analysis (Ried 2006) .
2 Meta-analysis
Maize grain yield data were obtained from studies on the effect of crop residue management and crop rotation. Due to the voluminous nature of the search results, meta-analysis was restricted to rainfed conditions in semiarid and subhumid environments where the effects of mulch on crop productivity would be better assessed. Data searches were predominantly online and obtained from refereed journals, book chapters or peer-reviewed conference proceedings. The following keywords and their combinations were searched: crop rotations, legumes , CA, mulch cover, no tillage, maize yield, corn yield, subhumid, semiarid and rainfed. The treatments from which maize grain yield data were collated are described in Table 2.1. Nutrient inputs needed to be the same across the treatments tested in each study. Unpublished data or grey literature was obtained from researchers working on CA. Result moderators or factors likely to influence the meta-analysis outcome such as annual rainfall and N input as reported in the literature were included in the analysis. Fifty publications met the selection criteria and were used in the meta-analysis (Table 2.2).
The meta-analysis procedure and calculation followed that described by Rusinamhodzi et al. (2011) as presented below. Data required for the meta-analysis were in the form of treatment mean (\(\bar X\)), standard deviation (\(S{D_{\bar X}}\)), and number of replicates (\(n\)) mentioned in the experimental design. Several authors presented statistical data in different formats such as standard error \(S{E_{\bar X}}\) and coefficient of variation (\(CV\% \)). These were converted to standard deviation (\(S{D_{\bar X}}\)) using the following equations: \(S{D_{\bar X}}\, = \,S{E_{\bar X}}\, \times \sqrt n \) and \(S{D_{\bar X}}\, = \,(\frac{{CV\% }}{{100}}) \times \,\bar X\). Effect size was obtained by computing the weighted mean difference (WMD) using the random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird 1986; Borenstein et al. 2009) . The mean difference (Eq. 2.1) in yield between the treatment and control was used due to its ease of interpretation and the relevance for comparing potential gains (Ried 2006; Sileshi et al. 2008) . To obtain overall treatment effects across studies, the differences between treatment and control were weighted (Eq. 2.3). The weight given to each study was calculated as the inverse of the variance (Eq. 2.2). The random effects model assumed that the true effect of CA on crop yield varied from site to site and from season to season; thus, contributions of each study to the overall effect size were considered independent. Nitrogen input and amount of seasonal rainfall were chosen as the most important moderators and their effect tested on the magnitude of the responses (mean differences). Nitrogen input and MAP classes were categorized as reported by Rusinamhodzi et al. (2011) with MAP classes as low (< 600 mm), medium (600–1000 mm) and high (> 1000 mm), and N fertiliser input as low (< 100 kg ha−1) and high (> 100 kg ha−1):
3 Yield Data from Different Mulch and Crop Rotations
The WMD of CA with continuous maize cropping was almost zero but ranged from − 1.32 to 1.27 t ha−1 (Fig. 2.2). Including the rotation into the CA system increased the WMD which ranged from − 0.34 to 1.92 t ha−1 with a mean of 0.64 t ha−1. Retention of mulch alone without crop diversification does not necessarily lead to improved crop productivity. The overall effect of mulch on crop productivity could be considered neutral in this case. These results agree with Kapusta et al. (1996) who observed no significant yield difference between no tillage and conventional ploughing on poorly drained soils after 20 years of continuous no tillage . Similarly, Dam et al. (2005) reported that, after 11 years, maize yields were more affected by the amount of rainfall and temperature across years than tillage and crop residue management . Rotations especially with legumes often have positive effects on maize yield across soil fertility regimes (Karlen et al. 1991, 1994a) . The larger yield in rotation compared with continuous monocropping was attributed to reduced pest infestations, improved water-use efficiency , good soil quality as shown by increased organic carbon, greater soil aggregation, increased nutrient availability and greater soil biological activity (Van Doren et al. 1976; Hernanz et al. 2002; Kureh et al. 2006) . In the Highlands of Madagascar, Djigal et al. (2012) observed CA systems that supported comparable or better yields in the long term than conventional tillage if crop rotation was correctly managed.
Subgroup analysis of continuous maize production with mulch suggested that the amount of seasonal rainfall and fertiliser inputs are important yield moderators. The most yield advantage (WMD between − 0.2 and 1.0 t ha−1) from mulch retention was obtained in environments where seasonal precipitation did not exceed 600 mm, with an overall effect of 0.4 t ha−1 (Fig. 2.3). The yield advantages from mulch application decreased with increasing seasonal rainfall as expected; above 600 mm, there was no yield advantage from mulch retention over conventional tillage . The retention of mulch increases rainfall infiltration into the soil and reduces evaporative losses resulting in waterlogging. In other studies, yields under CA practices were 5–20 % less than under conventional tillage practices in wet years, but 10–100 % higher in relatively dry years (Hussain et al. 1999) . Similarly, Lueschen et al. (1991) reported larger crop yields with CA practices than conventional tillage in a relatively dry year.
Retention of mulch requires a concomitant increase in N inputs to ensure larger yields. WMD for systems where N input was less than 100 kg ha−1 indicated that conventional systems would yield more than CA options tested (Fig. 2.4). When N fertiliser input was raised beyond 100 kg ha−1, the WMD had a yield advantage for CA over conventional tillage. The results agree with Vanlauwe et al. (2014) who identified adequate nutrient management in CA systems as another critical factor, i.e. the need for a fourth principle. Similarly, Díaz-Zorita et al. (2002) reported that maize yields increased more with nitrogen fertilisation than tillage under subhumid and semiarid regions of Argentina . The most notable crop residues in semiarid areas are those of maize, millet and sorghum of poor quality due to high C/N ratios, generally greater than 60, which immediately immobilizes N (Cadisch and Giller 1997; Handayanto et al. 1997) . Thus, high N inputs are required when poor-quality crop residues are used as mulch .
4 Constraints to Systematic Crop Rotations
Poorly developed markets, minimal household food contributions and limited land sizes are the major impediments to successful crop rotations by smallholder farmers . Widespread poverty prevents farmer access to credits and inputs such as fertiliser , seed and pesticides (Graham and Vance 2003; Sanginga and Woomer 2009) . Specialized agrifood markets such as those in Laos limit the integration of grasses and legumes into diversified crop rotations (Lestrelin et al. 2012) . Limited landholdings are becoming a major problem due to the rising population pressure—a classic example is in Malawi where land sizes are often below 1 ha limiting the number of crops farmers can grow in a season (Ellis et al. 2003; World Bank 2007) . Soil fertility decline is another major challenge in the field where deficiencies of phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S) and micronutrients such as zinc (Zn), molybdenum (Mo) and boron (B) may limit legume growth and N2 fixation (O’Hara et al. 1988) . P availability is often regarded as the most limiting factor (Giller and Cadisch 1995) . At the farm level, it is important that grain legumes provide multiple benefits especially as a food and are acceptable to farmers (Giller 2001) . Formal seed systems are poorly developed with limited varieties of maize seed available, often open-pollinated varieties. Most farmers use retained seed, informal seed exchanges with other farmers and seed bought from local markets. They see their local seed as better adapted to their conditions but lack of quality uniformity means they are less preferred at the market (cf. Rohrbach and Kiala 2007) . Widespread adoption of legume production will be achieved by strengthening seed systems, improving farmer access to input markets for improved, short-season and disease-resistant varieties and P fertiliser and output markets for better prices and trade terms .
5 Constraints to Crop Residue Management
A comprehensive appraisal of the benefits and constraints related to crop residue management has been explored (Erenstein 2002; Lal 2005) . Major constraints to successful crop residue management in CA systems are related to the small baseline crop productivity and other alternative economic uses of crop residues such as livestock feed, fuel, bedding in kraals (animal paddocks) during the rainy season and construction (fencing and thatching) for some farming households (Mazvimavi et al. 2008; Erenstein 2011; Rufino et al. 2011; Johansen et al. 2012) . Crop and livestock production are closely integrated in mixed smallholder farming systems in much of the tropics (Thornton and Herrero 2001; Rufino et al. 2011) . Crop residues are needed to provide livestock feed during the dry season where feed is severely limited while manure is needed for crop production (Rufino et al. 2011; Rusinamhodzi et al. 2013) . The application of livestock manure has been shown to increase crop productivity especially targeted to responsive fields (Zingore et al. 2008; Rusinamhodzi et al. 2013) . Such yield benefits derived from manure, whose quantity and quality partly depends on crop harvest residues (Nzuma and Murwira 2000; Lekasi et al. 2003; Rufino et al. 2007) , suggest that farmers face trade-offs in crop residue management and it might be beneficial for them to follow the manure production pathway than apply crop residues as mulch (Naudin et al. 2012; Valbuena et al. 2012; Rusinamhodzi 2013) . Moreover, livestock provides a source of cash income and spreads the risk (Sumberg 2002; Rufino et al. 2006) . In most situations, alternative grazing does not exist as communal rangelands are often degraded and characterized by poor-quality fodder (Rufino et al. 2011). Although development agents have made potential legume, grass and other agroforestry trees available for use as a fodder, farmers reject them because they do not contribute directly to food security despite the enormous labour inputs required (Giller 2001) . The unimodal nature of the cropping seasons suggest that farmers concentrate all their limited resources to major food production and other crops are considered much later in the season leading to small productivity.
On the other hand, the availability of crop residues is not a technological panacea. The overall effect depends on the local biophysical and socioeconomic environment; i.e. they differ substantially between the agricultural settings of developed and developing countries (Erenstein 2002) . In South Asia, Aulakh et al. (2012) concluded after a 4-year study that future efforts are required to develop new technologies to alleviate the negative effects of relatively cooler environments created by surface-retained crop residues especially during germination and initial growth in the subtropical region. In the Trans-Gangetic plains of India, crop residue management practices are largely incompatible with year-round mulch retention needed in CA despite significant biomass production (Erenstein 2011) due to other important activities for the household.
6 Future Outlook
Much of the research on CA has been conducted at plot level, focusing on the effects of CA on soil quality , with little effort on how CA fits into broader farming systems (Giller et al. 2009; Baudron et al. 2012) . Retention of crop residues as a mulch in the field is not feasible for most farmers due to competition for livestock feed and the need for more fertiliser , making CA unattractive for most farmers. Retention of crop residues will lead to depressed yields in the short term due to immobilization of N which contrasts sharply with farmers’ needs. Therefore, the short-term needs of farmers may be a threat to CA uptake . While the short-term crop yield response to CA is highly variable, yields often improve in the long term when the continued accumulation of crop residue increases the availability of SOC and nutrients for crop growth.
Until recently, the discourse around CA has been the inadequate amounts of crop residue produced against multiple important uses, i.e. creating trade-offs for their use. The success of CA was considered directly related to the ability to provide enough soil cover, and little attention has been paid to adequate nutrient management , firstly to offset the N deficit caused by immobilization due to poor-quality residues and secondly to provide a balanced nutrient supply to the growing crop. Recently, Vanlauwe et al. (2014) suggested the need for a fourth principle to add to the principles of no till, mulch retention and crop rotation. Optimum fertiliser application may help to increase biomass production which may allow both the retention of crop harvest residues for mulch as well as providing livestock feed. Both crop rotations and fertiliser inputs are important for improved yields in CA systems. Future research needs should be devoted to identifying appropriate nutrient management strategies in CA systems together with crop residue retention and crop rotations to boost crop productivity (Vanlauwe et al. 2014) . Efforts are needed to increase fertiliser use by smallholder farmers especially in Africa where figures as low as 8 kg ha−1 are often mentioned (Groot 2009; Sanginga and Woomer 2009) .
7 Conclusions
The meta-analysis suggested that to achieve any meaningful yield increases in CA systems, crop residues must be retained in situ coupled with crop rotations and increased N fertiliser inputs to offset the immobilization effect of crop residues. Moreover, CA is likely to have the largest impact in low-rainfall environments where increased infiltration of rainfall and reduced evaporative losses will be achieved by retaining crop residues. However, it is in these areas where achieving sufficient crop residues is also a challenge, particularly in mixed crop–livestock systems where crop residues are needed for livestock feed in the dry season. CA needs to be targeted and adapted to specific biophysical as well as socioeconomic circumstances of farmers for improved impact. The ability of farmers to purchase fertiliser inputs, achieve sufficient biomass production as well as produce alternative feed will allow them to practise CA and achieve large yields. Considerable efforts are needed in the future to develop nutrient management strategies tailored for the practice of CA.
References
Acharya CL, Sharma PD (1994) Tillage and mulch effects on soil physical environment, root growth, nutrient uptake and yield of maize and wheat on an Alfisol in north-west India. Soil Tillage Res 32:291–302
Adekalu KO, Okunade DA, Osunbitan JA (2006) Compaction and mulching effects on soil loss and run-off from two southwestern Nigeria agricultural soils. Geoderma 137:226–230
Adekalu KO, Olorunfemi IA, Osunbitan JA (2007) Grass mulching effect on infiltration, surface runoff and soil loss of three agricultural soils in Nigeria. Bioresour Technol 98:912–917
Aulakh MS, Manchanda JS, Garg AK, Kumar S, Dercon G, Nguyen ML (2012) Crop production and nutrient use efficiency of conservation agriculture for soybean-wheat rotation in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of Northwestern India. Soil Tillage Res 120:50–60
Baudron F, Tittonell P, Corbeels M, Letourmy P, Giller KE (2012) Comparative performance of conservation agriculture and current smallholder farming practices in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Field Crops Res 132:117–128
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley, Chichester
Cadisch G, Giller KE (1997) Driven by nature: plant residue quality and decomposition. CABI, Wallingford
Castellazzi MS, Wood GA, Burgess PJ, Morris J, Conrad KF, Perry JN (2008) A systematic representation of crop rotations. Agric Syst 97:26–33
Chivenge PP, Murwira HK, Giller KE, Mapfumo P, Six J (2007) Long-term impact of reduced tillage and residue management on soil carbon stabilization: implications for conservation agriculture on contrasting soils. Soil Tillage Res 94:328–337
Chivenge P, Vanlauwe B, Gentile R, Wangechi H, Mugendi D, van Kessel C, Six J (2009) Organic and mineral input management to enhance crop productivity in central Kenya. Agron J 101:1266–1275
Chivenge P, Vanlauwe B, Six J (2011) Does the combined application of organic and mineral nutrient sources influence maize productivity? A meta-analysis. Plant Soil 342:1–30
Cook HF, Valdes GSB, Lee HC (2006) Mulch effects on rainfall interception, soil physical characteristics and temperature under Zea mays. Soil Tillage Res 91:227–235
Dam RF, Mehdi BB, Burgess MSE, Madramootoo CA, Mehuys GR, Callum IR (2005) Soil bulk density and crop yield under eleven consecutive years of corn with different tillage and residue practices in a sandy loam soil in central Canada. Soil Tillage Res 84:41–53
De Silva SHSA, Cook HF (2003) Soil physical conditions and performance of cowpea following organic matter amelioration of sand. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 34:1039–1058
DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188
Dexter AR (1997) Physical properties of tilled soils. Soil Tillage Res 43:41–63
Díaz-Zorita M, Duarte GA, Grove JH (2002) A review of no-till systems and soil management for sustainable crop production in the subhumid and semiarid Pampas of Argentina. Soil Tillage Res 65:1–18
Dick WA, Van Doren DM Jr (1985) Continuous tillage and rotation combinations effects on corn, soybean, and oat yields. Agron J 77:459–465
Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. J Am Med Assoc 263:1385–1389
Djigal D, Saj S, Rabary B, Blanchart E, Villenave C (2012) Mulch type affects soil biological functioning and crop yield of conservation agriculture systems in a long-term experiment in Madagascar. Soil Tillage Res 118:11–21
Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN (1997) Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 315:1533–1537
Ellis F, Kutengule M, Nyasulu A (2003) Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction in Malawi. World Dev 31:1495–1510
Erenstein O (2002) Crop residue mulching in tropical and semi-tropical countries: an evaluation of residue availability and other technological implications. Soil Tillage Res 67:115–133
Erenstein O (2011) Cropping systems and crop residue management in the Trans-Gangetic Plains: issues and challenges for conservation agriculture from village surveys. Agric Syst 104:54–62
Fischer RA, Santiveri F, Vidal IR (2002) Crop rotation, tillage and crop residue management for wheat and maize in the sub-humid tropical highlands: II. Maize and system performance. Field Crops Res 79:123–137
Franzluebbers AJ, Arshad MA (1996) Soil organic matter pools during early adoption of conservation tillage in northwestern Canada. Soil Sci Soc Am 60:1422–1427
Gates S (2002) Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. J Anim Ecol 71:547–557
Ghuman BS, Sur HS (2001) Tillage and residue management effects on soil properties and yields of rainfed maize and wheat in a subhumid subtropical climate. Soil Tillage Res 58:1–10
Giller KE (2001) Nitrogen fixation in tropical cropping systems. CABI, Wallingford
Giller KE, Cadisch G (1995) Future benefits from biological nitrogen fixation: an ecological approach to agriculture. Plant Soil 174:255–277
Giller KE, Cadisch G, Ehaliotis C, Adams E, Sakala WD, Mafongoya PL (1997) Building soil nitrogen capital in Africa. In: Buresh RJ, Sanchez PA, Calhoun F (eds) Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication No. 51, Madison, pp 81–95
Giller KE, Witter E, Corbeels M, Tittonell P (2009) Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Res 114:23–34
Glass GV (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 5:3–8
Govaerts B, Verhulst N, Castellanos-Navarrete A, Sayre KD, Dixon J, Dendooven L (2009) Conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestration: between myth and farmer reality. Crit Rev Plant Sci 28:97–122
Graham PH, Vance CP (2003) Legumes: importance and constraints to greater use. Plant Physiol 131:872–877
Griffith DR, Kladivko EJ, Mannering JV, West TD, Parsons SD (1988) Long-term tillage and rotation effects on corn growth and yield on high and low organic matter, poorly drained soils. Agron J 80:599–605
Groot JJR (2009) Update of fertiliser supply and demand—sub Saharan Africa., IFA Africa Forum. IDFC, Cairo
Handayanto E, Giller KE, Cadisch G (1997) Regulating N release from legume tree prunings by mixing residues of different quality. Soil Biol Biochem 29:1417–1426
Hatfield JL, Prueger JH (1996) Microclimate effects of crop residues on biological processes. Theor Appl Climatol 54:47–59
Hernanz JL, López R, Navarrete L (2002) Long-term effects of tillage systems and rotations on soil structural stability and organic carbon stratification in semiarid central Spain. Soil Tillage Res 66:129–141
Hussain I, Olson KR, Ebelhar SA (1999) Impacts of tillage and no-till on production of maize and soybean on an eroded Illinois silt loam soil. Soil Tillage Res 52:37–49
Iragavarapu TK, Randall GW (1995) Yield and nitrogen uptake of monocropped maize from a long-term tillage experiment on a poorly drained soil. Soil Tillage Res 34:145–156
Ismail I, Blevins RL, Frye WW (1994) Long-term no-tillage effects on soil properties and continuous corn yields. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:193–198
Jin H, Hongwen L, Xiaoyan W, McHugh AD, Wenying L, Huanwen G, Kuhn NJ (2007) The adoption of annual subsoiling as conservation tillage in dryland maize and wheat cultivation in northern China. Soil Tillage Res 94:493–502
Johansen C, Haque ME, Bell RW, Thierfelder C, Esdaile RJ (2012) Conservation agriculture for small holder rainfed farming: opportunities and constraints of new mechanized seeding systems. Field Crops Res 132:18–32
Kapusta G, Krausz RF, Matthews JL (1996) Corn yield is equal in conventional, reduced, and no tillage after 20 years. Agron J 88:812–817
Karlen DL, Berry EC, Colvin TS, Kanwar RS (1991) Twelve-year tillage and crop rotation effects on yields and soil chemical properties in northeast Iowa. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 22:1985–2003
Karlen DL, Wollenhaupt NC, Erbach DC, Berry EC, Swan JB, Eash NS, Jordahl JL (1994a) Long-term tillage effects on soil quality. Soil Tillage Res 32:313–327
Karlen DL, Wollenhaupt NC, Erbach DC, Berry EC, Swan JB, Eash NS, Jordahl JL (1994b) Crop residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil Tillage Res 31:149–167
Karunatilake U, van Es HM, Schindelbeck RR (2000) Soil and maize response to plow and no-tillage after alfalfa-to-maize conversion on a clay loam soil in New York. Soil Tillage Res 55:31–42
Kihara J, Bationo A, Waswa B, Kimetu JM, Vanlauwe B, Okeyo J, Mukalama J, Martius C (2012) Effect of reduced tillage and mineral fertilizer application on maize and soybean productivity. Exp Agric 48:159–175
Kureh I, Kamara AY, Tarfa BD (2006) Influence of cereal-legume rotation on Striga control and maize grain yield in farmers’ fields in the Northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop 107:41–54
Lal R (1976) No-tillage effect on soil properties under different crops in western Nigeria. Soil Sci Soc Am J 40:762–768
Lal R (1978) Importance of tillage system in soil and water management in the tropics. Soil tillage and crop production. IITA, Ibadan, pp 25–32
Lal R (1997) Long-term tillage and maize monoculture effects on a tropical alfisol in western Nigeria. I. Crop yield and soil physical properties. Soil Tillage Res 42:145–160
Lal R (1998) Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality. Crit Rev Plant Sci 17:319–464
Lal R (2005) World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel. Environ Int 31:575–584
Lekasi JK, Tanner JC, Kimani SK, Harris PJC (2003) Cattle manure quality in Maragua district, central Kenya: effect of management practices and development of simple methods of assessment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 94:289–298
Lestrelin G, Quoc HT, Jullien F, Rattanatray B, Khamxaykhay C, Tivet F (2012) Conservation agriculture in Laos: diffusion and determinants for adoption of direct seeding mulch-based cropping systems in smallholder agriculture. Renew Agric Food Syst 27:81–92
Linden DR, Clapp CE, Dowdy RH (2000) Long-term corn grain and stover yields as a function of tillage and residue removal in east central Minnesota. Soil Tillage Res 56:167–174
Lueschen WE, Evans SD, Ford JH, Hoverstad TR, Kanne BK, Orf JH, Stienstra WC, Warnes DD, Hicks DR (1991) Soybean production as affected by tillage in a corn and soybean management system: I. Cultivar response. J Product Agric 4:571–579
Marongwe LS, Kwazira K, Jenrich M, Thierfelder C, Kassam A, Friedrich T (2011) An African success: the case of conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe. Int J Agric Sustain 9:153–161
Mazvimavi K, Twomlow S, Belder P, Hove L (2008) An assessment of the sustainable uptake of conservation farming in Zimbabwe. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics: global theme on agroecosystems report no. 39. Bulawayo
Mazzoncini M, Di Bene Coli CA, Risaliti R, Bonari E (2008) Long-term tillage and nitrogen fertilisation effects on maize yield and soil quality under rainfed Mediterranean conditions: a critical perspective. In: Christensen BT, Petersen J, Schacht M (eds) Proceedings of 407 NJF Long-term field experiments—a unique platform, Askov, Denmark, pp 13–17
Mbagwu JSC (1990) Maize (Zea mays) response to nitrogen fertiliser on an ultisol in Southern Nigeria under two tillage and mulch treatments. J Sci Food Agric 52:365–376
Morrison JV, Prunty L, Giles JF (1985) Characterizing strength of soil crusts formed by simulated rainfall. Soil Sci Soc Am J 49:423–431
Moyo A (2003) Assessment of the effect of soil erosion on nutrient loss from granite-derived sandy soils under different tillage systems in Zimbabwe. Ph.D. thesis, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe
Mupangwa W, Twomlow S, Walker S, Hove L (2007) Effect of minimum tillage and mulching on maize (Zea mays L.) yield and water content of clayey and sandy soils. Phys Chem Earth 32:1127–1134
Mupangwa W, Twomlow S, Walker S (2012) Reduced tillage, mulching and rotational effects on maize (Zea mays L.), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (Walp) L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. (Moench)) yields under semi-arid conditions. Field Crops Res 132:139–148
Naudin K, Scopel E, Andriamandroso ALH, Rakotosolofo M, Andriamarosoa Ratsimbazafy NRS, Rakotozandriny JN, Salgado P, Giller KE (2012) Trade-offs between biomass use and soil cover. The case of rice-based cropping systems in the Lake Alaotra region of Madagascar. Exp Agric 48:194–209
Nehanda G (2000) The effects of three animal-powered tillage systems on soil-plant-water relations and maize cropping in Zimbabwe. Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, p 260
Ngwira AR, Aune JB, Mkwinda S (2012a) On-farm evaluation of yield and economic benefit of short term maize legume intercropping systems under conservation agriculture in Malawi. Field Crops Res 132:149–157
Ngwira AR, Thierfelder C, Lambert DM (2012b) Conservation agriculture systems for Malawian smallholder farmers: long-term effects on crop productivity, profitability and soil quality. Renew Agric Food Syst 28(4):350–363
Noble JH (2006) Meta-analysis: methods, strengths, weaknesses, and political uses. J Lab Clin Med 147:7–20
Nyagumbo I (2002) The effects of three tillage systems on seasonal water budgets and drainage of two Zimbabwean soils under maize. PhD thesis, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe
Nzuma JK, Murwira HK (2000) Improving the management of manure in Zimbabwe. IIED-Drylands Programme, London
O’Hara G, Boonkerd N, Dilworth M (1988) Mineral constraints to nitrogen fixation. Plant Soil 108:93–110
Olson KR, Ebelhar SA, Lang JM (2004) Impacts of conservation tillage systems on maize and soybean yields of eroded illinois soils. J Agron 3:31–35
Osuji GE (1984) Water storage, water use and maize yield for tillage systems on a tropical alfisol in Nigeria. Soil Tillage Res 4:339–348
Parker DT (1962) Decomposition in the field of buried and surface-applied cornstalk residue. Soil Sci Soc Am J 26:559–562
Paul BK, Vanlauwe B, Ayuke F, Gassner A, Hoogmoed M, Hurisso TT, Koala S, Lelei D, Ndabamenye T, Six J, Pulleman MM (2013) Medium-term impact of tillage and residue management on soil aggregate stability, soil carbon and crop productivity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 164:14–22
Rice CW, Smith MS, Blevins RL (1986) Soil nitrogen availability after long-term continuous no-tillage and conventional tillage corn production. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50:1206–1210
Riddle WC, Gillespie TJ, Swanton CJ (1996) Rye mulch characterization for the purpose of microclimatic modelling. Agric For Meteorol 78:67–81
Ried K (2006) Interpreting and understanding meta-analysis graphs: a practical guide. Aust Fam Phys 35:635–638
Rohrbach D, Kiala D (2007) Development options for local seed systems in Mozambique. J SAT Agric Res 3:1–28
Rosenburg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J (2000) Metawin. Statistical software for meta-analysis, version 2. Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland
Rufino MC, Rowe EC, Delve RJ, Giller KE (2006) Nitrogen cycling efficiencies through resource-poor African crop-livestock systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112:261–282
Rufino MC, Tittonell P, van Wijk MT, Castellanos-Navarrete A, Delve RJ, de Ridder N, Giller KE (2007) Manure as a key resource within smallholder farming systems: analysing farm-scale nutrient cycling efficiencies with the NUANCES framework. Livest Sci 112:273–287
Rufino MC, Dury J, Tittonell P, van Wijk MT, Herrero M, Zingore S, Mapfumo P, Giller KE (2011) Competing use of organic resources, village-level interactions between farm types and climate variability in a communal area of NE Zimbabwe. Agric Syst 104:175–190
Rusinamhodzi L (2013) Nuances and nuisances: crop production intensification options for smallholder farming systems of southern Africa. Plant Sciences, Wageningen Univerity, The Netherlands, S.l., p 222
Rusinamhodzi L, Corbeels M, Van Wijk MT, Rufino MC, Nyamangara J, Giller KE (2011) A meta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agron Sustain Dev 31:657–673
Rusinamhodzi L, Corbeels M, Zingore S, Nyamangara J, Giller KE (2013) Pushing the envelope? Maize production intensification and the role of cattle manure in recovery of degraded soils in smallholder farming areas of Zimbabwe. Field Crops Res 147:40–53
Sadler EJ, Turner NC (1993) Water relationships in a sustainable agriculture system. In: Hatfield JL, Karlen DL (eds) Sustainable agriculture systems. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 21–46
Sanginga N, Woomer PL (2009) Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Africa: Principles, Practices and Developmental Process. CIAT, Nairobi, Kenya
Savabi MR, Stott DE (1994) Effect of rainfall interception by plant residues on the soil water. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 37:1093–1098
Sileshi G, Akinnifesi FK, Ajayi OC, Place F (2008) Meta-analysis of maize yield response to woody and herbaceous legumes in sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Soil 307:1–19
Sisti CPJ, dos Santos HP, Kohhann R, Alves BJR, Urquiaga S, Boddey RM (2004) Change in carbon and nitrogen in soil under 13 years of conventional or zero tillage in southern Brazil. Soil Tillage Res 76:39–58
Sumberg J (2002) The logic of fodder legumes in Africa. Food Policy 27:285–300
Thiagalingam K, Dalgliesh N, Gould N, McCown R, Cogle A, Chapman A (1996) Comparison of no-tillage and conventional tillage in the development of sustainable farming systems in the semi-arid tropics. Aust J Exp Agric 36:995–1002
Thierfelder C, Wall PC (2012) Effects of conservation agriculture on soil quality and productivity in contrasting agro-ecological environments of Zimbabwe. Soil Use Manage 28:209–220
Thierfelder C, Cheesman S, Rusinamhodzi L (2012a) Benefits and challenges of crop rotations in maize-based conservation agriculture (CA) cropping systems of southern Africa. Int J Agric Sustain 11(2):108–124
Thierfelder C, Cheesman S, Rusinamhodzi L (2012b) A comparative analysis of conservation agriculture systems: benefits and challenges of rotations and intercropping in Zimbabwe. Field Crops Res 137:237–250
Thierfelder C, Chisui JL, Gama M, Cheesman S, Jere ZD, Bunderson WT, Eash NS, Rusinamhodzi L (2013a) Maize-based conservation agriculture systems in Malawi: long-term trends in productivity. Field Crop Res 142:47–57
Thierfelder C, Mombeyarara T, Mango N, Rusinamhodzi L (2013b) Integration of conservation agriculture in smallholder farming systems of southern Africa: identification of key entry points. Int J Agric Sustain 11 (4):317–330
Thierfelder C, Mwila M, Rusinamhodzi L (2013c) Conservation agriculture in eastern and southern provinces of Zambia: long-term effects on soil quality and maize productivity. Soil Tillage Res 126:246–258
Thornton PK, Herrero M (2001) Integrated crop-livestock simulation models for scenario analysis and impact assessment. Agric Syst 70:581–602
Trenbath BR (1993) Intercropping for the management of pests and diseases. Field Crops Res 34:381–405
Valbuena D, Erenstein O, Homann-Kee Tui S, Abdoulaye T, Claessens L, Duncan AJ, Gérard B, Rufino MC, Teufel N, van Rooyen A, van Wijk MT (2012) Conservation agriculture in mixed crop–livestock systems: scoping crop residue trade-offs in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Field Crops Res 132:175–184
Van Doren DM Jr, Triplett GB Jr, Henry JE (1976) Influence of long term tillage, crop rotation, and soil type combinations on corn yield. Soil Sci Soc Am 40:100–105
Vanlauwe B, Wendt J, Giller KE, Corbeels M, Gerard B, Nolte C (2014) A fourth principle is required to define conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: the appropriate use of fertilizer to enhance crop productivity. Field Crops Res 155:10–13
Vogel H (1993) Tillage effects on maize yields, rooting depth and soil water and water content on sandy soils in Zimbabwe. Field Crops Res 33:367–384
Wibberley J (1996) A brief history of rotations, economic considerations and future directions. Aspects Appl Biol 47:1–10
Wilhelm WW, Wortmann CS (2004) Tillage and rotation interactions for corn and soybean grain yield as affected by precipitation and air temperature. Agron J 96:425–432
Wilhelm WW, Schepers JS, Mielke LN, Doran JW, Ellis JR, Stroup WW (1987) Dryland maize development and yield resulting from tillage and nitrogen fertilization practices. Soil Tillage Res 10:167–179
World Bank (2007) International development association on a country assistance strategy of the World Bank for the Republic of Malawi. Washington, DC
Zingore S, Delve RJ, Nyamangara J, Giller KE (2008) Multiple benefits of manure: the key to maintenance of soil fertility and restoration of depleted sandy soils on African smallholder farms. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 80:267–282
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rusinamhodzi, L. (2015). Crop Rotations and Residue Management in Conservation Agriculture. In: Farooq, M., Siddique, K. (eds) Conservation Agriculture. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11620-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11620-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11619-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11620-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)