Citation: Kalomoira Zisopoulou, Dionysia Panagoulia. Solar Power: A new mathematical definition and theoretical proof it is a Green Public Good[J]. Green Finance, 2019, 1(3): 312-327. doi: 10.3934/GF.2019.3.312
[1] | Elizabeth Ramírez-Iglesias, Rosa M. Hernández-Hernández, Carlos Bravo, José R. Ramírez-Iglesias, Pablo Herrera . Consumption, digestibility and cattle condition according to forage composition and quality in maize-cattle from conservation-based agroecosystems. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 480-499. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.480 |
[2] | Methuselah Mang’erere Nyamwange, Ezekiel Mugendi Njeru, Monicah Mucheru-Muna, Felix Ngetich . Soil management practices affect arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi propagules, root colonization and growth of rainfed maize. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(2): 120-134. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.2.120 |
[3] | Iyabo Olunike Omomowo, Oluwaseun Emmanuel Shittu, Olawale Israel Omomowo, Olusola Nathaniel Majolagbe . Influence of phosphate solubilizing non-toxigenic Aspergillus flavus strains on maize (Zea mays L.) growth parameters and mineral nutrients content. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 408-421. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.408 |
[4] | Zhi Yuan Sia, Huck Ywih Ch'ng, Jeng Young Liew . Amending inorganic fertilizers with rice straw compost to improve soil nutrients availability, nutrients uptake, and dry matter production of maize (Zea mays L.) cultivated on a tropical acid soil. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 1020-1033. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.1020 |
[5] | Ibrahim Fusseini, Stephen K. Torkpo, Kwame Afreh-Nuamah . Assessment of levels of temperature conditions on the effectiveness of multiple-layer hermetic bag for bio-rational management of aflatoxin in stored maize. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(3): 342-353. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.3.342 |
[6] | Mohsen Ahmadi Lashaki, Shahram Sedaghathoor, Sepideh Kalatehjari, Davood Hashemabadi . The physiological and growth response of Petunia hybrida, Tagetes erecta, and Calendula officinalis to plant and human steroids. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(2): 85-96. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.2.85 |
[7] | Raphael Ismagilov, Bulat Akhiyarov, Damir Islamgulov, Dayan Ayupov, Vasiliy Salnikov . Maize hybrid productivity and grain quality in conditions of the Cis-Ural forest-steppe. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 604-612. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.604 |
[8] | Geovani S. de Lima, Vicente Elias da S. Neto, Hans R. Gheyi, Reginaldo G. Nobre, Genilson L. Diniz, Lauriane A. dos Anjos Soares, Pedro D. Fernandes, Fernandes A. de Almeida, Francisco Wesley A. Pinheiro . Photosynthetic pigments and photochemical efficiency of precocious dwarf cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) under salt stress and potassium fertilization. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 1007-1019. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.1007 |
[9] | Murimi David Njue, Mucheru-Muna Monicah Wanjiku, Mugi-Ngenga Esther, Zingore Shamie, Mutegi James Kinyua . Nutrient management options for enhancing productivity and profitability of conservation agriculture under on-farm conditions in central highlands of Kenya. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(4): 666-680. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.666 |
[10] | Roy Efendi, Rini Ismayanti, Suwarti, Slamet Bambang Priyanto, Nining Nurini Andayani, Ahmad Muliadi, Muhammad Azrai . Evaluating agronomic traits and selection of low N-tolerant maize hybrids in Indonesia. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(3): 856-871. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024046 |
Mixed crop-livestock production characterizes smallholder farming systems in some agro-ecological regions of southern Africa [1,2]. Crops are multi-purpose as they are a source of food and income for the farming families, and livestock derive dry season feed and bedding materials for kraals from the cropping enterprise [3]. The livestock enterprise, dominated by cattle (Bos indicus L.) and small stocks such as goats (Capra hircus L.), generate manure for crop production, and income sourced through livestock sales is sometimes used for purchasing farming inputs [1,3]. Cattle are also a source of draught power for land preparation and transport on smallholder farms [4]. Livestock also serve social roles in southern Africa, are a status symbol in the rural communities and buffer most farming households against the risk of adverse weather that impede crop production in some years [4,5]. Major crops grown on smallholder farms include maize (Zea mays L.), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. (Walp)), groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea L.), bambaranuts (Voandzeia subterranea L. (thouars)) and these are produced under conventional agriculture. Since early 2000s maize is now grown in conservation agriculture (CA) systems where it is intercropped or rotated with legumes [6].
Low soil productivity in the smallholder farming systems of southern Africa triggered research on different strategies for restoring and improving soil fertility [7,8]. Various combinations of mineral fertilizer and organic nutrient sources have been tested under different socio-economic and biophysical conditions of the smallholder sector of southern Africa [9,10,11,12]. Conservation agriculture (CA) is being promoted as a potential solution to declining soil productivity on smallholder farms [5,13]. Improvements in soil properties due to CA practices were observed in some studies [14,15,16,17] while little changes in critical soil physico-chemical properties were noted in others [18].
On smallholder farms where CA has been introduced, competition for crop residues between crop and livestock limits full use of the practice because both enterprises are critical for farming families in southern Africa [19]. The competition is further compounded by deteriorating pasture quality in most rural communities [20,21] and decreasing arable land sizes due to the increasing human population [4]. In most instances, smallholders are not producing biomass quantities that can meet the CA mulching and livestock feed requirements in the mixed farming systems [19]. Smallholder CA farmers have resorted to applying plant materials that are available in their localities as mulch in combination with any remaining crop residues at the onset of the cropping season [22].
Tree litter from Uapaca kirkiana (Benth), Brachystegia spiciformis (Benth) and Julbernardia globiflora) (Benth) and grass (Hyparrhenia filipendula (L.) Stapf.) are available in the Savanna landscape of southern Africa [9,23] and CA farmers have resorted to using them for mulching [22]. Tephrosia vogelii ((Hook) f.), Crotolaria juncea (L.) and Crotolaria grahamiana (Wright & Arn) are leguminous species available for soil fertility improvement [8] but can also provide residues for mulching. Stems/litter of woody leguminous species such as Acacia angustissima ((Mill.) Kuntze) and Sesbania sesban ((L.) Merr.) decompose slowly [24] and this can be capitalized on to provide soil cover in CA systems where crop residues are scarce.
However, the use of such plant material could introduce N immobilization leading to reduced crop yields [24,25,26]. Mineral N fertilizer remains a critical requirement whenever CA is practiced in order to reduce the crop yield penalty [27]. Relay intercropping of maize with annual or perennial legume species can offer alternative soil cover in CA systems that are being promoted in mixed crop-livestock systems of southern Africa [28]. Annual legume species such as velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens L.), lablab (Lablab purpureus L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.(Walp)) can be relay cropped with the main cereal crop in CA systems during the growing season [28,29]. Legume species such as T. vogelii, C. grahamiana, C. juncea and S. sesban grow and produce lignified plant tissue and their residues can be used for mulching in CA systems. These legumes species have been promoted widely before through agro-forestry and green manuring initiatives in southern Africa [8].
The effect of different mulching materials used in CA systems on maize growth and yield is not well documented under the highly degraded sandy soils of sub-humid areas of Zimbabwe. This study was established to assess the effect of the different mulching materials on maize productivity in CA systems that are being promoted in North-Eastern Zimbabwe. We hypothesized that the different plant materials had similar influence on N uptake and maize yield in the sandy soils of sub-humid Zimbabwe. The objectives were to determine: (1) soil water dynamics, (2) maize leaf chlorophyll content and, (3) maize grain and stover yields under the conventional mouldboard ploughing practice and different mulching materials applied in smallholder CA systems. Maize leaf chlorophyll content was used to assess nitrogen (N) uptake by maize plants. Chlorophyll content is related to N supply to a growing plant [30,31].
A two-year experiment was established at three on-farm and one on-station sites. On-farm and on-station sites were used in the study in order to increase replication of the experiment. Logistically the on-station experimental site enabled researchers to collect detailed measurements more frequently during each cropping season. The experiment was established in Goromonzi and Murehwa districts which lie in agro-ecological region II (800-1000 mm annual rainfall) of Zimbabwe [32] and was run in 2012/13 and 2013/14 cropping seasons. Rainfall season commenced in November and ended in April/May with peak rainfall period stretching from December to February. Granitic sand (Arenosols, FAO classification) with low levels of macro and micro-nutrients (Table 1), is the dominant soil type in the two districts [33,34].
Site | Soil pH | Avail. P (mg kg-1) | Ca | Mg | K | Clay | Silt | Sand |
Cmolckg-1 | (%) | (%) | (%) | |||||
DTC | 4.9 | 19 | 0.30 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 21 | 5 | 74 |
Gono | 3.0 | 16 | 0.61 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 9 | 1 | 90 |
Murwira | 4.1 | 30 | 0.88 | 0.39 | 0.24 | nd | nd | nd |
Unyoro | 4.0 | 14 | 0.90 | 0.29 | 0.09 | 5 | 7 | 88 |
DTC: Domboshawa Training Centre; nd: not determined. pH = 0.01 M CaCl2; available P = Olsen method; Ca, Mg and K = atomic absorption spectroscopy; clay, silt and sand content = hydrometer method. |
The experiment was laid in a randomized complete block design with three replicates at the on-farm sites and four replicates at the on-station site. The treatments at the on-farm sites were:
1. Conventional mouldboard (V100®) ploughing (CP) and seeding after receiving effective rains of more than 20 mm over 2 consecutive days. No crop residues were applied to this treatment as it served as a control;
2. Animal traction direct seeding (Irmãos Fitarelli, Brazil, model #12) at the on-set of the cropping season with maize residues applied annually as mulch at 3 t ha−1 on a dry weight basis;
3. Animal traction direct seeding at the on-set of the cropping season with thatching grass applied annually as mulch at 3 t ha−1;
4. Animal traction direct seeding at the on-set of the cropping season with leaf litter applied annually as mulch at 3 t ha−1. The leaf litter was derived from Uapaca kirkiana, Brachystegia spiciformis and Julbernardia globiflora trees;
5. Animal traction direct seeding at the on-set of the cropping season with C. juncea) residues applied annually as mulch at 3 t ha−1;
6. Animal traction direct seeding at the on-set of the cropping season with T. vogelii residues applied annually as mulch at 3 t ha−1.
Planting basins are dug in the same position every season using a hand hoe. The planting basins are reopened before the onset of the rains. Spacing of planting basins varies between countries and available options include 75 cm × 60 cm, 90 cm × 50 cm, 90 cm × 60 cm, and 75 cm × 75 cm [35]. In our experiment each planting basin measured 15 cm × 15 cm × 15 cm and 90 cm × 50 cm spacing was used. The on-station (DTC) site had six treatments which are summarized below:
1. Conventional mouldboard (V100®) ploughing (CP) at seeding after receiving effective rains. No crop residues were applied to this treatment as it served as a control;
2. Planting basins dug in October-November each year with maize residues applied annually as mulch at 3 t ha−1 on a weight basis;
3. Planting basins dug in October-November each year with thatching grass applied annually as mulch at 3 t ha−1;
4. Planting basins dug in October-November each year with leaf litter applied annually as mulch at 3 t ha−1 and the leaf litter was derived from Uapaca kirkiana trees;
5. Planting basins dug in October-November each year with sunnhemp (C. grahamiana) residues applied annually as mulch at 3 t ha−1;
6. Planting basins dug in October-November each year with Tephrosia (T. vogelii) residues applied annually as mulch at 3 t ha−1.
The CA systems and mulching materials used are summarized in Table 2. Conventional ploughing and animal traction direct seeding at the on-farm sites were conducted after receiving effective planting rain (at least 20 mm over two days). All mulching material was applied at seeding in each season and any mulching materials from the previous season were left on the plots when fresh mulch was applied. At the on-station sites C. grahamiana was used because C. juncea seed was not enough to cover all experimental sites. Chemical analysis of the different plant materials used as mulch in our experiment was not conducted because available laboratories had no capacity to carry out the tests.
Experimental site | CA system | Mulching material used |
On-farm | Direct seeding | Maize residues |
Grass | ||
Leaf litter | ||
Sunnhemp residues | ||
Tephrosia residues | ||
On-station | Planting basins | Maize residues |
Grass | ||
Leaf litter | ||
Grahamiana residues | ||
Tephrosia residues |
Plots measuring 10 m × 10 m were used at each experimental site and spacing of 90 cm × 25 cm was used in the direct seeding system and 90 cm × 50 cm for planting basins. The target maize population at each site was 44,444 plants ha−1 giving 1 plant per station for the direct seeding system and 2 plants per station for the planting basins. Maize was grown at all experimental sites and a medium duration variety Pioneer 30G19 (Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.) was used in both seasons. Maize was seeded on 12 December 2012 in the 2012/13 season and 6 November 2013 in the 2013/14 season. At seeding each treatment received basal compound D fertilizer (8 N:14 P2O5:7 K2O) at 200 kg ha−1, supplying 16, 12 and 11.6 kg ha−1 N, P and K respectively. The maize was topdressed with ammonium nitrate (34.5% N) which was applied at 200 kg ha−1 5-6 weeks after seeding as a single dose. In 2012/13 season AN was applied on 17 January 2013 while in 2013/14 season topdressing was done on 16 December 2013. Initial weed control in the CA treatments was achieved by applying 2.5 L ha−1 Glyphosate (480 g L−1 active ingredient) soon after seeding maize. Further weed control was done manually whenever weeds had reached 10 cm in height or radius for crawling species.
Soil water was determined using a Field Scout TM TDR 300 Soil Moisture Meter (Spectrum® Technologies, Inc.). Sampling was done randomly on three spots in the net plot and readings were taken at 20 cm depths. Soil water measurements were taken 14 and 9 times during the 2012/13 and 2013/14 seasons respectively.
In vivochlorophyll content of maize plant leaves was estimated using a portable chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502, Minolta, Tokyo, Japan). Measurements were taken weekly 7 weeks after sowing on the upper most extended leaf from 5 randomly selected plants per plot until early reproductive stage of the maize crop. Plant height was measured from five randomly selected and permanently tagged maize plants. Height was measured from the ground to the tip of the upper most leaf.
At harvest, maize grain and stover yields were measured from a net plot consisting of 2 central rows that were 5 m long. Field weights of maize grain and stover yields were recorded before taking 10 maize cobs for moisture correction and to determine the shelling percentage of maize. Grain moisture content was recorded after shelling using a grain moisture meter, a mini GAC® moisture tester (DICKEY-John, USA). Maize final grain (12.5% moisture content) and stover yields were calculated to a hectare basis. Daily rainfall was recorded manually using a standard rain gauge installed at each experimental site.
Soil water, chlorophyll content, plant height and maize yield data were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test using Statistics 9 program [36]. The data for each parameter was then subjected to analysis of variance with mulching material as the treatment factor in a randomized complete block design. Regression analysis using the linear model was conducted to assess the relationship between soil water and chlorophyll content. The relationship between plant height and leaf chlorophyll content was also assessed in the six treatments.
Seasonal rainfall varied from 555-668 mm in Goromonzi and 615-655 mm in Murehwa during experimentation (Figure 1). The longest dry spells were experienced in 2012/13 cropping season with 12 and 14 continuous days without rain being recorded in Goromonzi and Murehwa during the peak rainfall period. Rainfall was well distributed during the November-February period but dry spells occurred between February and April 2013. Rainfall tailed off in March in both seasons and most rainfall events were recorded during the December-January period.
Soil water patterns in the 0-20 cm top soil layer responded to the rainfall received during the cropping period in all treatments. In 2012/13 season maize residue treatment had higher (p < 0.05) soil water content than other treatments on 1 February, 8 March, 29 March and 12 April 2013 (Figure 2). Tephrosia treatment retained the lowest soil water content during 2012/13 cropping season. In 2013/14 season there were no significant differences in soil water content across the six treatments (Figure 2).
Leaf chlorophyll content was significantly different on 2 occasions only across the 6 treatments. On 6 January (p = 0.039) and 24 February (p = 0.036) maize plants under the conventional treatment had the higher chlorophyll content than the other treatments (Figure 3). Of the three commonly used mulching materials on smallholder farms, the grass treatment had the lowest chlorophyll content in the maize ear leaf. However, Tephrosia mulched treatment had the lowest chlorophyll content during the cropping season. C. grahamiana residue treatment had higher chlorophyll content compared with Tephrosia mulched plots throughout the season. Generally mulching materials derived from non-leguminous plant species had higher chlorophyll content compared with treatments under Grahamiana and Tephrosia residue cover. The relationship between soil water and leaf chlorophyll content was not significant in 2013/14 cropping season. The shortest maize plants were observed in the grass and Tephrosia mulched treatments during the January-February period (Figure 4). The tallest maize plants were observed in the maize residue mulched treatment. Maize plant growth under C. grahamiana and Tephrosia residues was slower than CP, maize residues and leaf litter treatments.
There were no significant differences in plant population across the six treatments in 2012/13 and 2013/14 seasons. Maize grain yield differed significantly across the six treatments in 2012/13 and 2013/14 seasons (Table 3). In 2012/13 season CP treatment had 1045, 965 and 727 kg ha−1 more (p = 0.033) grain than maize residues, grass and leaf litter treatments, respectively. The CP treatment significantly out-yielded C. grahamiana and Tephrosia treatments by 1041 and 1265 kg ha−1. In the same season the six treatments had no significant effect on maize stover yield. In 2013/14 cropping season leaf litter treatment outperformed the Tephrosia treatment only. As observed with grain yield, the leaf litter treatment also gave the highest stover yield compared with the other treatments. Regression analysis indicated no significant relationships between maize plant height and chlorophyll content under each treatment.
Harvest year | Treatment | Plant population | Grain yield | Stover yield |
2013 | Conventional practice | 42,274 | 2416a | 1363 |
Maize residues | 42,635 | 1371b | 1585 | |
Grass | 43,669 | 1451b | 1318 | |
Leaf litter | 44,205 | 1689b | 1483 | |
Grahamiana residues | 43,083 | 1375b | 1448 | |
Tephrosia residues | 39,842 | 1151b | 944 | |
P-value | ns | 0.033 | ns | |
SED | 1597 | 348 | 214 | |
2014 | Conventional practice | 39,176 | 4007a | 4249 |
Maize residues | 38,049 | 4177a | 4205 | |
Grass | 37,160 | 3414ab | 3099 | |
Leaf litter | 36,404 | 4288a | 4621 | |
Grahamiana residues | 37,185 | 3433ab | 3692 | |
Tephrosia residues | 36,434 | 2447b | 2890 | |
P-value | ns | 0.010 | ns | |
SED | 1743 | 666 | 643 | |
ns: not significant; SED: standard error of the difference between treatment means |
The treatments had no significant influence on maize population across the on-farm experimental sites. In the first season the six treatments had no significant effect on maize grain and stover yields. However, in 2013/14 season significant maize yield differences were detected across the six treatments tested across the three smallholder farms (Table 4). Only the grass mulched treatment significantly outperformed CP by 1230 kg ha−1 and Tephrosia by 1490 kg ha−1 maize grain. Maize stover yield was also influenced (p = 0.005) by the six treatments. Leaf litter and Tephrosia treatments had the highest and lowest maize stover yield respectively in 2013/14 season.
Harvest year | Treatment | Plant population | Grain yield | Stover yield |
2013 | Conventional practice | nd | 2423 | 3235 |
Maize residues | nd | 1993 | 3017 | |
Grass | nd | 2248 | 3615 | |
Leaf litter | nd | 2304 | 3444 | |
Grahamiana residues | nd | 2020 | 3544 | |
Tephrosia residues | nd | 2273 | 3318 | |
P-value | nd | ns | ns | |
SED | nd | 332 | 729 | |
2014 | Conventional practice | 28,277 | 2061cd | 3443abc |
Maize residues | 29,701 | 3067abc | 4212ab | |
Grass | 28,108 | 3291a | 4343a | |
Leaf litter | 29,083 | 3133ab | 4414a | |
Grahamiana residues | 29,039 | 2432abcd | 3312bc | |
Tephrosia residues | 29,770 | 1801d | 2693c | |
P-value | ns | 0.015 | 0.005 | |
SED | 1504 | 510 | 518 | |
nd: not determined in 2012/13 season; ns: not significant; SED: standard error of the difference between treatment means |
Soil water responses to the seasonal rainfall pattern and the amount of soil water retained under each treatment varied throughout the season. At the time most measurements were taken, the maize residue treatment had more soil water compared with the other treatments. The maize residues used for mulching was a mixture of stems and leaves, and these could have captured more of the rainwater allowing it to infiltrate into the soil. High soil cover substantially reduces surface runoff allowing more time for rainwater to infiltrate into the soil, and can reduce soil evaporation by 30-50% under some agro-ecological conditions [37,38]. Tephrosia residues, which comprised mostly twigs, retained the least amount of soil water. The Tephrosia twigs/stems could not cover much of the surface area, and hence more soil water could have been lost through evaporation from the Tephrosia treatment.
Maize plants in the CP treatment had the highest chlorophyll content. This could be attributed to suppressed N uptake by maize plants wherever plant residues were applied as mulch. Plant residues used had high C:N ratio and this could have promoted N immobilization during the cropping season. Plant residues with high C:N ratio (for example >42:1 for maize stover) often stimulate immobilization of soil N by micro-organisms [26] and more N from other sources is required to offset the negative effects of limited N supply to the growing crops. Plant residues with C:N ratios of <20:1 often decompose fast, release N and nutrients to the soil [39] and these would not be ideal for incorporating into smallholder CA systems for mulching purpose. Ideal mulching material could be plant materials that decompose slowly and provide soil cover for much longer during the cropping season. Leaf litter might not be a source of N during the first 60-90 days of its decomposition [23], hence mineral fertilizer becomes a critical input for smallholders using this natural resource in their CA farming system. Of the three commonly used mulching materials on smallholder farms, grass had the least chlorophyll content. Grass species common in miombo dominated forests of Zimbabwe can have C:N ratios >42:1 [23] and their use as surface cover in CA systems can promote N immobilization. The relationship between soil water and leaf chlorophyll content was not significant in the different treatments. The lack of significant relationship between these two parameters suggests that soil water did not limit the uptake of N by the growing maize plants. Soil water was similar across the six treatments at most occasions when measurements were taken. Maize leaf chlorophyll content observed in our study are consistent with findings from previous studies under conventional agriculture in rainfed systems [31,40].
Maize plant height was not significantly influenced by the different treatments despite the differences observed with leaf chlorophyll content across the six treatments at DTC site. These results suggest that the basal and topdressing fertilizer supplied adequate nutrients that offset the negative effects of the different mulching materials on N availability to the maize crop. Basal fertilization at seeding supplied 16, 12 and 11.6 kg ha−1 N, P and K respectively, and a further 69 kg N ha−1 was applied as topdressing fertilizer. Nitrogen is an important yield determining factor in no-till systems worldwide [27].
Maize responded positively to the six treatments in the first season at DTC. Soil at DTC had higher pH and clay content, and maize often grows well at soil pH greater than 5.5 [41]. The CP treatment had higher grain yield than the five mulch treatments in the first season, a trend consistent with observations made at the on-farm sites and leaf chlorophyll content results. These results suggest that in the CP treatment N uptake was higher than the mulched treatments in mulched CA treatments. Residues of legumes such as Cajanus cajan (L.), Leucaena leucocephala (L.) and Desmodium residues cause N immobilization in the first 30-90 days of the cropping season [25]. Similarly residues of species such as Acacia angustissima can also immobilize N when they are incorporated in conventional moldboard ploughing system [24].
At the on-farm sites maize yield responses to different treatments varied from site to site and there were no significant yield differences in the first season. The soils at the on-farm sites were highly degraded, with pH below the optimum 5.5 for maize [41]. Decomposing plant materials applied as mulch could not influence soil chemical properties to give a crop response in the first season. However, in the second season maize residue, grass, leaf litter and Grahamiana treatments had higher yields than Tephrosia. Plant residues from the first season had decomposed and improved soil conditions. For example leaf litter is a source of plant nutrients and the material decomposes easily thereby releasing nutrients to the soil [9,23,42].
Tephrosiaresidue mulching was the least performing treatment across the two cropping seasons. The Tephrosia residues consisted of stems and branches, and these decomposed slowly resulting in more N lock up as reflected by low leaf chlorophyll content and shorter maize plants shown by on-station measurements. Tree litter consisting of predominantly twigs immobilizes soil N [23], and this could have happened in the Tephrosia residue treatment. The woody plant material has higher C:N ratio and this induces an increased demand for N by decomposers in the soil thereby depriving growing maize plants of N. Our results showed that C. grahamiana residues did not suppress maize yield as much as Tephrosia, suggesting the former has lower ratios of carbon, N, lignin and polyphenols that influence decomposition of plant material. At the on-station site, maize yield differences between the 2 seasons can be attributed to differences in rainfall distribution during the cropping season. In the first season, rainfall was lower than 2014, with 2 long dry spells experienced between the end of December 2012 and February 2013. Rainfall also tailed off earlier in 2013 where the last effective rains were recorded in the middle of March 2013.
The study assessed the effect of leguminous and non-leguminous plant materials used for mulching on maize crop growth under the sub-humid conditions of Zimbabwe. In a season with dry spells during maize grain filling stage, illustrated by 2012/13, maize residue cover conserved more soil water during the cropping season. Maize N uptake fluctuated during the growing season under the conventional and different mulching treatments. Our results show that with adequate basal and topdressing fertilization, the different mulching materials under CA have a similar effect on maize growth and the resultant grain and biomass yields. Adequate fertilization is therefore critical in CA systems where smallholder farmers use different plant materials as mulch. Decomposing residues of C. grahamiana and Tephrosia can promote N immobilization and are therefore not a direct source of N when the two leguminous species are grown to full maturity. Adequate mineral N fertilization is therefore critical if farmers apply these residues as mulch in CA systems that are being promoted in the smallholder sector.
Our study was conducted over two seasons and would be worth repeating for a longer period in order to get full insights on how the different mulch types influence maize growth and yield under different season qualities. The experiment will generate more valuable information for smallholder CA farmers if different application rates of different mulching materials and mineral fertilizer are tested together. Future studies could also focus on nutrient release patterns of the different plant materials that are used as mulch in smallholder CA systems in southern Africa. The leguminous species used in the study were allowed to grow to maturity before their residue was used for mulching. It would be worthwhile to explore the effect of mulching materials of leguminous residues grown to different growth stages on soil and crop productivity in CA systems.
This study is embedded in the MAIZE CGIAR Research Program and was funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) through project number CSE/2010/022 (Integrating crops and livestock for improved food security and livelihoods in rural Zimbabwe). The authors acknowledge the support received from farmers and AGRITEX officers in Goromonzi and Murehwa districts of Zimbabwe. We acknowledge the efforts of Jefias Mataruse, Wadzanayi Mvundura and Miriam Zenda in data collection.
The authors declare no conflict of interest in this publication.
[1] |
Arora P, Chong A (2018) Government Effectiveness in the Provision of Public Goods: The Role of Institutional Quality. J Appl Econ 21: 175-196. doi: 10.1080/15140326.2018.1550593
![]() |
[2] | Arrow KJ (1969) The Organization of Economic Activity: Issues Pertinent to the Choice of Market versus Nonmarket Allocation, In The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PBB-System, Joint Economic Committee, 91st Cong., 1st Session, 16. U.S. Government. |
[3] | Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, et al. (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4601-4614. |
[4] |
Bator FM (1958) The Anatomy of Market Failure. Q J Econ 72: 351-379. doi: 10.2307/1882231
![]() |
[5] |
Bergstrom TC, Cornes RC (1983) Independence of Allocative Efficiency from Distribution in the Theory of Public Goods. Econometrica 51: 1753-1765. doi: 10.2307/1912115
![]() |
[6] |
Bowen HR (1943) The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources. Q J Econ 58: 27-48. doi: 10.2307/1885754
![]() |
[7] |
Buchanan JM (1965) The Economic Theory of Clubs. Economic New Ser 32: 1-14. doi: 10.2307/2552442
![]() |
[8] | Candela R, Geloso V (2019) Why Consider the Lighthouse a Public Good?. SSRN, 1-43. |
[9] | Central Statistical Office of Ireland (2013) Economic Ownership and Changes in Ownership Goods, Non-Financial Assets, Financial Assets and Liabilities. In Meeting of Group of Experts on National Accounts-Interim Meeting on Global Production, 1-23. |
[10] |
Cheng HY, Yu CC, Hsu KC, et al. (2019) Estimating Solar Irradiance on Tilted Surface with Arbitrary Orientations and Tilt Angles. Energies 12: 1-14. doi: 10.3390/en13010001
![]() |
[11] |
Choy LHT, Ho WKO (2018) Building a Low Carbon China through Coasean Bargaining. Habitat Int 75: 139-146. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.03.007
![]() |
[12] |
Clarke EH (1971) Multipart Pricing of Public Goods. Public Choice 11: 17-33. doi: 10.1007/BF01726210
![]() |
[13] | Coase RH (1960) The Problem of Social Cost. J Law Econ 40: 351-376. |
[14] |
Coulomb R, Henriet F (2018) The Grey Paradox: How Fossil-Fuel Owners Can Benefit from Carbon Taxation. J Environ Econ Manage 87: 206-223. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2017.07.001
![]() |
[15] | DeBono E (1978) When Opportunity Knocks. Manage Today, 102-105. |
[16] | Doda B (2013) Emissions-GDP Relationship in Times of Growth and Decline. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy No. 136. |
[17] |
Epple D (1987) Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Estimating Demand and Supply Functions for Differentiated Products. J Political Econ 95: 59-80. doi: 10.1086/261441
![]() |
[18] |
Fröhlich C (2012) Total Solar Irradiance Observations. Surv Geophys 33: 453-473. doi: 10.1007/s10712-011-9168-5
![]() |
[19] | Grossman GM (1995) Pollution and Growth: What Do We Know?, In The Economics of Sustainable Development, edited by Ian Goldin and L. Alan Winters, Cambridge University Press, 29-46. |
[20] |
Guasoni P, Schachermayer W (2004) Necessary Conditions for the Existence of Utility Maximizing Strategies under Transaction Costs. Statist Decisions 22: 153-170. doi: 10.1524/stnd.22.2.153.49129
![]() |
[21] | Hamlin L (2019) Despite Renewables Mandate More than 80% of California Energy Needs Met Using Fossil Fuels. WUWT: Watts Up With That? Available from: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/26/despite-renewables-mandate-more-than-80-of-california-energy-needs-met-using-fossil-fuels/. |
[22] | Head JG (1962) Public Goods and Public Policy. Public Financ 3: 205-208. |
[23] |
Holcombe RG (2000) Public Goods Theory and Public Policy. J Value Inquiry 34: 273-286. doi: 10.1023/A:1004730424324
![]() |
[24] |
Holcombe RG, Sobel RS (2001) Public Policy toward Pecuniary Externalities. Public Financ Rev 29: 304-325. doi: 10.1177/109114210102900402
![]() |
[25] |
Hosenuzzaman M, Rahim NA, Selvaraj J, et al. (2015) Global Prospects, Progress, Policies, and Environmental Impact of Solar Photovoltaic Power Generation. Renew Sust Energy Rev 41: 284-297. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.046
![]() |
[26] |
Hulbert B, Brown RB, Adams S (1997) Towards an Understanding of "opportunity". Marketing Education Rev 7: 67-73. doi: 10.1080/10528008.1997.11488608
![]() |
[27] | ICWE (1992) The Dublin statement on water and sustainable development. In ICWE (International Conference on Water and the Environment), Dublin: ICWE (International Conference on Water and the Environment), 55. |
[28] | International Task Force on Global Public Goods (2006) Meeting Global Challenges: International Cooperation in the National Interest, Stockholm. |
[29] | Iqbal M (1983) An Introduction To Solar Radiation, Academic Press. |
[30] | Irena C (2014) The Socio-Economic Benefits of Large-Scale Solar and Wind Energy: An EconValue Report. |
[31] | Kaufman N (2018a) The Social Cost of Carbon in Taxes and Subsidies Part 1: The Use of Current Estimates, New York. |
[32] | Kaufman N (2018b) The Social Cost of Carbon in Taxes and Subsidies Part 2: Alternatives To the Us Government Sc-CO2 Estimates. Center Global Energy Policy. |
[33] | Kaul I, Mendoza RU (2003) Advancing the Concept of Global Public Goods. In Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization, edited by Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceição, Katell Le Goulven, and Ronald U. Mendoza, New York: Oxford University Press, 78-112. |
[34] | King A, Schneider B (1992) The First Global Revolution: A Report of the Coucil of the Club of Rome, Orient Longman. |
[35] |
Kopp G (2016) Magnitudes and Timescales of Total Solar Irradiance Variability. J Space Weather Space Climate 6: 1-19. doi: 10.1051/swsc/2015040
![]() |
[36] | Marten M, van Dender K (2019) The Use of Revenues from Carbon Pricing. 43. OECD Taxation Working Papers. |
[37] | Marvão A, Manuel R, Pereira M (2010) Is Fuel-Switching a No-Regrets Environmental Policy? VAR Evidence on Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Energy Consumption and Economic Performance in Portugal. Energy Econ 32 (1): 227-242. |
[38] | McConnell CR, Brue SL, Flynn SM (2012) Microeconomics Principles, Problems, and Policies, 19th ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. |
[39] | Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, et al. (1972) Limits to Growth: A Report of the Coucil of the Club of Rome, 5th ed. New York: Universe Books. |
[40] | Miller NH (1990) Notes on Micoeconomic Theory. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-88644-6.50013-8. |
[41] |
Minasian JR (1964) Television Pricing and the Theory of Public Goods. J Law Econ 7: 71-80. doi: 10.1086/466600
![]() |
[42] | Moghimi AM (2017) Optical, Thermal and Economic Optimization of a Linear Fresnel Collector. University of Pretoria. |
[43] |
Musgrave RA (1939) The Voluntary Exchange Theory of Public Economy. Q J Econ 53: 213-237. doi: 10.2307/1882886
![]() |
[44] | Musgrave RA (1959) The Theory of Public Finance; A Study in Public Economy. |
[45] | Musgrave RA (1969) Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Theory of Public Finance. J Econ Lit 7: 797-806. |
[46] |
Nam KM, Selin NE, Reilly JM, et al. (2010) Measuring Welfare Loss Caused by Air Pollution in Europe: A CGE Analysis. Energy Policy 38: 5059-5071. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.034
![]() |
[47] | Nelson J, Gambhir A, Ekins-Daukes N (2014) Solar Power for CO2 Mitigation. London. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7722/c6f78dedc4b0491701ff29f0916be7d2af1a.pdf. |
[48] | Nordhaus WD (2008) A Question of Balance, Yale University Press. |
[49] | Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. |
[50] | OECD (2016) The Economic Consequences of Outdoor Air Pollution, OECD Publishing, Paris. |
[51] | Pearce D (1989) Economic Values and the Natural Environment. Anuari de La Societat Catalana d'Economia 7: 132-139. |
[52] | Perry C, Rock M, Seckler D (1997) Water as an Economic Good: A Solution, or a Problem?. International Irrigation Management Institute Research Report 14, Colombo, Sri Lanka. |
[53] | Pigou AC (1929) The Economis of Welfare, 3rd ed. Macmillan and Co. |
[54] | Pigou AC (1947) A Study in Public Finance, 3rd ed. London: Macmillan. |
[55] | Poynder J (1844) Literary Extracts from English and Other Works, London: John Hatchard & Son. |
[56] | Rezai A, Taylor L, Foley D (2017) Economic Growth, Income Distribution, and Climate Change. Working Paper Series 2017. |
[57] | Robbins L (1932) An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, Edited by MacMillan & Co. London. |
[58] | Robinson S (1990) Pollution, Market Failure, and Optimal Policy in an Economywide Framework. 198571. CUDARE Working Papers. |
[59] |
Samuelson PA (1954) The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 36: 387-389. doi: 10.2307/1925895
![]() |
[60] |
Samuelson PA (1955) Diagrammatic Exposition of a Theory of Public Expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 37: 350-356. doi: 10.2307/1925849
![]() |
[61] |
Samuelson PA (1964) Public Goods and Subscription TV: Correction of the Record. J Law Econ 7: 81-83. doi: 10.1086/466601
![]() |
[62] | Samuelson PA, Nordhaus WD (2009) Economics, 19th ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. |
[63] | Sandmo A (2001) Public Goods and Pigouvian Taxes. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6e9f/d30e502c6ddd6e35bf2f005e48e9f8e4c2aa.pdf. |
[64] | Sandmo A (2009) The Scale and Scope of Environmental Taxation, In Tax Systems: Whence and Whither. Recent Evolution, Current Problems and Future Challenges, Malaga: Norwegian, 34. |
[65] | Sax E (1887) Grundlegung Der Theoretischen Staatswirthschaft, Wien: Holder, Alfred. Available from: https://archive.org/details/grundlegungdert01saxgoog/page/n10. |
[66] | Sax E (1958) Die Wertungstheorie Der Steuer (1924) Zeitschrift Fur Volkswirtschaft Und Socialpolitik, Vol. 4' Translated as The Valuation Theory of Taxation, In Classics in the Theory of Public Finance, edited by Richard Abel Musgrave and Allen T. Peacock, 1rst ed., New York: MacMillan St Martin's Press, 177-189. |
[67] | Schlenker W, Roberts MJ (2009) Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U. S. Crop Yields under Climate Change. PNAS 106: 15594-15598. |
[68] |
Scitovsky T (1954) Two Concepts of External Economies. J Political Econ 62: 143-151. doi: 10.1086/257498
![]() |
[69] |
Smith VK (1993) Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal. Land Econ 69: 1-26. doi: 10.2307/3146275
![]() |
[70] | Smith VK, Huang JC (1995) Can Markets Value Air Quality? A Meta-Analysis of Hedonic Property Value Models. J Political Econ 103: 209-227. |
[71] | Starrett DA (2003) Property Rights, Public Goods and the Environment. In Handbooks in Economics Series Vol. 1:Perspectives on Environmental Economics, edited by Karl-Goran Maler and Jeffrey Vincent, 1rst ed., North Holland, 572. |
[72] | Sullivan S (2014) The Natural Capital Myth; or Will Accounting Save the World. The Leverhulme Centre for the Study of Value. Available from: http://thestudyofvalue.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/WP3-Sullivan-2014-Natural-Capital-Myth.pdf%0Ahttp://www.academia.edu/download/33689440/WP3-Sullivan-2014-Natural-Capital-Myth.pdf%0Ahttp://files/361/Sullivan-2014-Thenaturalcapitalmyth%0Aorwill. |
[73] |
Tabb WK (2007) Resource Wars. Mon Rev 58: 32-42. doi: 10.14452/MR-058-08-2007-01_3
![]() |
[74] |
Tiebout CM (1956) A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. J Political Econ 64: 416-424. doi: 10.1086/257839
![]() |
[75] |
Uimonen S (2001) The Insufficiency of Pigouvian Taxes in a Spatial General Equilibrium Model. Ann Reg Sci 35: 283-98. doi: 10.1007/s001680100045
![]() |
[76] |
Valenzuela N, Literman R, Neuwald JL, et al. (2019) Extreme Thermal Fluctuations from Climate Change Unexpectedly Accelerate Demographic Collapse of Vertebrates with Temperature-Dependent Sex Determination. Sci Reports 9: 1-11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2
![]() |
[77] | Wald L (2018) Basics in Solar Radiation At Earth Surface. MINES ParisTech, PSL Research University. Available from: https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01676634/document. |
[78] | White C (2015) Understanding Water Markets: Public vs. Private Goods, In Global Water Forum, 1-8. |
[79] | Wicksell K (1958) Eine Neues Prinzip Der Gerechten Besteuerung, K. Wicksell (Ed) Finanztheoretische Untersuchungen Nebst Darstellung Und Kritik Des Steuerwesens Schwedens, Gustav Fleischer Jena 1896' Translated as A New Principle of Just Taxation, In Classics in the Theory of Public Finance, edited by Richard Abel Musgrave and Allen T. Peacock, 1rst ed., MacMillan St Martin's Press, 72-118. |
[80] | World Bank Group (1998) Economic Analysis of Environmental Externalities, In Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook 1998, World Bank Group, 54-62. |
[81] | Zhao XB (2011) The Impact of CO2 Emission Cuts on Income. In Agricultural & Applied Economics Association's 2011 AAEA & NAREA Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh: Agricultural & Applied Economics Association's 2011 AAEA & NAREA Joint Annual Meeting, 1-18. |
1. | Jonne Rodenburg, Lucie Büchi, Jeremy Haggar, Adoption by adaptation: moving from Conservation Agriculture to conservation practices, 2020, 1473-5903, 1, 10.1080/14735903.2020.1785734 | |
2. | W. Mupangwa, I. Nyagumbo, F. Liben, L. Chipindu, P. Craufurd, S. Mkuhlani, Maize yields from rotation and intercropping systems with different legumes under conservation agriculture in contrasting agro-ecologies, 2021, 306, 01678809, 107170, 10.1016/j.agee.2020.107170 | |
3. | Shem Kuyah, Gudeta Weldesemayat Sileshi, Libère Nkurunziza, Ngonidzashe Chirinda, Pierre Celestin Ndayisaba, Kangbéni Dimobe, Ingrid Öborn, Innovative agronomic practices for sustainable intensification in sub-Saharan Africa. A review, 2021, 41, 1774-0746, 10.1007/s13593-021-00673-4 | |
4. | W. Mupangwa, C. Thierfelder, S. Cheesman, I. Nyagumbo, T. Muoni, B. Mhlanga, M. Mwila, T. S. Sida, A. Ngwira, Effects of maize residue and mineral nitrogen applications on maize yield in conservation-agriculture-based cropping systems of Southern Africa, 2020, 35, 1742-1705, 322, 10.1017/S174217051900005X | |
5. | E.F Mutsamba, I. Nyagumbo, W. Mupangwa, Forage and maize yields in mixed crop-livestock farming systems, 2020, 92, 15735214, 100317, 10.1016/j.njas.2019.100317 | |
6. | Cosmas Parwada, Justin Chipomho, Ronald Mandumbu, 2022, Chapter 17, 978-981-16-6770-1, 281, 10.1007/978-981-16-6771-8_17 | |
7. | M.G. Mostofa Amin, S.M. Mubtasim Mahbub, Md. Moudud Hasan, Wafa Pervin, Jinat Sharmin, Md. Delwar Hossain, Plant–water relations in subtropical maize fields under mulching and organic fertilization, 2023, 286, 03783774, 108394, 10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108394 |
Site | Soil pH | Avail. P (mg kg-1) | Ca | Mg | K | Clay | Silt | Sand |
Cmolckg-1 | (%) | (%) | (%) | |||||
DTC | 4.9 | 19 | 0.30 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 21 | 5 | 74 |
Gono | 3.0 | 16 | 0.61 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 9 | 1 | 90 |
Murwira | 4.1 | 30 | 0.88 | 0.39 | 0.24 | nd | nd | nd |
Unyoro | 4.0 | 14 | 0.90 | 0.29 | 0.09 | 5 | 7 | 88 |
DTC: Domboshawa Training Centre; nd: not determined. pH = 0.01 M CaCl2; available P = Olsen method; Ca, Mg and K = atomic absorption spectroscopy; clay, silt and sand content = hydrometer method. |
Experimental site | CA system | Mulching material used |
On-farm | Direct seeding | Maize residues |
Grass | ||
Leaf litter | ||
Sunnhemp residues | ||
Tephrosia residues | ||
On-station | Planting basins | Maize residues |
Grass | ||
Leaf litter | ||
Grahamiana residues | ||
Tephrosia residues |
Harvest year | Treatment | Plant population | Grain yield | Stover yield |
2013 | Conventional practice | 42,274 | 2416a | 1363 |
Maize residues | 42,635 | 1371b | 1585 | |
Grass | 43,669 | 1451b | 1318 | |
Leaf litter | 44,205 | 1689b | 1483 | |
Grahamiana residues | 43,083 | 1375b | 1448 | |
Tephrosia residues | 39,842 | 1151b | 944 | |
P-value | ns | 0.033 | ns | |
SED | 1597 | 348 | 214 | |
2014 | Conventional practice | 39,176 | 4007a | 4249 |
Maize residues | 38,049 | 4177a | 4205 | |
Grass | 37,160 | 3414ab | 3099 | |
Leaf litter | 36,404 | 4288a | 4621 | |
Grahamiana residues | 37,185 | 3433ab | 3692 | |
Tephrosia residues | 36,434 | 2447b | 2890 | |
P-value | ns | 0.010 | ns | |
SED | 1743 | 666 | 643 | |
ns: not significant; SED: standard error of the difference between treatment means |
Harvest year | Treatment | Plant population | Grain yield | Stover yield |
2013 | Conventional practice | nd | 2423 | 3235 |
Maize residues | nd | 1993 | 3017 | |
Grass | nd | 2248 | 3615 | |
Leaf litter | nd | 2304 | 3444 | |
Grahamiana residues | nd | 2020 | 3544 | |
Tephrosia residues | nd | 2273 | 3318 | |
P-value | nd | ns | ns | |
SED | nd | 332 | 729 | |
2014 | Conventional practice | 28,277 | 2061cd | 3443abc |
Maize residues | 29,701 | 3067abc | 4212ab | |
Grass | 28,108 | 3291a | 4343a | |
Leaf litter | 29,083 | 3133ab | 4414a | |
Grahamiana residues | 29,039 | 2432abcd | 3312bc | |
Tephrosia residues | 29,770 | 1801d | 2693c | |
P-value | ns | 0.015 | 0.005 | |
SED | 1504 | 510 | 518 | |
nd: not determined in 2012/13 season; ns: not significant; SED: standard error of the difference between treatment means |
Site | Soil pH | Avail. P (mg kg-1) | Ca | Mg | K | Clay | Silt | Sand |
Cmolckg-1 | (%) | (%) | (%) | |||||
DTC | 4.9 | 19 | 0.30 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 21 | 5 | 74 |
Gono | 3.0 | 16 | 0.61 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 9 | 1 | 90 |
Murwira | 4.1 | 30 | 0.88 | 0.39 | 0.24 | nd | nd | nd |
Unyoro | 4.0 | 14 | 0.90 | 0.29 | 0.09 | 5 | 7 | 88 |
DTC: Domboshawa Training Centre; nd: not determined. pH = 0.01 M CaCl2; available P = Olsen method; Ca, Mg and K = atomic absorption spectroscopy; clay, silt and sand content = hydrometer method. |
Experimental site | CA system | Mulching material used |
On-farm | Direct seeding | Maize residues |
Grass | ||
Leaf litter | ||
Sunnhemp residues | ||
Tephrosia residues | ||
On-station | Planting basins | Maize residues |
Grass | ||
Leaf litter | ||
Grahamiana residues | ||
Tephrosia residues |
Harvest year | Treatment | Plant population | Grain yield | Stover yield |
2013 | Conventional practice | 42,274 | 2416a | 1363 |
Maize residues | 42,635 | 1371b | 1585 | |
Grass | 43,669 | 1451b | 1318 | |
Leaf litter | 44,205 | 1689b | 1483 | |
Grahamiana residues | 43,083 | 1375b | 1448 | |
Tephrosia residues | 39,842 | 1151b | 944 | |
P-value | ns | 0.033 | ns | |
SED | 1597 | 348 | 214 | |
2014 | Conventional practice | 39,176 | 4007a | 4249 |
Maize residues | 38,049 | 4177a | 4205 | |
Grass | 37,160 | 3414ab | 3099 | |
Leaf litter | 36,404 | 4288a | 4621 | |
Grahamiana residues | 37,185 | 3433ab | 3692 | |
Tephrosia residues | 36,434 | 2447b | 2890 | |
P-value | ns | 0.010 | ns | |
SED | 1743 | 666 | 643 | |
ns: not significant; SED: standard error of the difference between treatment means |
Harvest year | Treatment | Plant population | Grain yield | Stover yield |
2013 | Conventional practice | nd | 2423 | 3235 |
Maize residues | nd | 1993 | 3017 | |
Grass | nd | 2248 | 3615 | |
Leaf litter | nd | 2304 | 3444 | |
Grahamiana residues | nd | 2020 | 3544 | |
Tephrosia residues | nd | 2273 | 3318 | |
P-value | nd | ns | ns | |
SED | nd | 332 | 729 | |
2014 | Conventional practice | 28,277 | 2061cd | 3443abc |
Maize residues | 29,701 | 3067abc | 4212ab | |
Grass | 28,108 | 3291a | 4343a | |
Leaf litter | 29,083 | 3133ab | 4414a | |
Grahamiana residues | 29,039 | 2432abcd | 3312bc | |
Tephrosia residues | 29,770 | 1801d | 2693c | |
P-value | ns | 0.015 | 0.005 | |
SED | 1504 | 510 | 518 | |
nd: not determined in 2012/13 season; ns: not significant; SED: standard error of the difference between treatment means |