Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T12:24:17.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ROTATION IN CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS OF ZAMBIA: EFFECTS ON SOIL QUALITY AND WATER RELATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2010

C. THIERFELDER  and
P. C. WALL
C. THIERFELDER*
Affiliation:
CIMMYT, P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
P. C. WALL
Affiliation:
CIMMYT, P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
*
†Corresponding author. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Conservation agriculture (CA) systems are based on minimal soil disturbance, crop residue retention and crop rotation. Although the capacity of rotations to break pest and disease cycles is generally recognized, other benefits of crop rotations in CA systems are seldom acknowledged and little understood. We monitored different conventional and CA cropping systems over the period from 2005 to 2009 in a multi-seasonal trial in Monze, southern Zambia. Both monocropped maize and different maize rotations including cotton and the green manure cover crop sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea) were compared under CA conditions, with the aim of elucidating the effects of crop rotations on soil quality, soil moisture relations and maize productivity. Infiltration, a sensitive indicator of soil quality, was significantly lower on conventionally ploughed plots in all cropping seasons compared to CA plots. Higher water infiltration rate led to greater soil moisture content in CA maize treatments seeded after cotton. Earthworm populations, total carbon and aggregate stability were also significantly higher on CA plots. Improvements in soil quality resulted in higher rainfall use efficiency and higher maize grain yield on CA plots especially those in a two- or three-year rotation. In the 2007/08 and 2008/2009 season, highest yields were obtained from direct-seeded maize after sunnhemp, which yielded 74% and 136% more than maize in the conventionally ploughed control treatment with a continuous maize crop. Even in a two-year rotation (maize-cotton), without a legume green manure cover crop, 47% and 38% higher maize yields were recorded compared to maize in the conventionally ploughed control in the two years, respectively. This suggests that there are positive effects from crop rotations even in the absence of disease and pest problems. The overall profitability of each system will, however, depend on markets and prices, which will guide the farmer's decision on which, if any, rotation to choose.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 309 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Amézquita, E., Cobo, Q. L. and Torres, E. A. (1999). Diseño, construccion y evaluacion de un minisimulador de lluvia para estudios de susceptibilidad a erosion en areas de laderas. Revista Suelos Equatoriales 29: 66–70.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. and Ingram, J. (1993). Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility: A Handbook of Methods. 2nd edn.Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Balkcom, K. S. and Reeves, D. W. (2005). Sunn-hemp utilized as a legume cover crop for corn production. Agronomy Journal 97: 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolliger, A., Magid, J., Amado, T., Neto, F., Dos Santos Ribeiro, M., Calegari, A., Ralisch, R. and De Neergaard, A. (2006). Taking stock of the Brazilian ‘zero-till revolution’: a review of landmark research and farmers' practice. Advances in Agronomy 91: 47–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brévault, T., Guibert, H. and Naudin, K. (2009). Preliminary studies of pest constraints to cotton seedlings in a direct seeding mulch-based system in Cameroon. Experimental Agriculture 45: 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, R. J. (1990). Twenty-five years of progress towards biological control. In Biological Control of Soilborne Pathogens, 1–14. (Ed Hornby, D.). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
CSO (2004). Agriculture Production in Zambia 1989–2004. Lusaka, Zambia: Central Statistical Office.Google Scholar
Derpsch, R. (2008). No-tillage and conservation agriculture: A progress report. In No-till Farming Systems, 7–40. (Eds Goddard, T., Zöbisch, M. A., Gan, Y. T., Ellis, W, Watson, A. and Sombatpanit, S.). Bangkok, Thailand: Special Publication No. 3, World Association of Soil and Water Conservation.Google Scholar
Dowswell, C. R., Paliwal, R. L. and Cantell, R. P. (1996). Maize in the Third World. Colorado, USA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
FAO (1998). World Reference Base for Soil Resources. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
FAO (2002). Conservation agriculture: Case studies in Latin America and Africa. Rome: FAO Soils Bulletin 78, FAO.Google Scholar
Jayne, T. S., Villarreal, M., Pingali, P., Hemrich, G. (2004). Interactions between the agricultural sector and the HIV/AIDS pandemic: Implications for agricultural policy. ESA Working Paper No. 04–06, FAO, Italy.Google Scholar
Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F. and Pretty, J. (2009). The spread of conservation agriculture: Justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7: 292–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GART (2006). Golden Valley Agriculture Research Trust: Yearbook 2006. Lusaka, Zambia: GART.Google Scholar
Giller, K. E. (2001). Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems. 2nd edn.New York: CABI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govaerts, B., Mezzalama, M., Sayre, K. D., Crossa, J., Nicol, J. M. and Deckers, J. (2006). Long-term consequences of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation on maize/wheat root rot and nematode populations in subtropical highlands. Applied Soil Ecology 32: 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govaerts, B., Fuentes, M., Mezzalama, M., Nicol, J. M., Deckers, J., Etchevers-Barra, J. D., Figueroa-Sandoval, B. and Sayre, K. D. (2007). Infiltration, soil moisture, root rot and nematode populations after 12 years of different tillage, residue and crop rotation managements. Soil Tillage Research 94: 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggblade, S. and Tembo, G. (2003). Conservation farming in Zambia: EPTD Discussion Paper No. 108. Washington D.C: IFPRI.Google Scholar
Helmers, G. A., Yamoah, C. F. and Varvel, G. E. (2001). Separating the impacts of crop diversification and rotations on risk. Agronomy Journal 93: 1337–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, P. R. (2007). Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? Journal of American Soil Agronomy 145: 127–137.Google Scholar
Hulugalle, N. R., Nehl, D. B. and Weaver, T. B. (2004). Soil properties, and cotton growth, yield and fibre quality in three cotton-based cropping systems. Soil and Tillage Research 75: 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltas, A., Corbeels, M., Scopel, E., Wery, J. and Macena da Silva, F. A. (2009). Cover crop and nitrogen effects on maize productivity in no-tillage systems of the Brazilian cerrados. Agronomy Journal 101: 1036–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagliai, M., Vignozzi, N. and Pellegrini, S. (2004). Soil structure and the effect of management practices. Soil and Tillage Research 79: 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reicosky, D. C. and Saxton, K. (2007). The benefits of no-tillage. In No-Tillage Seeding in Conservation Agriculture. 2nd edn, 11–20. (Eds Baker, C. J., Saxton, K. E., Ritchie, W. R., Chamen, W. C. T., Reicosky, D. C., Ribeiro, M. F. S., Justice, S. E. and Hobbs, ). UK: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Roth, C. H., Meyer, B., Frede, H. G. and Derpsch, R. (1988). Effect of mulch rates and tillage systems on infiltrability and other soil physical properties of an Oxisol in Parafla, Brazil. Soil and Tillage Research 11: 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaxson, T. F. and Barber, R. G. (2003). Optimizing soil moisture for plant production: The significance of soil porosity. Rome, Italy: FAO Soils Bulletin 79.Google Scholar
Statistix (2008). Statistix 9: Analytical Software. Tallahassee, USA: www.statistix.com.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Amezquita, E. and Stahr, K. (2005). Effects of intensifying organic manuring and tillage practices on penetration resistance and infiltration rate. Soil and Tillage Research 82:211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, P. C. (2007). Tailoring conservation agriculture to the needs of small farmers in developing countries: An analysis of issues. Journal of Crop Improvement 19: 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, K. H., McSorley, R. and Gallaher, R.N. (2003). Effect of Crotalaria juncea amendment on nematode communities in soil with different agricultural histories. Journal of Nematology 35:294–301.Google ScholarPubMed
World Bank (2007). Malawi poverty and vulnerability assessment: Investing in our future. Synthesis Report No. 36546-MW: Main Findings and Recommendations, The World Bank, Washington D.C.Google Scholar