Items

• 

  Calibrating the STICS soil-crop model to explore the impact of agroforestry parklands on millet growth

  Context Agroforestry systems provide critical benefits for food security and climate change mitigation. Yet, they are complex and heteregoneous sytems hard to optimize. The use of process-based crop models provides an opportunity to understand better the interactions between soil, crop, tree and climate and explore the impact of agroforestry on crop growth, for contrasting crop management. Objective The objectives of this study were to i) calibrate the soil-crop STICS model for pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) in order to simulate millet potential growth and impact of water and nitrogen limitations on millet growth in open fields and ii) explore the impacts of the parkland tree Faidherbia albida on millet performance for contrasting N fertilizer inputs. Methods We gathered a comprehensive database of 28 agronomically contrasting situations, ranging from near-potential growth to drought- and N-stress, either on-station or in a farmer’s home- or bush-fields. Parameters governing relevant plant and soil processes for grain yield were calibrated in a stepwise procedure. The calibrated model was used to explore the impact on millet growth of the widely reported benefits of Faidherbia albida, namely a minimum reduction in radiation thanks to the peculiar reverse phenology of this tree, improvement of soil water content at the beginning of the growing season and of organic nitrogen in the topsoil. Results Model simulations with the calibration dataset were reasonably accurate for aboveground biomass and grain yield. Normalized Root Mean Square Errors (nRMSE) for these variables were 29% and 26%, respectively; model efficiency (EF) was 0.58 for both. The nRMSE ranged from 33% to 53% for Soil Water Content (SWC), plant N uptake, grain number, and leaf-area index (LAI). Model accuracy was lower with the evaluation dataset. In the virtual experiment, millet yield decreased with incoming solar radiation, but only at levels of shading (e.g. below 80% of the radiation obtained with full sun) that do not occur under Faidherbia. The decline was greater when millet was fertilized. Increasing the initial soil water content did not affect simulated millet growth. Simulated millet aboveground biomass and grain yield increased with higher organic nitrogen contents of the topsoil, by 80% when millet was not fertilizer, but only by 25% when millet was fertilized. Implications This study provides the first set of comprehensively calibrated parameters for applying STICS to pearl millet in open cropland. A virtual experiment with historical climate suggests that the benefits of Faidherbia decrease if farmers intensify crop production by adding more mineral N fertilizer. Hence, precise fertilizer management is recommended in Faidherbia parklands. These results illustrate the benefits of process-based crop modelling for better understanding the functioning of agroforestry systems.
• 

  Combining manure with mineral N fertilizer maintains maize yields: Evidence from four long-term experiments in Kenya

  Context Crop productivity in sub-Saharan Africa cannot be substantially improved without simultaneously addressing short-term crop nutrient demand and long-term soil fertility. Integrated soil fertility management tackles both by the combined application of mineral fertilizers and organic resource inputs but few studies examined its‘ long-term effectiveness. Objective To address this knowledge gap, this study analysed maize yield trends in four long-term (31–37 cropping seasons) field experiments in Kenya with contrasting soil textures and under different climates. Methods All sites had two maize cropping seasons per year, received a base P and K fertilization and tested combinations of organic resource addition (1.2 and 4 t C ha-1 yr-1 ranging from farmyard manure, to high-quality Tithonia diversifolia and Calliandra calothyrsus material to low-quality saw dust), combined with (+N) and without (-N) mineral N fertilizer (120 kg N ha-1 season-1). General maize yield trends across sites and site specific trends were analyzed. Results Across sites, the no-input control experienced significant average maize yield reductions of 50 kg ha-1 yr-1 over the study period. In contrast, the treatment with farmyard manure +N maintained yields at both 1.2 and 4 t C ha-1 yr-1. High initial yields following additions of Tithonia and Calliandra, reduced over time. Assessment by site showed site specificity of maize yields and yield trends. For example, the two climatically favorable sites in western Kenya experienced yield gains with high quality organic resources at 4 t C ha-1 yr-1, leading to yields of up to 8 t ha-1 per season, while sites in central Kenya experienced yield losses, leading to 3.5 t ha-1 per season. Yield site specificity for ± mineral N treatments was stonger than for organic resource treatments, e.g. the clayey site in central Kenya in the end showed no yield differences between ± N, except for the 1.2 t C ha-1 yr-1 farmyard manure treatment. Yet, farmyard manure plus mineral N consistently achieved highest yields of all organic resource treatments at all sites and farmyard manure addition at 1.2 t C ha-1 yr-1 (about 5 t dry matter) was the most N-efficient treatment. Conclusions At realistic application rates, maize yield in integrated soil fertility management is best sustained by a combined application of farmyard manure and mineral N. Implications Mixed crop-livestock systems and a combined manure and mineral N application are key ingredients for sustained productivity of smallholder systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
• 

  Long-term tillage, residue management and crop rotation impacts on N2O and CH4 emissions from two contrasting soils in sub-humid Zimbabwe

  The respective contribution of conservation agriculture (CA) principles (no-tillage, permanent soil cover/mulch and crop rotations) on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is still unclear. This study was conducted at two long-term experimental sites established in 2013 in Zimbabwe, on an abruptic Lixisol at Domboshava Training Center (DTC) and on a xanthic Ferralsol at the University of Zimbabwe Farm (UZF). The purpose of the study was to unravel the individual and combined effects of tillage, mulching and rotation on N2O and CH4 emissions in low nitrogen (N) input maize-based cropping systems (< 60 kg N ha−1) and to compare emissions within maize rows and between maize rows. We hypothesised that integrating no tillage, mulch and cereal-legume rotation would enhance N2O emissions. Six treatments, replicated four times were investigated: conventional tillage, conventional tillage with rotation, no-tillage, no-tillage with mulch, no-tillage with rotation, no-tillage with mulch and rotation. The main crop was maize (Zea mays L.) and treatments with rotation included cowpea (Vigna unguiculate L. Walp.). Gas samples were regularly collected using the static chamber method in the maize row and inter-row spaces during the 2019/20 and 2020/21 cropping seasons and during the 2020/21 dry season. Soil moisture and mineral N were measured in the 0–20 cm soil depth. In 2019/20, cumulative total N2O emissions were significantly higher in mulch treatments at DTC, while at UZF N2O emissions were higher with cowpea rotation. Cumulative total N2O emissions ranged from 215 to 496 g N2O-N ha−1 yr−1 and from 226 to 395 g N2O-N ha−1 yr−1, at DTC and UZF, respectively. In 2020/21, N2O emissions were much lower and no differences were found between treatments on both sites (145 to 179 g N2O-N ha−1 yr−1 and 83 to 136 g N2O-N ha−1 yr−1 at DTC and UZF, respectively). A significant relationship was found between soil nitrate and daily N2O emissions. At UZF, highest N2O emissions were observed at a water-filled pore space of 60–70%. There were no significant differences in yield-scaled N2O emissions between treatments at both sites for the two seasons. DTC was a net source of CH4 (694 g CH4-C ha−1 yr−1 on average), while UZF was a net sink of CH4 (−494 g CH4-C ha−1 yr−1 on average). No evidence was found for in situ CH4 production at DTC, and an external source is most likely. Our study indicates that for low N input cropping systems in the sub-humid tropics, N loss through N2O is low.
• 

  Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective

  Agriculture is in crisis. Soil health is collapsing. Biodiversity faces the sixth mass extinction. Crop yields are plateauing. Against this crisis narrative swells a clarion call for Regenerative Agriculture. But what is Regenerative Agriculture, and why is it gaining such prominence? Which problems does it solve, and how? Here we address these questions from an agronomic perspective. The term Regenerative Agriculture has actually been in use for some time, but there has been a resurgence of interest over the past 5 years. It is supported from what are often considered opposite poles of the debate on agriculture and food. Regenerative Agriculture has been promoted strongly by civil society and NGOs as well as by many of the major multi-national food companies. Many practices promoted as regenerative, including crop residue retention, cover cropping and reduced tillage are central to the canon of ‘good agricultural practices’, while others are contested and at best niche (e.g. permaculture, holistic grazing). Worryingly, these practices are generally promoted with little regard to context. Practices most often encouraged (such as no tillage, no pesticides or no external nutrient inputs) are unlikely to lead to the benefits claimed in all places. We argue that the resurgence of interest in Regenerative Agriculture represents a re-framing of what have been considered to be two contrasting approaches to agricultural futures, namely agroecology and sustainable intensification, under the same banner. This is more likely to confuse than to clarify the public debate. More importantly, it draws attention away from more fundamental challenges. We conclude by providing guidance for research agronomists who want to engage with Regenerative Agriculture.