volume 220 pages 211-225

Maize productivity and profitability in Conservation Agriculture systems across agro-ecological regions in Zimbabwe: A review of knowledge and practice

Paramu L. Mafongoya 1
L. Rusinamhodzi 2
Shephard Siziba 3
C. Thierfelder 4
Brighton Mvumi 5, 6, 7
Brighton Nhau 8
Lewis Hove 9
Pauline Chivenge 1
2
 
CIMMYT P.O. Box 1041, Village Market 00621 Nairobi Kenya
4
 
CIMMYT Southern African Regional Office, 12.5 Km Peg Mazowe Road, P.O. Box MP163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
5
 
Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering
7
 
Box MP167 Mount Pleasant Harare Zimbabwe
8
 
Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) of the United Nations, Sub Regional Office for Southern Africa, Block 1, Tendeseka Office Park, Eastlea, Harare, Zimbabwe
9
 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Sub Regional Office for Southern Africa, Merafe House, 11 Naivasha Road, Sunninghill, 2157 Johannesburg, South Africa
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2016-03-01
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR1.946
CiteScore12.5
Impact factor6.4
ISSN01678809, 18732305
Agronomy and Crop Science
Animal Science and Zoology
Ecology
Abstract
Conservation agriculture (CA) is increasingly promoted in southern Africa as a strategy to improve food security and reverse soil degradation in the face of climate change. However, the performance of CA under different environments and its ability to improve ecosystem services is still unclear. The effects of the CA options; direct seeding, rip-line seeding, and seeding into planting basins on maize grain yield, soil health and profitability across agro-ecological regions in Zimbabwe were evaluated through a review of literature in combination with meta-analysis. Overall, CA improved maize yield over conventional agriculture. Compared to conventional agriculture, direct seeding, rip-line seeding, and seeding into planting basins increased yield by 445, 258 and 241 kg ha−1, respectively. However, there was an initial yield decline in the first two years. CA practices reduced soil erosion and bulk density, and increased soil water content in most studies. Under high levels of residue retention (6 Mg ha−1), CA systems exhibited greater macro fauna abundance and diversity than conventional agriculture, particularly termites. Weed pressure tended to increase labour requirement for hand-hoe weeding under CA compared to conventional agriculture. However, the use of herbicides reduced weeding labour demand during the early season. The benefits of CA are tied to the farmers’ management intensity including: time of planting, weeding, fertiliser and herbicide application, and adequate training on equipment use. Economic analysis results showed that on average, a farmer incurs losses for switching from conventional agriculture to CA in the main maize growing regions of Zimbabwe. Based on the six seasons’ data, the losses were least with the ripper in drier areas and worst with the direct seeder in wetter areas. Incorporation of chemical herbicides worsens the economic returns of CA tillage options in all the agro-ecological zones. Overall, the study showed that the rip-line seeding is more attractive in the drier areas than direct seeding. Although not costed in this study, critical is the cumulative reversal of soil degradation associated with consistent CA practice which can sustain agriculture. Results from this review suggest that the benefits of CA depend largely on the type and context of CA being practised. It is thus imperative to profile the technology, the farmer socio-economic circumstances and the bio-physical environment in which the farmer operates for proper geographical and beneficiary targeting to achieve greater impact. More longer-term studies are required to fully elucidate the benefits and context of CA options and practice.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
2
3
4
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
4 publications, 6.67%
Ecological Economics
4 publications, 6.67%
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
3 publications, 5%
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
3 publications, 5%
Scientific Reports
2 publications, 3.33%
Discover Sustainability
2 publications, 3.33%
Soil and Tillage Research
2 publications, 3.33%
Soil Use and Management
2 publications, 3.33%
Weed Research
2 publications, 3.33%
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
2 publications, 3.33%
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
1 publication, 1.67%
Journal of Asian and African Studies
1 publication, 1.67%
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
1 publication, 1.67%
Plant Cell Reports
1 publication, 1.67%
Environment, Development and Sustainability
1 publication, 1.67%
Science of the Total Environment
1 publication, 1.67%
Agricultural Systems
1 publication, 1.67%
SSRN Electronic Journal
1 publication, 1.67%
Land Use Policy
1 publication, 1.67%
Heliyon
1 publication, 1.67%
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
1 publication, 1.67%
Environmental Challenges
1 publication, 1.67%
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems
1 publication, 1.67%
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis
1 publication, 1.67%
Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science
1 publication, 1.67%
Sustainable Development Goals Series
1 publication, 1.67%
SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science
1 publication, 1.67%
International Journal of Agronomy
1 publication, 1.67%
Plants
1 publication, 1.67%
1
2
3
4

Publishers

2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Elsevier
17 publications, 28.33%
Springer Nature
14 publications, 23.33%
Wiley
7 publications, 11.67%
Taylor & Francis
6 publications, 10%
MDPI
4 publications, 6.67%
Frontiers Media S.A.
3 publications, 5%
SAGE
1 publication, 1.67%
Social Science Electronic Publishing
1 publication, 1.67%
Hindawi Limited
1 publication, 1.67%
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
1 publication, 1.67%
Academy of Science of South Africa
1 publication, 1.67%
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
1 publication, 1.67%
Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
1 publication, 1.67%
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
60
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Mafongoya P. L. et al. Maize productivity and profitability in Conservation Agriculture systems across agro-ecological regions in Zimbabwe: A review of knowledge and practice // Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2016. Vol. 220. pp. 211-225.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Mafongoya P. L., Rusinamhodzi L., Siziba S., Thierfelder C., Mvumi B., Nhau B., Hove L., Chivenge P. Maize productivity and profitability in Conservation Agriculture systems across agro-ecological regions in Zimbabwe: A review of knowledge and practice // Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2016. Vol. 220. pp. 211-225.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.017
UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.017
TI - Maize productivity and profitability in Conservation Agriculture systems across agro-ecological regions in Zimbabwe: A review of knowledge and practice
T2 - Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
AU - Mafongoya, Paramu L.
AU - Rusinamhodzi, L.
AU - Siziba, Shephard
AU - Thierfelder, C.
AU - Mvumi, Brighton
AU - Nhau, Brighton
AU - Hove, Lewis
AU - Chivenge, Pauline
PY - 2016
DA - 2016/03/01
PB - Elsevier
SP - 211-225
VL - 220
SN - 0167-8809
SN - 1873-2305
ER -
BibTex
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2016_Mafongoya,
author = {Paramu L. Mafongoya and L. Rusinamhodzi and Shephard Siziba and C. Thierfelder and Brighton Mvumi and Brighton Nhau and Lewis Hove and Pauline Chivenge},
title = {Maize productivity and profitability in Conservation Agriculture systems across agro-ecological regions in Zimbabwe: A review of knowledge and practice},
journal = {Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment},
year = {2016},
volume = {220},
publisher = {Elsevier},
month = {mar},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.017},
pages = {211--225},
doi = {10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.017}
}