| 000 | 03125nab a22004697a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | G96891 | ||
| 003 | MX-TxCIM | ||
| 005 | 20230609201841.0 | ||
| 008 | 210721s2013 xxk|||p|op||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 022 | _a1747-762X (Online) | ||
| 022 | 0 | _a1473-5903 | |
| 024 | 8 | _ahttps://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2012.703894 | |
| 040 | _aMX-TxCIM | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 090 | _aCIS-6751 | ||
| 100 | 1 |
_aThierfelder, C. _gSustainable Intensification Program _gSustainable Agrifood Systems _8INT2939 _9877 |
|
| 245 | 1 | 0 | _aBenefits and challenges of crop rotations in maize-based conservation agriculture (CA) cropping systems of southern Africa |
| 260 |
_aColchester (United Kingdom) : _bTaylor & Francis, _c2013. |
||
| 500 | _aPeer review | ||
| 500 | _aPeer-review: Yes - Open Access: Yes|http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=1473-5903 | ||
| 520 | _aConservation agriculture (CA) based on minimum soil disturbance, crop residue retention, crop rotations and associations are being promoted in southern Africa to reverse the decline in soil fertility and crop productivity. While agronomic benefits of rotations are known, farm level benefits of rotations in CA systems and how they fit in the smallholder farming systems have not been sufficiently addressed. This paper summarizes agronomic results from 2005 to 2011 of maize in rotation and association with different crops in Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Rotation with or without legumes improved water infiltration (between 70 and 238%), soil moisture, soil carbon, macro-fauna and crop productivity. However, due to poor market conditions, rotations with legumes were less profitable than maize during the study period. Farmers have fewer difficulties to abandon tillage and there is scope to retain crop residues in situ in areas of limited crop?livestock competition but the adoption of rotations and associations is constrained by socio-economic factors that need to be addressed before all principles of CA can be applied. | ||
| 536 | _aConservation Agriculture Program | ||
| 546 | _aText in English | ||
| 591 | _aTaylor and Francis | ||
| 594 | _aINT3170|INT2939|CRUL01 | ||
| 595 | _aCSC | ||
| 650 | 7 |
_aCrop rotation _2AGROVOC _91807 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aZero tillage _2AGROVOC _91753 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aAssociations _2AGROVOC _930985 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aSoil quality _2AGROVOC _91270 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aPlant water relations _2AGROVOC _96682 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aInput output analysis _2AGROVOC _99194 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aMarkets _2AGROVOC _93765 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aMaize _2AGROVOC _91173 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aCropping systems _2AGROVOC _91068 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aProfitability _2AGROVOC _98416 |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aCheesman, S. _8INT3170 _gSustainable Intensification Program _gSustainable Agrifood Systems _91685 |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_91793 _aRusinamhodzi, L. _gSustainable Intensification Program _8CRUL01 |
|
| 773 | 0 |
_tInternational Journal of Agricultural Sustainability _gv. 11, no. 2, p. 108-124 _dColchester (United Kingdom) : Taylor & Francis, 2013. _wG95894 _x1473-5903 |
|
| 856 | 4 |
_uhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12665/162 _yAccess only for CIMMYT Staff |
|
| 942 |
_cJA _2ddc _n0 |
||
| 999 |
_c29317 _d29317 |
||