000			03346nab a22003617a 4500
999			_c58544 _d58536
001			58544
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20220920151607.0
008			170208b2017 xxu|||p| |||| 00| 0 eng d
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0665-3
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
100	1		_aThierfelder, C. _gSustainable Intensification Program _gSustainable Agrifood Systems _8INT2939 _9877
245	1	0	_aHow climate-smart is conservation agriculture (CA)? _bits potential to deliver on adaptation, mitigation and productivity on smallholder farms in southern Africa
260			_aNew York : _bSpringer, _c2017.
500			_aPeer review
520			_aClimate resilient cropping systems are required to adapt to the increasing threats of climate change projected for Southern Africa and to better manage current climate variability. Conservation agriculture (CA) has been proposed among technologies that are climate-smart. For a cropping system to be labelled “climate-smart” it has to deliver three benefits: a) adapt to the effects of climate and be of increased resilience; b) mitigate climate effects by sequestering carbon (C) and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); and c) sustainably increase productivity and income. Research on smallholder farms from Southern Africa was analysed to assess if CA can deliver on the three principles of climate-smart agriculture. Results from Southern Africa showed that CA systems have a positive effect on adaptation and productivity, but its mitigation potential lags far behind expectations. CA systems maintain higher infiltration rates and conserve soil moisture, which helps to overcome seasonal dry-spells. Increased productivity and profitability were recorded although a lag period of 2–5 cropping seasons is common until yield benefits become significant. Immediate economic benefits such as reduced labour requirements in some systems will make CA more attractive in the short term to farmers who cannot afford to wait for several seasons until yield benefits accrue. The available data summarizing the effects of CA on soil organic C (SOC) and reductions in greenhouse gases, are often contradictory and depend a great deal on the agro-ecological environment and the available biomass for surface residue retention. There is an urgent need for more research to better quantify the mitigation effects, as the current data are scanty. Possible co-interventions such as improved intercropping/relay cropping systems, agroforestry and other tree-based systems may improve delivery of mitigation benefits and need further exploration.
526			_aMCRP _bFP1
526			_aCCAFS
546			_aText in English
650		7	_92419 _aClimate-smart agriculture _2AGROVOC
650		7	_92619 _aConservation agriculture _2AGROVOC
650		7	_91763 _aSmallholders _2AGROVOC
651		7	_91954 _aSouthern Africa _2AGROVOC
700	1		_92782 _aChivenge, P.
700	1		_aMupangwa, W. _gSustainable Intensification Program _gSustainable Agrifood Systems _8INT3147 _9894
700	1		_93214 _aRosenstock, T.
700	1		_94691 _aLamanna, C.
700	1		_94692 _aEyre, J.X.
773	0		_dNew York : Springer _tFood Security _wu93816 _gv. 9, no. 3, p. 537–560
856	4		_yAccess only for CIMMYT Staff _uhttp://libcatalog.cimmyt.org/Download/cis/58544.pdf
942			_2ddc _cJA _n0