000			02939nab|a22003497a|4500
001			62955
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20240408185606.0
008			201202s2020||||ne |||p|op||||00||0|eng|d
022			_a0167-8809
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107224
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
100	1		_aBouwman, T. _93594
245	1	0	_aAdapting yet not adopting? Conservation agriculture in Central Malawi
260			_aAmsterdam (Netherlands) : _bElsevier, _c2021.
500			_aPeer review
500			_aOpen Access
520			_aConservation Agriculture (CA) has been widely promoted as a pathway to sustainably intensify agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Yet despite decades of promotion, CA uptake in SSA remains sparse with only few analyses of its impacts on farming and rural livelihoods. This study, which focuses on areas in Central Malawi considered to have a relatively high uptake of CA, uses analyses of satellite images, field observations, interviews with farmers, extension workers and other people involved in CA promotion, as well as a household survey, to investigate how CA has been adapted. We find that the three CA principles – (1) continuous minimum tillage, e.g. no-ridging, (2) permanent ground cover, and (3) crop rotation/intercropping – were not practiced as intended. First, one-third of non-ridged land was tilled during the growing season, and half was again ridged in the following season. Second, unless crop residues were added, the soil’s surface of non-ridged plots was usually bare at planting, causing weed control problems, and an increased risk of erosion. Most farmers added large volumes of crop residues to their non-ridged plots. They collected these from the surrounding fields, but this practice severely restricted the size of these plots. Third, crop rotation/intercropping was practiced less when farmers stopped ridging. Thus overall, very few farmers practised all of the three CA principles simultaneously. CA promotion appeared to only increase yields on plots where mulch was added, but this practice is not scalable. CA promotiondoes not seem to have provided substantial benefits for overall farm productivity, labour-savings or soil conservation.
546			_aText in English
650		7	_aSustainable agriculture _2AGROVOC _92327
650		7	_aSoil conservation _2AGROVOC _92273
650		7	_aImpact assessment _2AGROVOC _98668
650		7	_aSmallholders _2AGROVOC _91763
650		7	_aRural areas _2AGROVOC _93441
651		7	_2AGROVOC _91316 _aAfrica
700	1		_aAndersson, J.A. _9941 _8INT3362 _gSustainable Intensification Program
700	1		_aGiller, K.E. _91960
773	0		_gv. 307, art. 107224 _dAmsterdam (Netherlands) : Elsevier, 2021. _x0167-8809 _tAgriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
856	4		_yOpen Access through DSpace _uhttps://hdl.handle.net/10883/21055
942			_cJA _n0 _2ddc
999			_c62955 _d62947