1 s2.0 S0167880913002703 Main PDF

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 187 (2014) 1132
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee
The impact of conservation agriculture on smallholder agricultural

yields: A scoping review of the evidence
Sylvie M. Brouder a, , Helena Gomez-Macpherson b
a
b
Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, 915 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054, USA
Institute of Sustainable Agriculture, CSIC, PO Box 4084, Cordoba 14080, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 February 2013
Received in revised form 26 July 2013
Accepted 7 August 2013
Available online 5 February 2014
Keywords:
Conservation agriculture
Systematic reviews
Meta-analysis
Zero-tillage
Crop yield
Crop residues
Mulching
Sub-Saharan Africa
South Asia
a b s t r a c t
Widespread implementation of conservation agriculture (CA) in North and South America and Australia
suggests signicant farmer protability achieved through some combination of sustained or increased
agronomic productivity and reduced input costs. Many believe similar agronomic benets can accrue to
smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia (SA) for a broad array of crops and farming systems despite marked differences in biophysical and socio-economic environments across these
regions. Our objectives were to characterize (1) the quality of existing research including an assessment of
the relevance of previously published reviews and surveys to SSA and SA, and (2) the empirical evidence
from SSA and SA for agronomic benets derived from implementing zero tillage (ZT) including the identication of knowledge gaps. Mulching and rotation were considered as associated practices within systems.
Among surveys and reviews, most syntheses of multiple, independent studies were either entirely qualitative or used overly simplistic approaches to data aggregation. Few reviews used meta-analysis or other
rigorous statistics that permit assessment of outcome sensitivity to inuential observations; in general,
review protocol descriptions were not sufcient to ensure transparency and appropriate handling of
common biases. A search and screening of peer-reviewed literature identied empirical studies on conservation tillage in SSA and SA for maize (22), rice (16), cowpea (10) and sorghum (8). In attempting to
extract data for an unbiased, systematic review of CA and maize, we found few studies fully reported
critical data or meta-data; most common omissions were the univariate statistics required for study use
in meta-analyses and critical supporting or explanatory data on soil type, prevailing weather, and management practices including handling of crop residues. In the short-term, ZT generally resulted in lower
yields than with conventional tillage (CT). Occasionally these reductions could be linked to direct effects
(e.g. increased soil compaction in rice), but failure to adapt other managements (e.g. weed control) to the
CA system was a common and confounding indirect effect. Sufcient maize data existed to demonstrate
that negative impacts on yield ameliorated with time in some cases accompanied by higher soil water
inltration and soil organic matter, particularly when mulch was added. However, the low number of
studies, the missing supporting data and the large variation in treatments made it difcult to infer general
direct effects due to mulching or rotation.
Well-designed long-term experiments on CA featuring sound agronomic practice and comprehensive
documentation are largely missing from the literature. Future systematic reviews addressing agronomic
impacts of CA interventions will require appropriate handling of within and between study variance
as well as sensitivity analyses and quantitative assessments of publication bias; on-going and future
empirical studies must report a minimum dataset encompassing valid statistical measures and comprehensive intervention descriptions that enable standardization and systematic approaches in syntheses.
We propose a minimum dataset that is generic to competent agronomy with measurements that are
increasingly low-cost and easy to achieve and should therefore be routine in eld experiments quantifying and explaining crop and cropping system performance. Until a larger number of eld studies provide
such quantifying and explanatory data from key crops and representative cropping systems, it is not possible to make strong general conclusions about benets of CA and ZT on yields and resource use efciency
of smallholder farmers.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 765 496 1489.

E-mail addresses: sbrouder@purdue.edu (S.M. Brouder), hgomez@cica.es (H. Gomez-Macpherson).
0167-8809/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.010
12
S.M. Brouder, H. Gomez-Macpherson / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 187 (2014) 1132
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.1.
Objectives and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Findings on CA yield impacts from the SSA and SA literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.
Quality and implications of available reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.
Empirical evidence of CA impacts on crop yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.1.
Linking yield impacts to drivers and pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.
Conclusions: Impact of ZT on crop yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Recommendations for future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1.
Minimum datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1.1.
The need for geo-referencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1.2.
Overly stringent minimum requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.3.
Omission of the human dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.4.
Quality guidelines for surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.5.
Rigidity and evolution in the scientic process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.
Data repositories and systematic reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.1.
Infrastructure for data stewardship and sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.2.
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.3.
New roles and responsibilities for journals and sponsoring organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
The term conservation agriculture (CA) as applied in agricultural development for smallholder farmers represents a package
of agronomic technologies that allow for minimum disturbance of
soil, maintenance of soil cover with residues and spatiotemporal
diversication of cropping systems (FAO, 2008). Current global estimates of the extent of adoption of CA as a package are 124 million
hectares (Friedrich et al., 2011), 87% of which is concentrated in
ve countries: the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and
Canada (26.5, 25.5, 25.5, 17.0 and 13.5 million ha, respectively). The
prevalence alone suggests CA to be privately protable for adopters.
Further, a host of ancillary environmental benets have been theorized and some of these benets are now documented (Hobbs et al.,
2008). Yet, the potential environmental and economic benets of
CA adoption for crops in agro-ecozones beyond the intensively
studied systems of the Americas and Australia remain uncertain
and controversial. Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) conclude the lack
Advanced
sowing
Soil
compacon
Soil
water
inltraon
Extra
crop
of a subset of consistent or universal variables characterizing successful adoption of CA necessitates practices be tailored to local
conditions. In an analysis of CA adoption in SSA, Giller et al. (2009)
suggest that, given present circumstances including institutional
and livelihood contexts, CA may be categorically inappropriate for
most resource-constrained smallholder farmers. Concerns about
performance of CA for smallholder farmers in SSA include impacts
on yields and returns to labor with the latter largely dependent on
the former.
Uncertainty in CA efcacy with respect to increasing yields
can be traced to the complexity of interacting biophysical factors and process pathways and drivers that are inuenced by CA
technologies (Fig. 1). Critical advantages of practicing zero-tillage
(ZT) include crop sequence intensication (extra crop/yr) and better use of the cropping season window permitted by earlier eld
entry and planting (Rawson et al., 2007; Hobbs et al., 2008). Yet,
negative impacts can and do occur. Practicing ZT may increase
soil compaction from heavy, direct-drill seeders planting into wet
ZERO TILLAGE
Long-term
Root
growth
Ferlizer
Soil surface
Pests &
Weeds
placement compeon
structure
diseases
Aggregates
SOM
Nutrient
+ ROTATION
Waterlogging
availability
Soil To
Percolaon Leaching
Runo
Erosion
Immobilizaon
+ MULCH
Water
availability
Soil water
evaporaon
Flood/furrow
irrig. applicaon
Seeding
through
residues
Crop
establishment
Soil To
(spring crops)
Fig. 1. Main pathways through which a change in management from conventional to conservation agriculture (zero-tillage with mulching and crop rotation) may impact
key drivers (direct drivers highlighted in green boxes) of crop yields. From the cropping system performance perspective, a single dark green arrow and a double red arrow
indicate positive (benecial) and negative (constraining) effects, respectively, of a CA management on yield drivers and component attributes. A dotted line indicates a
benecial effect expected to only accrue over the long term. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
soils (Blevins and Frye, 1993), as well as from smaller, tractordrawn equipment. Although soil compaction may not impact
growth (Hernanz et al., 2002), studies have linked reduced yields
to root-zone physical restrictions (Mahata et al., 1990) and topsoil compaction can result in lower water inltration. Thierfelder
and Wall (2009) found surface soil waterlogging associated with
compaction to cause seedling death. Likewise, if ZT soils are not protected by a cover from rainfall or irrigation, soils may crust before
or at sowing (Acharya and Sharma, 1994), again reducing water
inltration and leading to poor stand establishment. However,
mulching by either maintaining post-harvest residues or adding
external organic material to the soil surface can also lead to negative impacts, especially in the near term. Following initial adoption
of ZT, high residue quantities left on the eld may result in nitrogen (N) immobilization (Alvarez and Steinbach, 2009), and, thus, in
a higher N fertilizer requirement to compensate for the temporary
loss. Residues can also insulate soil restricting its warming during
establishment of early spring crops (Grifth et al., 1977), and direct
sowing through residue requires specic drills for different soils
(Baker et al., 2007).
Modications of other practices concurrent with adoption of ZT
can ameliorate or completely offset these negative impacts. Sporadic subsoiling and controlled trafc will reduce soil compaction
impacts on growth and yield (Li et al., 2007) and, although residue
retention can lead to nutrient immobilization, most short-term,
negative impacts of ZT can be counteracted by maintaining residues
on the soil surface after harvest (Erenstein, 2002; Govaerts et al.,
2009). Verhulst et al. (2010) summarized the inuence of tillage
and residue management on physical, chemical and biological soil
quality. In brief, the mulch protects the soil from wind (Lpez et al.,
1998) and raindrops (Boulal et al., 2011a) thereby reducing risk of
surface crusting. Surface residues slow rates and reduce quantities
of surface runoff (Gilley, 1995; Schuller et al., 2007), increase water
inltration (Potter et al., 1995; Boulal et al., 2011b) and reduce soil
water evaporation; consequently, residue retention with ZT may
increase water availability to the crop (Lampurlans et al., 2001;
Thierfelder and Wall, 2009) and irrigation use efciency (Grassini
et al., 2011). Generally, a minimum amount of residue is needed
to achieve these positive effects (Erenstein, 2002) although specic amounts required for local conditions are often not clear (Paul
et al., 2013).
Some negative impacts are documented to be largely short-term
phenomena that can naturally attenuate or disappear with time.
While non-mobile, yield-limiting nutrients such as phosphorus are
not easily incorporated into the soil following ZT implementation,
mechanical or manual nutrient placement with seeding can overcome growth restrictions. Further, a nutrient limitation such as
this may disappear with the improved topsoil fertility that eventually results from ZT (Fink and Wesley, 1974; Franzluebbers and
Hons, 1996). With time, soil organic matter and soil aggregates have
been documented to improve (Erenstein, 2002; Mrabet et al., 2001;
Boulal and Gmez-Macpherson, 2010) and soil erosion is reduced
(Loch and Donnollan, 1988; Boulal et al., 2011a) thereby enhancing
soil fertility (Govaerts et al., 2007; Boulal et al., 2012), improving
soil structure (reduced crusting; e.g. Govaerts et al., 2009), water
inltration and retention in the root zone (Verhulst et al., 2010)
and water productivity (Rockstrm et al., 2009). The challenge for
many small farmers in SSA is to produce and retain enough residue
to permit these changes to occur (Baudron et al., 2012).
Increased incidence and pressure from diseases, pests and
weeds another major concern for farmers considering ZT may
also be transient. Giller et al. (2009) identify weed control as a major
barrier to ZT adoption in Africa, especially in the near term following implementation, requiring attentive weed control and use
of herbicides (if available). However, in the longer term, a reduction of the weed seed bank and weed pressure may occur with ZT
13
(Chauhan et al., 2006) although shifts to perennial weeds must be

monitored and managed. Crop rotation has been found to reduce
the risk of pest and disease incidence (Kirkegaard et al., 2008) and
facilitate weed control (Farooq et al., 2011). Giller et al. (2009) recommend introducing legumes to improve the nutrient cycle; other
authors suggest rotating high and low residue producing crops
to help maintain the optimum amount of residue in the system
(Hulugalle and Scott, 2008; Boulal et al., 2012). Again, the benets
to yield of adopting rotations with ZT may be realized only in the
longer term (Rusinamhodzi et al., 2011).
Certainly, the questions of where geographically and agroecologically and by what biophysical pathway yield effects (positive
or negative) of CA will occur, particularly in smallholder systems,
remain unclear (Cassman et al., 2013). The feedbacks on pathways
are important and tradeoffs as a function of prevailing weather and
temperature regimes must be carefully considered. For example,
the higher water inltration with ZT and residue retention may
increase the risk of N leaching (Franzluebbers and Hons, 1996)
while decreasing the risk of water logging (Araya et al., 2011);
whereas soil insulation in temperate regions may negatively impact
stand establishment, in the tropics soil insulation by residue may
keep soil temperatures lower and closer to the optimum for nutrient cycling. It is also crucial to understand time-lags for ZT adoption
impacts. Giller et al. (2009) characterized the need for new knowledge on contextual aspects of successful CA technology adoption
in SSA as urgently required if science is to offer realistic and
practical options to smallholder farmers. For smallholder farmers, expanding good agronomy and widening the scope of CA are
necessary for developing successful options (Baudron et al., 2012;
Rockstrm et al., 2009).
1.1. Objectives and scope
The motivation for this paper is to better understand the state
of the evidence pertaining to the specic question: What are the
impacts of CA on agricultural yields? Our overarching intent was
to identify important agronomic knowledge gaps specic to smallholder adoption of CA. A meta-analytical approach could be useful
given a signicant body of original research addressing this question already exists but concerns have been raised regarding the
effects of knowledge context on outcomes of CA adoption (e.g.
Cassman et al., 2013; Giller et al., 2009). Meta-analytical approaches
to compiling research studies can untangle interactions of knowledge content and context (Evans and Foster, 2011) and qualitative
and/or quantitative systematic reviews (SRs) are useful in synthesizing large numbers of papers to objectively establish what is
known and unknown (Yuan and Hunt, 2009; SR protocols described
in Bland et al., 1995). Yet, despite the rigor and transparency offered
by a SR, it was not immediately apparent that such an endeavor
was necessary or, if necessary, would be successful. Hence, our rst
major objective was to review the methodological and reporting
rigor of existing published syntheses addressing the question of
impacts of CA on crop yields and to assess the relevance of these
publications to CA adoption by smallholder farmers in SSA and SA.
Our second objective was to conduct a preliminary assessment of
the scope and overall quality of the empirical evidence directly from
the target region and to identify knowledge gaps or decits for the
regionally important crops.
The intent of objective two is in keeping with that of a pilot
review with elements of knowledge mapping, both critical methodological steps to determining the need, pertinence and probability
of success of conducting a formal and quantitative SR of regional
literature (Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, 2010). We
elected to focus on ZT as the primary practice with mulch and
rotation effects considered as necessary secondary or associated
practices within a system. Should a full SR be pursued, level of soil
14
disturbance may be as or more useful than ZT as a system descriptor. Tillage and ground cover are closely related (Olaoye, 2002) and
level of disturbance may add important nuance to analysis of the
mechanistic pathways associated with yield effects linked to a CA
component. We initially explored the literature for all predominant
cropping systems (maize [Zea mays L.], rice [Oryza sativa L.], wheat
[Triticum aestivum L.], sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.], millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.
Br] and cassava [Manihot esculenta Crantz]). Here we present results
for maize and rice, the most important staple crops in SSA and SA,
respectively, and for sorghum and cowpea, staple crops often cultivated in difcult environments on soils considered marginal for
supporting crop production and/or with low rainfall and few inputs.
However, we focused most closely on maize and rice in order to
develop a standardized template and to rene denitions for key
words (e.g. conventional tillage) and the associated coding required
for a SR.
2. Approach
Keywords used in searching the peer-reviewed literature varied with search engines and databases. The terms no-tillage
or zero-tillage with (and) a crop common name (maize,
wheat, rice, cotton, millet, sorghum, cassava, or cowpea) were
used in search engines in Wiley online library and ScienceDirect. The keywords tillage and region (Africa or South Asia)
or country (India; Pakistan; Nepal; Bangladesh; or China) were
used in search engines within American Society of Agronomy;
Cambridge University Press journals and Agronomy for Sustainable Development (Springer Verlag). Publications identied with
these searches were augmented with other ndings in the Worldwide Conservation Agriculture Knowledge Resources website
(http://mulch.mannlib.cornell.edu/index.html; Cornell University
CA Group) and some additional materials from our personal
archives.
Publications were initially categorized as reviews, empirical
studies or surveys. Reviews had a predominant focus on summarizing the work of others to identify major impacts of CA
implementation and included narrative and quantitative syntheses of empirical and/or survey results. Survey studies were
self-described as surveys and included yield effects characterized
by questionnaires and/or measured results from selected farmer
elds. Some empirical studies provided signicant narrative syntheses in introductions or as extensive justication sections but,
provided the main objective of the paper was to report signicant new research, these were not identied as reviews. Further,
we did not include as reviews, papers for which the explicit
intent (indicated by title) was to advocate a position on state-ofthe-science and call attention to decits in the scientic process
as a public good (e.g. Giller et al., 2009; Andersson and Giller,
2012) or the focus was on aspects other than yields. For example,
Mazvimavi (2011) is intended as a review to support a socioeconomic analysis of CA; the literature review of CA yield impacts is
conned to citing their own poster presentation. Likewise, results
of Kumar and Ladha (2011) are relevant but not directly useful here as performance of direct-seeded rice was compared to
transplanted rice with results averaged over tillage. Finally, we
eliminated any study where the authors themselves characterize
the quality of their yield data as extremely poor (Silici, 2010) or
where yield data were so minimally characterized that the extent
of the impact is essentially assumed versus presented as a scientic
result (Haggblade and Tembo, 2003; He et al., 2010; Pretty et al.,
2011).
As a framework for assessing the rigor and quality of existing
reviews, we applied the eight criteria proposed by Philibert et al.
(2012) for meta-analyses in agronomy. The criteria address: (1)
the repeatability of the search procedure, (2) the comprehensiveness of literature citing, (3) the handling of heterogeneity among
and between studies, (4) the assessment of outcome sensitivity
to individual studies, (5) the approach to publication bias, (6) the
use of appropriate weighting in statistical analyses, (7) the availability of the extracted data for subsequent, additional analyses,
and (8) the availability of a statistical program to others (Table 1).
While the intent of the Philibert criteria is somewhat specic to
SRs with statistical meta-analyses, some criteria are equally critical
to descriptive narratives (criteria 1, 2, and 5) or primarily qualitative reviews with some limited quantitative analysis of compiled
outcomes such as vote counting or simple averaging of effects (criterion 7). Failure to adequately address these criteria negatively
impact methodological transparency and was therefore considered
indicative of lower quality regardless of whether a review was
intended to be quantitative. Additionally, the inference space of
a review was evaluated for its relevance to smallholder farmers
in SSA and SA by determining the extent to which (i) empirical
studies from the targeted region were included, (ii) the biophysical
inference space encompassed was inclusive of conditions relevant
to cropping systems and agroecozones in our targeted regions,
and (iii) the CA technologies and managements represented in the
review were a partial or strong yield driver and were not contextually relevant to the target area.
The list of empirical studies resulting from the search was rst
reduced to those carried out in SSA and SA regions and then further
reduced to eld experiments conducted on research stations and/or
on farms that included a ZT treatment as an experimental variable.
Beyond the work of Erenstein and colleagues on village surveys
of SA ricewheat systems (Erenstein et al., 2008; Erenstein, 2009,
2010, 2011), our preliminary search did not identify survey studies of appropriate focus (CA yield impacts) and adequate quality;
therefore we eliminated surveys as a separate category for analysis.
As impact on grain yield appears related to duration of the study
(Rusinamhodzi et al., 2011), those providing only global averages of
data over time were excluded. Trials with easily detectable and signicant design problems were also excluded. For example, if one
treatment was located in the lower part of a eld where waterlogging was documented to have occurred while the comparator
was on higher ground (placement bias), the study was eliminated.
However, studies with moderate confounding of treatments e.g.
studies with the mulch as part of ZT but not conventional tillage
(CT) treatments were included as these were considered valid
system-level if not full factorial level comparisons.
In our classication scheme, the crop in a ZT system was
directly sown into the soil with minimum disturbance, weeds were
controlled by hand or with herbicides and residues were either
removed or left on the ground after harvest, and, in some cases,
extra biomass was added from neighboring elds. Reduced tillage
systems that included operations disturbing the full soil cover
were excluded (e.g. annual reforming of ridges within elds (Vogel,
1993)). However, systems where tines where used to open a narrow
row for crop hand-sowing (soil approximately 80% undisturbed)
were included. In general, CT systems refer to moldboard or disk
ploughing followed by harrowing with tractor or oxen, but it may
also refer to hand hoeing; it is important to note that CT may not
represent the most common local practices. If different CT systems were addressed in a study, the treatment resulting in highest
grain yield was selected for the comparison with ZT. If different ZT
systems were addressed (e.g. direct seeded or transplanted rice),
grain yield of both systems were noted but we focused on the ZT
treatment that could best be paired with an equivalent CT system.
Both average short-term (grain yield data for at least two cropping
seasons and a maximum of two years) and long-term (data from
third year onward) impacts of CA adoption on grain yield were
extracted for a preliminary assessment. Any additional, relevant
15
Table 1
Rigor and methodological criteria for assessing quality of published reviews and criteria compliance of 12 reviews (Table 3) evaluating yield effects of CA adoption.
Philibert criteriaa
Compliance count
(n = 12)
Comments
Repeatability of the literature search/selection procedure

Complete list of references used in quantitative analyses
Analysis of the origins of heterogeneity in effect size
1
11
2
Analysis of outcome sensitivity to methods or observations
Investigation of publication bias

Observations are weighted by level of accuracy in original
study
Dataset analyzed is made available
2
2
Applicable for narrative and quantitative reviews alike

Listing references for literature cited in text is a de facto best practice
Original intent of criteria was specic to meta-analysis; narrative reviews
should also comply
Original intent is to statistically identify inuential observations; narrative
reviews should also comply
Applicable for narrative and quantitative reviews alike
Specify the statistical meta-analyses (e.g. by inverse of measurement variance)
Statistical program is made available
Criterion is specic to databases of extracted data that were then used for
quantitative analyses
Criterion assumed to reect novelty/lack of availability of meta-analytical
software in agronomy
Criteria from Philibert et al. (2012).
Table 2
Overview of data extraction checklist for conducting a systematic review (SR) of the conservation agriculture literature to address the question of impacts on yields. The
full checklist (presented in Table A.1) is distilled into the category of information, a general description of the database elds within a category with number of elds in
parentheses and some additional comments regarding data capture objectives.
Category of information
Field description (no)
Comments
General
Critical identifying information for the

database itself (5)
General classication information (12)
In the context of developing a database that can be augmented, data to

identify the version and author must be included
Citation, corresponding author and funding info., categorical assessment of a
specic studys relevance to the SR questions (e.g. Y, N, UN)
No. of replicates, treatments (tillage, mulching and rotation info., etc.), etc.
Individual record descriptors

Methods and treatments
Outcome(s) data
Contextual factors and covariate
Record quality assessment
Miscellaneous information
Experimental design and associated details

(9)
Yield, etc., and associated measure of
variance (6)
Environmental characteristics and
important management inputs (8)
Identication of key problems with a given
study (5)
Disparate criterion related to SR process (3)
Data needed for baseline treatment and intervention; could include outcomes
beyond yield (e.g. ecosystem services) depending on question specics
Details characterizing study inference space and to link results to pathways
and drivers illustrated in Fig. 1
Scan for most common limitations and assign an initial score for study quality
(e.g. L, H, UN)
Intent of need to contact author, notation of other outcomes available, key
conclusions of authors, etc.
Note: Y, N, UN, L, H: Categorical type responses of Yes, No, Unclear or Uncertain, Low, High, respectively.
Table 3
Summary by year of publication of the 12 published reviews analyzed for objective 1.
Referencesa
Inference spaceb
Stated purposec
Comments
Benites and Ofori (1993)
Global/crops and systems not specied
Narrative review only
Lal (2006)
Erenstein and Laxmi (2008)
Latin America, South Asia,

Africa/various crops & systems
57 poor countries/various crops &
systems
Bangladesh, India, Nepal,
Pakistan/ricewheat systems
Brazil and beyond/various crops &
systems
Indo-Gangetic Plains/wheat after rice
Nkala et al. (2011)
South Africa/crop not specied
Dubreil (2011)
Semi-arid Africa/various crops &

systems
Semi-arid & sub-humid regions across
world/maize studies >5 yr
USA, Australia, Europe/temperate
crops & systems
USA, S. Canada/temperate crops &
systems
Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger/various crops
& systems
Indicate ways to develop best

combination of practices for local
conditions
Link increased yield to increased soil C
via CA
Demonstrate successful CA
interventions increase yield
Demonstrate resource conserving
technologies increase yields
Examine Brazil CA experience &
speculate relevance to SSA
Review & synthesize experience w/ZT
wheat
Meta-analysis of CAs role in livelihood
outcomes
Literature review of CA adoption in
semi-arid Africa
Meta-analysis (long term studies) on
yield effects of tillage & residue mgmt
Review of opportunities & challenges
for yield increases & weed mgmt w/CA
Inuence of ZT mgmt. on yields, C
inputs & soil organic C stocks
Meta-analysis of CA benets to yields
w/& w/out trees
Pretty et al. (2006)

Gupta and Seth (2007)
Gowing and Palmer (2008)
Rusinamhodzi et al. (2011)

Farooq et al. (2011)
Ogle et al. (2012)
Bayala et al. (2012)
Mostly narrative review w/minimal averaging

of effects from selected studies
Vote countsd and simple averaging of effects
Mostly narrative review; some re-presentation
of results from key refs.
Narrative review w/speculation and
commentary
Narrative review w/tabulated differences in
yield from on-farm & on station trials
Despite stated purpose, narrative review only
MS thesis not easily identied/retrieved; vote
countsd of pos./neg. effects
Categorical (rainfall amts, soil texture)
meta-analysis
Primarily narrative review w/simple
regression of yield effects on water avail
Linear-mixed effects modeling with primary
quantitative focus on C not yields
Summary stats, cumulative distributions &
condence intervals for yield differences;
rainfall & site productivity considered
References reported separately in References for Table 3.

Country, geography, crops and cropping systems encompassed in the review either in terms of original work cited or intended application of conclusions.
Purpose given for review by authors.
d
Vote counting is a simple summing of the numbers of statistically signicant positive or negative studies.
C, CA,SSA, ZT: carbon, conservation agriculture, sub-Saharan Africa, zero tillage, respectively.
b
c
16
characterizations of the tillage effects on soils or crop performance

other than yield were also extracted including measured physical or
chemical attributes of soil or measurements of stand establishment
and shoot and root growth. If a given characteristic was assessed
more than once, only the last measurements of comparators were
included.
Empirical studies were categorized into predominant cropping
system and briey reviewed for the presence of key information
necessary for their aggregation into a database for a SR. This initial assessment was used to identify gross literature decits (low
numbers or few comprehensive studies for a given system) and to
develop an extraction checklist for data necessary to address the
question of CA impacts on yields (Table 2, Table A.1). As described
below (Section 3.2), literature on maize-based systems was most
numerous; thus, these publications were used as a case study to
develop the data, descriptors, and extraction protocol into a template for a SR inclusive of the data necessary to link a CA yield effect
to driving/constraining paths according to Fig. 1. This schematic
encapsulates current scientic understanding of links among the
three CA components: no-tillage, mulch and crop rotation. Critical yield drivers were anticipated to be soil water inltration and
availability, soil compaction and root growth, nutrient cycling and
availability, and biotic factors (especially weed competition). Our
extraction protocol and template also included intermediate outputs linked to grain yield such as plant establishment, root growth
and above ground growth. Once the template was dened, selected
maize, rice, cowpea and sorghum publications were reviewed again
and data extracted to populate the template.
3. Findings on CA yield impacts from the SSA and SA

literature
3.1. Quality and implications of available reviews
For our assessment of the quality and relevance of available
reviews we identied 12 publications dating from 1993 to 2012
(Table 3; references listed separately as Review Papers Analyzed
for Rigor/Quality). Stated objectives ranged from quantitative
meta-analyses of long-term tillage studies (Rusinamhodzi et al.,
2011) to a narrative examination of the Brazil CA experience
(Gowing and Palmer, 2008). Reviews conducted prior to 2011 were
primarily narrative (qualitative) in nature with descriptive recounting of the ndings of others; any quantitative analyses used simple
methods for synthesizing independent studies such as vote counting (Light and Smith, 1971). This was expected given application of
meta-analytical statistics in agricultural sciences is still relatively
novel (Dore et al., 2011) although it has long been considered a discrete eld of research in Health Sciences (Sackett and Rosenberg,
1995; Cucherat et al., 1997; Jadad et al., 1998; The Cochrane
Collaboration (http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews)) and
application is rapidly increasing in other biophysical science
domains (ecology, plant pathology, animal sciences; see references
in Philibert et al., 2012).
Few studies compared favorably across the majority of criteria
proposed by Philibert et al. (2012) (Table 1). Compliance was best
for criteria encompassing practices that are fairly ingrained in
the culture of peer-review literature irrespective of study type or
objective and worst for criteria outside of the mainstream publication culture and/or specic to quantitative meta-analyses. Almost
all publications presented complete lists of references, especially
those used in the text (Table 1, criterion 2). Reviews that extracted
data from empirical studies for either simple averaging and vote
counting or for formal meta-analysis (e.g. Dubreil, 2011; Ogle
et al., 2012; Table 3) generally gave comprehensive, segregated
lists of references used in support of statements in the text versus
references from which data were extracted. A noted exception,

Pretty et al. (2006) extracted data from published reports by
projects to support their analysis of effects of CA on yields in
developing countries; a summary of the project location by country
was provided as Supplementary Materials but without the necessary details (report or grant numbers, etc.) for the reader to recover
any of this original information without contacting the authors.
Presenting sufcient information such that a search for literature can be repeated (criterion 1) and the reader can understand
author handling of publication bias (criterion 5) are logical criteria
for any quantitative or narrative review. Of the studies we examined (Table 3), only Dubreil (2011) gave enough information for
the search and selection of papers to be repeated in full. Three
recent studies (Bayala et al., 2012; Ogle et al., 2012; Rusinamhodzi
et al., 2011) supplied some but not all of the following details:
database(s) searched, specic search terms, and selection criteria. Philibert et al. (2012) do not provide much discussion on
the importance of development and adherence to strong inclusion/exclusion criteria in selecting articles but others identify this
step as a critical albeit potentially time-consuming aspect of rigor
and transparency (Roberts et al., 2006; Borenstein et al., 2009).
Researchers use a fairly broad array of analogous terms to describe
CA practices (e.g. no-tillage and ZT) and corresponding metadata
terms are not standardized across major literature databases. These
circumstances require low specicityhigh sensitivity searches to
cast the broad net needed to uncover relevant literature but result
in the identication of a large body of literature that does not contain the right comparators (Pullin and Stewart, 2006). For example,
in Dubreils (2011) literature search, 804 keyword combinations
identied 4384 papers of which 93 were eventually identied as
most relevant. Likewise, a description of how authors approached
publication bias is critical to review transparency but only two of
the studies we reviewed indicated considering this criterion. Publication bias is generally understood to represent the documented
problem of higher rates of publication for studies with more marked
results leading to a potential for systematic over-representation of
size and/or signicance of an effect. However, the term also represents a host of associated bias factors from language barriers to
cost and disciplinary boundaries that cause segments of the literature to be under-represented (Borenstein et al., 2009). Bayala et al.
(2012) and Rusinamhodzi et al. (2011) describe efforts to uncover
conference proceedings, reports and student theses from the target region but neither paper applied statistical tools to explore the
potential impact of the problem on results.
Given the dearth of meta-analytical papers exploring CA
adoption impacts, reviews lacking consideration of origins of heterogeneity between studies (criterion 3), sensitivity of outcome
to overly inuential observations (criterion 4), and observation
weighting (criterion 6) were also expected (Table 1). Statistical
guides (Borenstein et al., 2009) and documentation for software
(Rosenberg et al., 1999; Wang and Bushman, 2007) highlight these
aspects of formal meta-analysis along with techniques to address
them but we speculate few agronomists receive formal education in appropriate application of these somewhat novel statistics.
Of the two highly quantitative reviews we assessed (Ogle et al.,
2012; Rusinamhodzi et al., 2011; Table 3), neither attempted a sensitivity analysis of results to overly inuential observations. The
prevalence of variation in results and in accuracy among CA experiments (Cassman et al., 2013) suggests that quantitative tools to
address these problems should be applied to circumvent dramatic
but improbable (when out of context) results skewing generalizations. Of the reviews performing some sort of quantitative analysis,
none provided the databases or suggested they would provide it on
request (criterion 9), reecting the general lack of a culture of data
sharing within the agronomic sciences (Diekmann, 2012). Likewise, where used, statistical procedures were adequately described
but neither programs nor statistical code were made immediately

accessible (criterion 8). However, meta-analysis coding is becoming increasingly available for commonly used software packages
(e.g. SAS, Wang and Bushman, 2007) and as inexpensive, standalone packages (MetaWin; Rosenberg et al., 1999), and, therefore,
this quality indicator may soon be considered moot.
Beyond the Philibert criteria, several additional aspects of existing reviews lead us to conclude that the unique agro-ecological
and socio-economic contexts of smallholder farmers in SSA and
SA are only partially considered at best. Although several early
reviews made substantive use of original research from our target region, the reviews themselves were essentially narrative
(Table 3). Documented, inherent problems with narrative reviews
include the tendency for the experience and subjective judgments
of the author(s) to bias search and selection procedures leading to an uneven presentation of the entirety of the evidence
available (Roberts et al., 2006). Hence, transparency is poor and
rigor and comprehensiveness is uncertain, especially when coupled with incomplete reporting of search and selection protocols.
Further, vote counting in narrative reviews is seemingly quantitative but can lead to highly erroneous conclusions. As summarized
by Borenstein et al. (2009), tallying signicant positive and/or
negative effects is fundamentally awed because non-signicant
effects are identied as an absence of effect rather than a potential
small, medium or large effect with inadequate statistical power.
However, it is important to note that a non-quantitative review
can be an important contribution. The hallmarks of both qualitative and quantitative SRs are rigor, objectivity and transparency
(Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, 2010). When original
research is too sparse or awed, a quantitative evaluation may
be premature but the SR steps for developing the question and
database template will inform knowledge gaps and data insufciencies.
Several of the more recent reviews we analyzed have greater
relevance to our question and target region but still have significant limitations. Nkala et al. (2011) and Farooq et al. (2011) are
narratives and subject to the limitations discussed (Table 3). Nkala
et al. (2011) is primarily a conceptual review and focused on livelihoods versus yields, per se. To the extent that Farooq et al. (2011)
extract and analyze data, the inference space may not be relevant
to SSA and SA as studies summarized are entirely from mechanized, high-input systems and these covariates were not studied.
Dubreil (2011) presents a comprehensive compilation of relevant
literature but performs only a preliminary vote count of the incidence of positive effect; thus the work represents an excellent
platform upon which to build a rigorous SR but does not constitute a SR in its present form. Rusinamhodzi et al. (2011) offer an
interesting meta-analysis of CA systems across semi-arid and subhumid regions of the world but restrict their analysis to maize
and to long-term studies (>5 years). As a consequence, the sample size is small (24 studies) with only ve studies from SSA and
two studies from SA; although these authors analyze for short-term
impacts, studies with only short-term data were excluded. Adding
data from studies of shorter length would greatly strengthen the
understanding of near-term impacts of CA adoption. Ogle et al.
(2012) examine only reports from highly mechanized corn, soybean and winter/spring wheat systems of the US and Canada with
the specic intent of elucidating impacts of ZT mediated changes
in yield on soil C stocks at regional scales. Analyses of the inuence
of important covariates such as nitrogen fertilizer are mentioned
only in passing. Bayala et al. (2012) provides an excellent compilation of the literature from four SSA countries for maize, millet and
sorghum but tillage per se was bundled into a category representing a collection of soil conservation practices (e.g. zai, grass lter
strips) and yield effects were analyzed for the collection of practices
only.
17
3.2. Empirical evidence of CA impacts on crop yields

For our preliminary assessment of the empirical evidence we
identied 22, 16, 10 and 8 studies on maize, rice, cowpea and
sorghum cropping, respectively (References listed as Papers
analyzed for empirical evidence). The documentation for some of
these studies extended for more than one publication, particularly
if the study was carried out over a longer time period. The initial
search also helped to identify 25, 6, 5 and 4 studies on wheat,
millet, cotton and cassava cropping, respectively, but thorough
analysis of studies on these crops was beyond the scope of the
preliminary assessment reported here. Overall, for the four staple
crops, we found reports of research results were often incomplete
(Tables 46). Specically, critical study descriptors are often
missing making it difcult, at best, to review tillage treatment
impacts on the paths leading to higher or lower yield outcomes
(Fig. 1). Information on residue management, seasonal rainfall,
weed control effectiveness or soil texture were often missing.
Additionally, only 15% of studies provided coefcients of variance
or standard errors of grain yield measurements while another 26%
gave LSDs; thus, weighting studies for their contribution to the
overall effect size in a meta-analysis (criteria 3 and 6; Table 1)
would not be possible.
In spite of these limitations, the extracted data could serve to
detect both major knowledge gaps as well as some key trends.
Immediately following adoption (2 year), ZT generally resulted
in less yield than CT in the four staple crops (Tables 46) but this
effect could change in time. Seventeen of 22 studies on maize and
8 of 16 on rice presented results for 3 or more years. Two maize
studies had 16 crops of maize cultivated consecutively in 8 years
(multiple crops within a year reected either bimodal rainfall with
two growing seasons or an irrigated, second crop; Lal, 1997, 1998).
A preliminary summary of the difference in grain yield between
ZT and CT from these longer studies shows an evolution in yield
effect. In the case of maize, results were highly variable but there
was an apparent, positive tendency for ZT yield improvement with
time (70 kg/ha yr yield difference (ZTCT)) although the relationship was not signicant (Fig. 2a). Four maize studies showed much
larger impacts on yields following CA adoption but the studies were
evenly split with two each for positive and negative effects; thus
the general relationship of yield difference to elapsed time from
adoption remains similar when these four studies are excluded. In
rice systems (Fig. 2b), CT generally outperformed ZT in both direct
seeded and transplanted conditions, although the negative impact
on grain yield appears larger with transplanting. It is important to
note that rice transplanting in CT is well known locally whereas
the practice of direct seeding of rice in both CT and ZT is still
being improved (Kumar and Ladha, 2011). Mastering an introduced
cropping system requires time for technology adjustment to local
conditions and for optimizing outcomes for all the practice components (Laborte et al., 2012). In fact, the longest duration study
showed that ZT may not always penalize rice productivity (Jiang
and Xie, 2009).
The number of studies that included sorghum and cowpea crops
were limited (Table 6). This is probably a reection of reduced agricultural development efforts in the difcult environments where
these two crops are more common. Again, there was a general negative impact on yields when ZT was compared to CT. However, not
only were studies of these crops fewer in number but also their
duration rarely exceeded 2 years. As discussed above, longer duration studies may be necessary to show anticipated positive impacts
on soil quality and water balance, particularly when soils are currently deemed marginal for crop production, under extreme rainfall
and temperatures, and where competition for residues with livestock is signicant. In a previous synthesis of long-term, rainfed
maize studies from semi-arid and sub-humid regions across the
18
incorporated (0.28 t grain/ha lower on average). The Rusinamhodzi

et al. (2011) review showed no clear benets to yield of having a
mulch in zero- and minimum tillage systems and, further, indicated
that mulch could have a negative effect over the long term due to
increased occurrence of water-logging conditions.
In maize, the largest collection of studies, preliminary analysis suggests average grain yields are 28% and 33% higher when
rotated than when cultivated continually in ZT and CT, respectively
(Table 4; 10 and 33 cases). In two maize studies where monoculture
was compared to a rotation with a legume, the rotation benet was
higher in ZT than CT (25% and 9% increment in grain yield, respectively). When maize was rotated with wheat in a double cropping
system, grain yield was higher in CT than in ZT with little difference in wheat productivity (not shown). In most rice studies, this
crop was rotated with wheat, barley, rape or rabi rice in a double
cropping system and, in nearly all cases, grain yield was lower in ZT
as compared to CT. In the rice-wheat systems, direct sown wheat
results in higher grain yield due to the optimal sowing date but, as
the advantage does not require ZT in rice, the land area dedicated
to CT rice followed by ZT wheat is expanding successfully in SA
(Erenstein, 2011).
Fig. 2. Seasonal grain yield difference between zero-tillage (ZT) and conventional
tillage (CT) treatments in selected studies (3+ year duration) of (a) maize and (b)
direct seeded (closed diamond) and transplanted (open square) rice. Values shown
are treatment differences (ZTCT) by season and year; maize and rice data are
extracted from studies summarized in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. If two crops
per year were grown, the second crop is assigned the half-year value for the xcoordinate. Regression of yield difference on year found a non-signicant trend
(70 kg/ha yr) for maize; regression relationships for direct and transplanted rice
were not signicant.
globe, Rusinamhodzi et al. (2011) found treatment durations of

around 10 years were necessary to show positive impacts of ZT on
yields when soils were sandy and cumulative rainfall was below
600 mm Further, as with direct-seeded rice, changing local cultivation habits in sorghum management to a novel system requires
time (Garca-Ponce et al., 2013).
Several studies omitted the description of residue management (Tables 46) and those that reported it rarely provided data
on mulch biomass or ground cover nor did these studies include
commentary on the effect of hand-hoe weeding on mulch persistence. Studies varied in the way residues were managed and
marked differences between CT and ZT treatments were common.
For example, ZT with mulch (as residues or with supplemental
mulch up to 6 t/ha) was often compared to CT where crop residues
either had been removed or incorporated. It is important to note
that these studies considered neither the opportunity costs of crop
residues kept on the eld versus an alternative use as fuel or fodder nor the direct costs of a mulch supplement. Regardless, the
limited number of studies and the variation in treatments made
it difcult to infer direct effects due to mulching. In maize, only
four studies compared ZT and CT with and without the presence of
mulch. Results suggest ZT performed slightly better than CT when
both treatments had a mulch on the surface (0.18 t grain/ha higher
on average) but slightly worse when residues were removed or
3.2.1. Linking yield impacts to drivers and pathways

Few studies looked globally at the characterization of physical,
chemical and/or biological aspects of soils or at intermediate crop
outputs that may serve as early indicators for eventual treatment
effects on crop yields (e.g. plant establishment as an indicator of
soil crusting and/or crop growth as indicator of soil compaction).
Positive or negative differences (signicant or not) between ZT and
CT treatments are scattered among studies (Fig. 1, Tables 46 ).
For simplication, some measured characteristics were grouped
under a more universal designator. Thus, bulk density, cone index
and inverse of porosity were included under soil compaction;
saturated water inltration, time-to-pond and inverse of runoff
were grouped into water inltration; concentration or stored
soil organic carbon and soil organic matter were aggregated under
SOM, and, aboveground biomass accumulation, plant height and
any other measurement related to growth into crop growth.
In maize, ZT when compared to CT appears to increase soil water
inltration and soil organic matter particularly when mulch was
added and grain yield also increased (Table 4). Higher soil moisture, however, was not necessarily associated with improved yield,
not even during drought periods (Ike, 1986). Effectiveness of weed
control was rarely reported or estimated but, when described as
more decient in ZT, it was also identied as responsible for lower
grain yield regardless of whether weed control was quantitatively
assessed. Most on-farm studies used herbicides in ZT and hand
weeding in CT but, in general, no reference was made to differences
in effectiveness between the two methods. When both treatments
were compared (Thierfelder et al., 2013a), grain yield was lower
in 60% of cases with hand weeding than when herbicides were
used. Shumba et al. (1992) show a key element for successful ZT
cropping is to carry out an early hand weeding but, at present,
too few studies provide this information for a robust generalization of practice efcacy. In three studies, higher soil compaction
was associated with lower productivity. In rice, it is precisely soil
compaction that appears to limit grain yield by reducing root and
plant growth (Table 6). Nevertheless, the longest-duration study
showed similar grain yield in ZT and CT after 10 years (Jiang and
Xie, 2009). When measured in sorghum and cowpea studies, soil
compaction was usually higher in ZT than CT, resulting in an apparent grain yield penalty (Table 6) although more data are necessary
for a substantive conclusion.
The majority of publications report grain yield with little insight
on pathways that may drive or constrain it. Generally, either physical or chemical parameters are presented but rarely linked to
Table 4
Selected references comparing zero tillage (ZT) and conventional tillage (CT) in maize-based systems, country, duration of study in years (and period), scale, rotation (E and L refer to early or late season), soil texture, average
seasonal rainfall during the study, nitrogen applied to crop, mulch management (+, residues left on ground; +a, extra residues applied; , removed; i, incorporated into the soil), grain yield (GY), average difference in grain yield
between ZT and CT (GY) for rst two years of the study (12) and for the rest (3>). Remaining columns refer to measurements (see main text for variables grouping) carried out towards the end of studies (++/ , signicantly
higher/lower in ZT than CT;+/=/ higher, equal or lower non-signicant value in ZT than in CT).
Country/Site
Duration years
(startend)
Scale
Rotation
Soil type (texture)
N
(kg/ha)
Ngwira et al. (2012b) and

Thierfelder et al. (2013c)
Malawi 1
Malawi 2
Malawi 3
Malawi 4
Malawi 5
Malawi 6
Malawi 7
Malawi 8
Malawi 9
Malawi 1
Malawi 2
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
S. Leone
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Zambia 1
Zambia 2
Zambia 3
Zimbabwe 1
Zimbabwe 2
Zimbabwe 3
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
India
India
India
8 (20052012)
7 (20062012)
7 (20062012)
7 (20062012)
7 (20072012)
6 (20072012)
5 (20082012)
5 (20082012)
4 (20092012)
3 (20082011)
3 (20082011)
4 (19751979)
5 (19761980)
5 (19761980)
8 (19791987)
8 (19791987)
8 (19791987)
8 (19791987)
8 (19801987)
8 (19801987)
8 (19801987)
8 (19801987)
4 (19701974)
4 (19701974)
4 (19701974)
4 (19701974)
6 (19781983)
3 (19811984)
3 (19811984)
2 (19821983)
5 (19821986)
2 (19891990)
2 (20002001)
2 (20052006)
2 (19771978)
3 (20052008)
3 (20052008)
3 (20052008)
3 (20052008)
6 (20052011)
4 (20072011)
6 (20052011)
8 (20042010)
6 (20042010)
5 (20052010)
7 (20052012)
5 (20052012)
5 (20052012)
6 (19801985)
6 (19801985)
6 (19931997)
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on-station
on station
on station
on-station
on-station
on-station
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on station
on station
on farm
on farm
on-farm
on-farm
on-farm
on station
on station
on station
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous E
continuous L
continuous E
continuous E
continuous L
continuous L
continuous E
continuous E
continuous L
continuous L
continuous E
continuous L
maizecowpea
pigeonpmaize
maizecotton
maizewheat
maizewheat
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous E
continuous E
continuous L
continuous L
maizelegume
continuous
continuous
continuous
intercropped
maizesoya
continuous
maizecowpea
intercropped
maizewheat
maizewheat
maizewheat
loamy sand
sandy loam
sandy clay loam
sandy clay loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy clay loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy silt loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
loamy sand
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
93
150
150
120
120
120
120
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
120
99
120
120
120
Ngwira et al. (2012a)

Agboola (1981)
Osuji (1984) and Osuji et al.
(1980)
Lal (1995) and Lal (1998)
Lal (1986a) and Lal (1997)
Lal (1976)
Ike (1986)
Maurya (1986)
Kayombo et al. (1991)
Anazodo et al. (1991)
Ojeniyi (1993)
Kayode and Ademiluyi (2004)
Ishaya et al. (2008)
Kamara (1986)
Enfors et al. (2011)
Thierfelder et al. (2013b)
Thierfelder and Wall (2012)
Thierfelder et al. (2012)
Acharya and Sharma (1994)

Ghuman and Sur (2001)
Rainfall
(mm)
1266
851
606
573
835
284
687
687
489
489
687
687
566
566
294
294
915
948
Mulch
CT
Mulch
ZT
GY CT (t/ha)
GY ZT
(t/ha)
GY 12
(t/ha)
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
+a
i
+a
i
+
i
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+a
+a
+
+
+
+a
+a
+a
+a
+a
+a
+a
+a
+a
+
+
+
+a
+a
+a
+a
+a
+a
+a
2.9
4.6
4.2
4.2
3.2
2.5
2.4
3.8
4.1
3.5
3.4
3.0
4.9
2.3
2.2
2.3
0.7
0.8
3.0
3.1
1.5
1.3
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.6
3.4
3.4
6.2
3.9
2.8
4.4
3.9
2.6
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
4.2
2.9
3.7
2.4
1.7
4.9
2.4
2.5
1.9
4.8
5.9
4.0
4.1
4.9
5.0
5.4
4.9
4.3
3.5
4.7
5.5
4.9
4.8
3.2
5.0
2.4
2.5
2.9
0.7
1.5
3.1
3.5
1.3
1.4
3.2
2.0
3.7
2.8
2.2
2.7
2.9
4.9
1.3
1.6
2.9
3.3
2.5
0.2
1.1
0.8
1.3
6.2
3.5
4.5
2.6
1.5
5.4
2.2
2.9
2.6
3.8
5.0
3.4
0.1
0.2
1.6
0.9
2.7
1.6
1.1
0.3
1.6
1.0
1.6
0.1
0.3
0.3
1.2
1.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
na
na
na
na
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.5
0.6
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.0
1.7
0
sandy clay loam
sandy loam
varied
varied
varied
varied
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy
sandy
heavy red clays
sandy
sandy
sandy
silty clay loam
silty clay loam
sandy loam
120
165
0
56
0
56
109
58
109
80
80
80
80
80
80
120
120
80
1178
2765
218
218
297
297
664
1057
789
802
757
801
670
670
670
2453
2453
972
GY 3>
(t/ha)
1.6
0.5
0.4
1.2
1.2
1.9
1.1
1.4
1.2
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
1.1
0.3
1.4
0.1
0.3
3.6
0.3
2.8
0.3
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.7
1.4
1.4
0.2
Referencesa
19
20
Table 4 ( Continued )
Country/Site
Weeds
Compaction
Inltration
Soil moisture (%)
Soil (T )
Aggregates
SOM
Soil nutrients
Earthworm
Plant establishment
Root length
Matsumoto et al. (2008)
Thailand
3 (19992001)
on station
continuous
sand
63
1334
2.4
0.8
1.5
Ngwira et al. (2012b) and

Thierfelder et al. (2013c)
Malawi 1
Malawi 2
Malawi 3
Malawi 4
Malawi 5
Malawi 6
Malawi 7
Malawi 8
Malawi 9
Malawi 1
Malawi 2
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
S. Leone
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Zambia 1
Zambia 2
Zambia 3
Zimbabwe 1
Zimbabwe 2
Zimbabwe 3
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
India
India
India
Thailand
++
Ngwira et al. (2012a)

Agboola (1981)
Osuji (1984) and Osuji et al.
(1980)
Lal (1995) and Lal (1998)
Lal (1986a) and Lal (1997)
Lal (1976)
Ike (1986)
Maurya (1986)
Anazodo et al. (1991)
Ojeniyi (1993)
Kayode and Ademiluyi (2004)
Ishaya et al. (2008)
Kamara (1986)
Enfors et al. (2011)
Thierfelder et al. (2013b)
Thierfelder and Wall (2012)
Acharya and Sharma (1994)

Ghuman and Sur (2001)
Matsumoto et al. (2008)
a
+
+
+
++
+
++
+
+
+
++
+
+
++
+
++
++
+
++
+
+
++
++
++
=
++
+
++
+
++
++
+
+
++
++
++
+
+
++
++
+
+
+
+
++
++
++
+
++
++
+
+
++
++
++
++
++
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
++
+
=
=
++
+
++
++
++
++
++
+
++
++
++
=
=
=
=
++
++
++
+
++
=
=
=
++
Referencesa
Table 5
Selected references comparing zero tillage (ZT) and conventional tillage (CT), direct seeded (SD) or transplanted (T), rice-based systems, country, duration of study in years (and period), scale, rotation (E and L refer to early or
late season), soil texture, average rainfall during the study, nitrogen applied per crop, mulch management (+, residues left on ground; +a, extra residues applied; -, removed; i, incorporated into the soil), grain yield (GY), average
difference in grain yield between ZT and CT (GY) for rst two years of the study (12) and for the rest (3>). Remaining columns refer to measurements (see main text for variables grouping) carried out towards the end of
studies (+ +/ , signicantly higher/lower in ZT than CT;+/=/ higher, equal or lower non-signicant value in ZT than in CT).
Country/Site
Duration years
(startend)
Scale
Rotation
Soil type
(texture)
N
(kg/ha)
Saito et al. (2010)

Ambassa-Kiki et al.
(1996)
Lal (1986b)
Rodrguez and Lal
(1985)
Ogunremi et al.
(1986)
Huang et al. (2011)
Benin
Cameroon
Cameroon
Nigeria
Nigeria
2 (20062008)
3 (19871989)
3 (19871989)
6 (19781983)
6 (19781983)
on-station
on-station
on-station
on-station
on-station
rice
continuous E
continuous L
continuous E
continuous L
sandy loam
clay loam
clay loam
clay loam
clay loam
120
120
150
150
Nigeria
Nigeria
China 1
China 1
China 2
China
1.5 (1982)
1.5 (1982)
7 (20042010)
7 (20042010)
3 (20022005)
16 (19902006)
on-station
on-station
on-station
on-station
on-farm
on-station
monoculture
monoculture
ricerape
ricerape
ricerape
ricerape/wheat
India
5 (19781982)
on-station riceblackgram
sandy clay loam 60
India
India
India
1 (1997)
1 (1997)
7 (20022008)
on-station ricebarley
on-station ricebarley
on-station ricewheat
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
80
80
150
India
India
2 (20022003)
2 (20022004)
sandy loam
silty loam
150
India 1
India 2
India
4 (20022006)
4 (20022006)
2 (20052006)
on-farm
ricewheat
sandy loam
loam
clay loam
125
125
160
India
2 (20052006)
on-farm
ricewheat
clay loam
145
India
3 (20062009)
clay loam
120
on-station monoculture
on-station monoculture
clay
clay loam
100
100
Jiang and Xie

(2009)
Mahata et al.
(1990)
Kushwaha and
Singh (2005)
Gathala et al.
(2011)
Bazaya et al. (2009)
Bhushan et al.
(2007)
Kukal et al. (2008)
Singh et al. (2009)
Saharawat et al.
(2010)
Saharawat et al.
(2012)
Mishra and Singh
(2012)
Sharma et al. (1988)
Philippines 1 2 (19841985)
Philippines 2 2 (19841985)
Referencesa
Country/Site
Weeds
Saito et al. (2010)

Ambassa-Kiki et al.
(1996)
Lal (1986b)
Rodrguez and Lal (1985)
Ogunremi et al.
(1986)
Huang et al. (2011)
Benin
Cameroon
Cameroon
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
China 1
China 1
China 2
China
Jiang and Xie (2009)
Compaction
Rainfall
(mm)
Mulch
CT
Mulch
ZT
GY CT-DS
(t/ha)
1060
+
+
2.5
+a
+a
4.9
6.1
10.0
120
120
150
150
GY ZT-DS
(t/ha)
Inltration
Soil moisture (%)
i
i
+
+
0.9
1.2
3.8
1156
2.0
GY 3->
(t/ha)
6.2
5.3
5.8
5.3
6.4
5.5
5.8
5.2
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.1
9.6
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
7.3
na
10.0
9.7
7.3
6.7
2.0
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.8
6.8
8.1
6.9
0.2
0.4
0.2
1.6
3.2
7.3
7.0
7.0
0.7
0.3
6.6
5.5
5.7
7.2
3.3
3.1
7.0
1.6
1.4
0.5
6.2
6.4
6.5
0.0
410
GY 1-2
(t/ha)
3.5
4.7
8.6
1100
1100
728
GY ZT-T
(t/ha)
1.8
124
2.4
GY CT-T
(t/ha)
0.3
1.9
5.0
5.0
Soil (T )
Aggregates
SOM
Soil nutrients
++
2.8
3.6
3.9
3.3
-1.1
1.8
Plant establishment
Root growth
Crop growth
+
+
Referencesa
=
++
+
+
+
+
+
++
++
=
+
++
++
++
21
crop growth or water balance. It was surprising to nd limited

information on soil nutrient balance, on weed control effectiveness, on mulch cover at sowing or on crop establishment. This
type of information is needed to understand system productivity
and, at least the last three, require little effort and cost to collect adequate data. Weed control effectiveness can be evaluated
visually as in Ike (1986), residue cover can be estimated using the
meterstick method (Hartwig and Laen, 1978), residue biomass
can be estimated by combustion of soil samples (Olaoye, 2002),
and crop establishment can be assessed by counting plants after
emergence. Soil nutrients and organic matter, soil texture (clay,
silt and sand content) and water availability are especially important with low rainfall and marginal soil conditions. Low fertility
soils may mask positive effects of ZT even if nutrients are provided (Enfors et al., 2011; Tittonell et al., 2007). Long-term average
rainfall is useful for describing the site but seasonal values are
needed to identify the drought or excessive rainfall periods that
would have inuenced treatment yields. Visual determination of
runoff or waterlogging will help to complement information on
crop performance. If a crop is irrigated, a comment is needed on the
extent to which irrigation rate and timing complies with crop water
demand.
3.3. Conclusions: Impact of ZT on crop yields
+
+
India

a
++
++
Philippines 1
Philippines 2
++
++
++
India
+
India 1
India 2
India
++
India
India
India
India
Mahata et al.
(1990)
Kushwaha and
Singh (2005)
Gathala et al.
(2011)
Bazaya et al. (2009)
Bhushan et al.
(2007)
Kukal et al. (2008)
Singh et al. (2009)
Saharawat et al.
(2010)
Saharawat et al.
(2012)
Mishra and Singh
(2012)
Sharma et al. (1988)
++
++
India
India
++
Country/Site
Referencesa
Weeds
Compaction
Inltration
++
Soil moisture (%)
Soil (T )
Aggregates
++
SOM
Soil nutrients
Plant establishment
Root growth
Crop growth
22
Given limitations in scope, context and quality, existing CA

reviews proved limited in their ability to directly enhance the specic understanding of CA impacts on yields of smallholder farmers
in SSA and SA. Our preliminary summary of empirical studies suggests that, in the short term, CT generally outperformed ZT for the
staple crops examined. This may be the result of direct, short-term
effects per se, e.g. increased soil compaction, or the need for farmers
and researchers to learn about the various new technologies imbedded in the CA system. For example, we mentioned above that more
attention is needed for weed control in ZT to optimize management
efcacy, particularly if weeding is carried out by hand. The use of
herbicide will facilitate ZT success but there is a need to develop
a reliable herbicide regime for each system (Ike, 1986) which may
be combined with early hand weeding (Mishra and Singh, 2012).
Good management is the rst step for detecting tillage or mulch
effects on crop productivity (Baudron et al., 2012). If access to
inputs is limited and agro-environmental conditions are difcult,
the technology options should be adapted accordingly (best-t
options according to Giller et al., 2011). Examples of intermediate systems are found in Roose et al. (1994), Lahmar et al. (2012),
Bayala et al. (2012), Rockstrm et al. (2009) and Mupangwa et al.
(2011).
An initial negative impact of ZT on grain yield may be reduced
with time (Fig. 2) as several positive factors may occur only in
the long-term, particularly those linked with mulching (Fig. 1).
Well designed long-term studies are needed in order to respond
to some of the points raised above (Govaerts et al., 2006.). Further, not only must good general agronomic practices be pursued
for the duration of the experiment but the specics of management implementation and efcacy must be captured. These
detailed studies should be accompanied by on-farm studies that
can provide feed-back for targeted research and by surveys for
local characterization and identication of structural problems
beyond the eld scale (Giller et al., 2011). Some selected maize
on-farm studies have shown successful ZT results in both the
short and longer term when residues are assured (Table 4). To
date, a major challenge for interpreting results from on farm
studies has been a lack of a minimum array of adequately
described information on crop performance and management of
residues.
Table 6
Selected references comparing zero tillage (ZT) and conventional tillage (CT) in cowpea and sorghum crops, country, duration of study, scale, rotation, soil texture, average rainfall during the study, nitrogen (N) and phosphorous
(P) applied per crop, mulch management (+, residues left on ground or applied; , removed; i, incorporated into the soil, grain yield (GY), average difference in grain yield between ZT and CT (GY) for rst two years of the study
(1-2) and for the rest (3->). Remaining columns refer to measurements (see main text for variables grouping) carried out towards the end of studies (++/ , signicantly higher/lower in ZT than CT;+/=/ higher, equal or lower
non-signicant value in ZT than in CT).
Referencesa
Country
Referencesa
Country
McHugh et al. (2007)

Mesne et al. (2005)
Agbede and Ojeniyi
(2009)
Obalum et al. (2011)

Omer and Elamin (1997)
Guzha (2004)
Laddha and Totawat (1997)
Klaij and Ntare (1995)
Lal (1976)
Lal (1998)
Oudraogo et al.
(2009)
McHugh et al. (2007)
Mesne et al.
(2005)
Agbede and Ojeniyi
(2009)
Obalum et al.
(2011)
Omer and Elamin (1997)
Guzha (2004)
Laddha and Totawat (1997)
Klaij and Ntare (1995)
SORGHUM
Burkina F
Burkina F
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Nigeria 1
Nigeria 1
Nigeria 2
Nigeria 2
Nigeria
Nigeria
Sudan
Tanzania
India
COWPEA
Niger
Scale
Rotation
Soil type
(texture)
N
(kg/ha)
P
(kg/ha)
Rainfall
(mm)
Mulch
ZT
Mulch
CT
GY CT
(t/ha)
GY ZT
(t/ha)
GY 12 (t/ha)
2 (20002001)
2 (20002001)
2 (20032004)
1 (2003)
1 (2003)
3 (20042006)
3 (20042006)
3 (20042006)
3 (20042006)
2 (2006-2007)
2 (20062007)
5 (19901995)
1 (19951996)
2 (19891990)
on station
on station
on farm
on station
on station
on farm
on farm
on farm
on farm
on station
on station
on station
on station
on-station
monoculture
monoculture
sorghumchick
monoculture
monoculture
monoculture
monoculture
monoculture
monoculture
monoculture
monoculture
monoculture
monoculture
intercropped
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy clay loam
silty clay loam
silty clay loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy clay loam
sandy
ne loamy
80
80
41
41
41
32
32
32
32
0
0
15
15
46
20
20
29
29
29
29
0
0
596
596
849
763
763
1134
0.9
2.0
0.9
2.4
4.7
1.7
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.8
0.2
60
0.6
1.0
2.4
2.2
2.8
0.6
1.5
0.5
2.2
3.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
0.9
0.9
0.3
2.0
2.6
0.3
0.1
2.1
0.1
0.3
4 (19861989)
2 (19731974)
2 (19731974)
2 (19731974)
1 (19791980)
1 (19791980)
2 (19821983)
1 (19971998)
1 (20002001)
1 (2006)
2 (19771978)
2 (19771978)
6 (20072012)
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on station
on farm
millet/cowpea
maize/cowpea
continuous E
continuous L
continuous L
continuous L
continuous
continuous E
continuous
continuous
continuous
continuous
maizecowpea
sandy
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy clay loam

sandy
0
30
30
30
0
0
0
13
16
16
16
0
0
26
0
165
30
18
0
67
0
17
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.9
0.0
1.8
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.4
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.9
0.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
Weeds
Compaction
Water inltration
Soil moisture (%)
Soil (T )
1023
1023
377
589
+
+
+
+
385
i
+
+
+
+a
1134
915
430
422
2765
1200
670
SOM/Aggregates
Soil nutrients
1.6
Earthworm
0.2
Plant establishment
0.0
0.0
Root length
++
GY 3> (t/ha)
=
=
Crop growth

Olaoye (2002)
Akinyemi et al. (2003)
Adekalu et al. (2009)
Kamara (1986)
Khatibu et al. (1984)
SORGHUM
Burkina F
Burkina F
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Nigeria 1
Nigeria 1
Nigeria 2
Nigeria 2
Nigeria
Nigeria
Sudan
Tanzania
India
COWPEA
Niger
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
S. Leone
Tanzania
Zimbabwe
Oudraogo et al. (2009)
Years (startend)
++
++
++
+
++
+
+
=
23
24
Crop growth
4. Recommendations for future work
References reported separately in References for Table 6: Sorghum and References for Table 6: Cowpea.
=
=
+
++
+
+
++
+

Olaoye (2002)
Akinyemi et al. (2003)
Adekalu et al. (2009)
Kamara (1986)
Khatibu et al. (1984)
Lal (1998)
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
S. Leone
Tanzania
Zimbabwe
Lal (1976)
+
=
++
++
+
+
+
=
=
+
+
Country
Referencesa
Weeds
Compaction
Water inltration
Soil moisture (%)
Soil (T )
SOM/Aggregates
Soil nutrients
Earthworm
Plant establishment
++
=
Root length
4.1. Minimum datasets

Our attempt to populate a template with extracted, original data
highlights chronic decits in reporting CA research in the peerreview literature. These decits could reect a general erosion in
the rigor of agronomic research but could also be the outcome of
a lag between the evolution of the process of science and evolution of publishing norms and requirements. White and van Evert
(2008) observed that the mega-bytes of quantitative information
accompanying the typical agronomic experiment of today cannot
be comprehensively incorporated in a journal paper making it all
but impossible to reanalyze an experiment based on the publication
alone. Additionally, Dore et al. (2011) remark that data acquisition in agronomic research has not traditionally been organized to
meet requirements for meta-analysis and call for establishment of
guidelines for the generation of further data to facilitate quantitative syntheses. Indeed, our experiences extracting data from maize
studies suggest the need and opportunity for new rigor in reporting
results from eld research on CA to increase research efciency and
prioritization and for the overall science to advance.
For CA yield research, we propose peer-reviewed papers and
nal reports for sponsored projects contain or provide direct access
to a standardized set of minimum data (Table 7 ). In developing
our recommendation we considered two complementary questions: (1) Do the data meet the historic criteria for publication in
a peer-review journal? and (2) Can the data be reused for simulation modeling and/or in meta-analysis with modern statistical
tools? Peer-review publications have a commonly understood culture for requiring sufcient detail so as to permit the reader to
reproduce if not reanalyze an experiment. These requirements are
recognized in numerous earlier publications (e.g. White and van
Evert, 2008; Nix, 1984) and guides to authors provided by agricultural journals. Yet, while the intents of such guidelines are clear, the
guidelines themselves are often not overly detailed. The subjectivity of the peer-review process combined with lack of specicity
in the guidelines impairs the potential for data reuse as is routinely done in other domains. For the purposes of standardization
across CA studies so as to permit reanalysis and to optimize scientic utility, we propose as required an explicit array of descriptive
and measured information. Certainly, we are cognizant that a recommendation for a minimum dataset must not be overly onerous
to be consistently followed. Therefore, under desirable and/or
in the associated notes, we list a host of additional information
much of which would be critical to reusing data for calibration,
validation and use of simulation models. In modern agronomy,
model application is a necessary and important approach to understanding crop productivities as inuenced by management variants
and environments beyond those encompassed by empirical eld
experimentation (Grassini et al., 2011). Indeed, completeness of
data reporting can be assumed if experiments can be reproduced
in simulations (Hunt et al., 2001, 2006). However, many models
require inputs beyond those strictly necessary to address the question of overall yield impacts and caution should be exercised in
using model inputs as de facto minimum data requirements. Finally,
we note that although our focus was on CA literature, our recommendations for minimum data encompass what is generally
necessary for good agronomic research and, thus, are applicable
with minor modication to a broad array of research questions.
Additional comments regarding our motivation and caveats to our
recommendation are as follows:
4.1.1. The need for geo-referencing
A decade ago, White et al. (2002) called for an increase in the
geographic relevance of research noting the increased availability
Table 7
Minimum datasets for experiments addressing the agronomic impacts of conservation agriculture (CA).
Data type
Descriptive
Minimum datasets
General
Treatment management
informationb
Measured*
Crop performance
metrics
Required
Desirable
Location (latitude and longitude)
Characterization of key site attributes that are

expected to inuence results/outcomes
Total annual and in-season precipitation

w/location of weather station explicit
More frequent assessment of precipitation (daily to

monthly or cumulative by growth stage)
Monthly max/min/mean temperature
Daily max/min/mean temperature, daily relative

humidity, solar radiation, etc.
Agro-ecozone and soil classication (texture and

drainage)
Number of sites, site cropping history before
experiment establishment
Treatment layout (plot size and RCBD, split-plot,
etc.), number of replicates, planned measures of
intra-treatment variation
On-farm: number of farmers, selection procedure,
important qualications/modications on
participation level
Tillage: operation, intensity/frequency, implement,
depth (inclusive of soil disturbance with sowing)
Soil particle size distribution (%

sand, silt, clay)
Residue/mulch type and management for each

tillage treatment: species if living cover; cover
handling (removed, grazed, left on surface,
incorporated, etc.)
Rotation: species and spatiotemporal descriptors
(sequential, intercropping, etc.). Growth periods
Fertilizer (including manure): Nutrient, source,
amount, placement (incorporated, localized,
broadcasted)
Planting: cultivar name and/or gross
characteristics (improved or local, seeding rate or
transplant density); Per treatment sowing methods
Weed control: type (herbicide, by hand,
mechanical), amount and number for each tillage
treatment
Other: soil modications (drainage enhancements,
water retention, etc.), pest/pathogen controls, etc.
Date of physiological maturity and/or harvest date
Management history; residue amount(s) and condition
Yield (grain and stover/other aboveground

biomass) w/H2 O content explicit per crop and
season. Sample size. Frequency and impact or any
intermediate harvests during cropping
A statement of geographic contexta should be presented that

characterizes the importance/relevance of the site selection
including the linkage to climate, soils or other important
factors varying in time/space
Best time step for reported precipitation governed by system
and research question; if irrigation is used, frequency and
amount per application are most useful
More granular weather data is required for data use in models
(e.g. daily max/min temperatures, relative humidity, solar
radiation, etc.)
From accepted/published database or classication system
(e.g. FAO Agro-ecozone *** )
Replicates more than 1 km apart or those intended to capture
key conditions (e.g. different soils) separately describeda
Notation of any modications of experimental design
occurring post establishment
Enterprise type, size, ownership status
Changes in farmers participation during the study e.g. if same

farmer maintained same treatment during the study
Management history
Description/Identication of conventional tillage in the region

should be included as part of geographic contexta if it is not
an explicit, experimental control. Any treatment-specic
disturbances associated with sowing should be explicit
On-farm: plot protection means from livestock and others;
photos may be a useful record of residue amount and
condition (standing, lodged, etc.)
Rotation history; yield(s) of species in rotation. Sowing

dates
Fertilization history
Tillage history of all crops in the rotation reported even if

study focus on one crop only
Manure source & condition should be described; nutrient
quantities should be on an elemental basis
GDD, maturity group, spring vs. winter, etc.)
As noted under tillage, soil disturbance with planting should

be explicit
For hand or mechanical, weeding, soil depth impacted
If no specic metrics on weed pressure are made, a qualitative

assessment of any yield impacts of weed pressure is still
helpful including photos
At a minimum, a soil moisture condition rating (dry, moist,
wet, etc.) may be most useful
Soil condition at the time of tillage

Dates of emergence (and evaluation of crop
establishment), other benchmark phenology
Plant population at maturity; in season assessment(s)
of aboveground growth
Experimental design
Notes
Yield units must be explicit (kg dry weight/ha preferred)** .

Photos may be helpful for capturing crop response to N stress,
weed/disease pressure, etc.; if yield estimate is an aggregation
of subsamples, the sampling strategy should be explicit;
explicit description if farmers remove a portion of crop
biomass during the growing season (e.g. removal of cowpea
green leaves for home consumption)
25
***
**
After recommendations in White et al. (2002).

All information must be reported for both control and CA intervention.
Ideally a repository would be established to house all data in a standardized format and with appropriate metadata.
SI units preferred for all measurements.
FAO Agroecozones http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Refer/AgroeZon.htm (veried 2/11/2013).
a
Other
Standard deviation (or similar) by treatment

w/sample size explicit for all measured parameters
Farmers perception of treatments
Intra-treatment
variation
Additional info specic
to on-farm
e-publication of supplemental information including

comprehensive tables presenting replicated level data
Presence of major problems per farm/treatment
Baseline surface soil/basic soil fertility information

(organic matter content, pH, P, K; methods and
sampling depth must be explicit) for experimental
elds
Soil performance
metrics (plow or
disturbed layer)
Nutrient content of DM returned. Dry mass of residue

at sowing
Plot or block level samples of surface and subsurface
physical (bulk density) and chemical characteristics
w/depth increments explicit
Dry mass of residue or cover returned
Notes
Desirable
Required
Minimum datasets
Data type
Table 7 (Continued)
of tools for spatial analysis but a striking lack of geographic context in the majority of published papers. Citing the importance of
climate and soil in determining research outcomes, these authors
reviewed 250 papers for their geographic contextualization and
found only 90 gave geographic coordinates with enough precision
to locate eld sites within a 10-km radius. Today, tools for spatial
referencing are ubiquitous and cheap and, therefore, documenting locations within 10- to 20-m accuracy should be considered
mandatory in any research project. While descriptive information
should include the general information needed to place the experiment in a biophysical context, simply giving latitude and longitude
will allow others to link results to a host of available base data on
climate, soils, topography, vegetative cover, etc. (White et al., 2002).
See info. under management (above); photos may be a suitable

estimator of biomass or percent cover
Soil properties required should be tailored to the crop and soil
being studied; more detailed analysis would be required for
linking management to ecosystem services; any additional
measurements during the study should be reported per date
and treatment
When multiple locations are involved, mean and standard
deviation reported for each location
Photos may be an invaluable record for documenting
unanticipated/unexpected phenomena
26
4.1.2. Overly stringent minimum requirement

The minimum required data proposed in Table 7 may be considered ambitious, particularly for studies conducted on-farm and
surveys as compared to those conducted on-station. However,
modern technologies (computer, software, communication) can
greatly enable minimum data collection irrespective of study location although on-farm studies and surveys may be challenged
to collect accurate records on management history (these items
are designated desirable in Table 7). As with geo-referencing,
simulation modeling has become main-stream in modern agronomic research and, therefore, considering the needs of models
should be encouraged. Rather than linking different granular levels of data to different study locations (on-station versus on-farm),
it may be useful to distinguish between quantifying and conclusively explaining agronomic performance. Data required to
quantify agronomic performance would focus on the inputs and
outputs (yields, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) while data required to
explain performance would encompass the additional detail to
simulate the results in a model. Much of the data we identify as
required maps to that quantifying agronomic performance while
that designated desirable maps to the requirement for explaining performance. Ultimately, we suggest that minimum datasets
must be a consensus document among researchers and thus, prior
to implementation, more input should be solicited and incorporated.
4.1.3. Omission of the human dimension
Understanding the socio-economic context that may have
signicant yield impacts (education level, number of years farming, enterprise type and size, ownership status, etc.) requires
data beyond what we recommend for interpretation of agronomic performance in biophysical dimensions. This is not to
imply that social and cultural factors are less important to yield
outcomes following CA implementation but rather to highlight
the complexity of biophysical pathways and the need to use
biophysical pathway information in designing surveys to target
the most relevant aspects of the human dimension. Indeed, for
on-farm and survey studies, additional information will be necessary to ensure study results are not confounded by a one or
more of the common forms of bias (selection, performance, attrition, or detection/measurement; see Higgins and Green, 2011 for
details).
4.1.4. Quality guidelines for surveys
Surveys represent an important approach to understanding the
socio-economic modiers of the potential of CA to improve yields;
facilitating reuse of survey data in SRs with on-station and on-farm
results is critical to advancing understanding of outcomes. As with
soil metrics (Table 7), we anticipate the best metrics for characterizing the socio-economic context will be somewhat specic to the
local conditions. Nonetheless, we suggest an interdisciplinary team
with representation from sociology, agronomy, economics and
policy be tasked with developing a consensus document on minimum data and best practices for agriculture technology surveys
of smallholder farmers in SSA and SA. The Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) could lead or catalyze
such an effort given its coverage of crops and cropping systems
for smallholder agriculture in developing countries. We propose
as important foundations to this effort the Cochrane Collaboration and their guidelines for reducing bias in medical intervention
studies (http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews) as well as
existing survey literature on CA where details on survey instruments and approaches to bias are clearly described (e.g. Erenstein
(2009, 2010, 2011) and colleagues (Erenstein et al., 2008) hybrid
quantitativequalitative approach to village surveys).
4.1.5. Rigidity and evolution in the scientic process
We acknowledge that proposing a minimum, required dataset
suggests a rigidity of the scientic process which may not always
be helpful. Data are often a matter of opportunity and not just
strict planning. Partial datasets may be available and a contribution worthy of publication although incomplete. Lack of access to
certain information should not become an immutable barrier to
research or its publication; our recommendations are intended to
serve as a formative guide to good science for researchers and funding organizations alike and to serve as a reminder for thoughtful
conversation regarding implications of data decits. Regardless,
until the question what are CA impacts on yields in SSA and SA
is adequately addressed, we expect core data needs will remain
the same although certain metrics must be tailored to the crop and
soil under examination (e.g. soil properties, Table 7). However, as
science advances and reduced-cost tools to measure the complex
array of crop, soil and environmental factors governing cropping
system performance proliferate, some data may move from desirable to required. Likewise, science itself may generate useful
proxy measures that enable simpler protocols (e.g. benchmarks for
water-use efciency in Australia (Sadras and Angus, 2006)). In sum,
minimum dataset requirements must be periodically reviewed and
updated to stay current with changing research practices and science needs.
4.2. Data repositories and systematic reviews
4.2.1. Infrastructure for data stewardship and sharing
Perceptions of usefulness of agricultural data beyond the original research are changing rapidly and interest in data reuse is
greater than ever (e.g. White and van Evert, 2008; Dore et al., 2011).
Development of infrastructure to facilitate data sharing in the
biophysical sciences including agriculture is an extremely active,
fast-growing area within Library and information sciences (Baker
and Yarmey, 2009; Bracke, 2011) but data sharing remains rare in
agronomy. Barriers of concern for agronomists range from competition in research to data quality but analysis by White et al.
(2010), Diekmann (2012) and others also highlight the lack of standards, guidelines, methods and tools to facilitate workows and
curation of agricultural data. To advance CA research along with
agronomic research in general, we recommend a data repository
be developed to house datasets from empirical studies including
the data we identied as required for on-farm and on-station
research (Table 7) as well as survey data identied as proposed
above (Section 4.1.4). Such a repository could also house best
practice protocols for meta-analysis and the templates populated
with data extracted for them. Given the current prominence of CA
in the research agendas of the CGIAR centers, creating a distributed
repository within the CGIAR consortium promoted and accessible
to all CA researchers may be the most efcient avenue to CA data
sharing.
27
4.2.2. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis

We concur with Dore et al. (2011), Philibert et al. (2012) and
others that SRs and meta-analysis are promising but underutilized tools in agricultural research. The knowledge mapping and
preliminary review we conducted here suggest that a full SR is
warranted for understanding the impacts of CA technologies on
smallholder farmers in SSA and SA. We remain uncertain of the
extent to which data omissions in empirical work will limit conclusions from an initial meta-analysis but speculate signicant data
from corresponding authors can still be recovered, especially from
very recent work. Regardless, developing the template and populating it with data extracted from publications available to date
can be the foundation for a future, improved SR with supplemental
data. Indeed, cumulative meta-analyses where studies are added
in a predetermined order (e.g. chronological) can identify the point
of convergence on a true effect size and indicate when additional
research on a specic question is no longer necessary (e.g. Lau
et al., 1992). Some argue that answers derived by cumulative metaanalysis of a series of small studies are achieved more quickly
and are as strong or stronger than those achieved through larger
scale studies (Rosenberg et al., 1999 and references cited therein).
Ultimately, routinely achieving strong quantitative SRs seems a
generally benecial and cost-effective goal for agricultural funding organizations, research entities and policy organizations, alike.
We recommend existing guidelines for SRs (Cochrane Handbook
(http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook); Centre
for Evidence-Based Conservation, 2010) be adapted to the agricultural sciences.
4.2.3. New roles and responsibilities for journals and sponsoring

organizations
Data stewardship requires stewards to create and maintain a
community asset. We are certainly not the rst to identify the need
for and value of infrastructure to permit data repurposing (see Hunt
et al., 2001, 2006; White and van Evert, 2008); lack of progress to
date is indicative of the complexity (Faniel and Zimmerman, 2011)
and cost of the challenge. We propose that those with vested interests in the aggregate products (professional societies, peer-review
journals, research centers, funding and scientic governance organizations) have important new roles to play in data aggregation,
curation and reuse and should collaborate to create and implement the necessary infrastructure. Publicprivate partnering will
be necessary to address existing and future intellectual property
regulations that may curtail data access and use. Professional Societies can create and encourage standards for data and meta-data
which should facilitate both searching for and reusing data. Further,
to foster growth of SRs in agricultural research, we recommend
funding organizations solicit proposals and resource this form of
research. Concomitantly, to foster the highest standards in SRs we
suggest one or more of the Tier 1 agricultural journals develop
and implement rigorous guidance for preparing and submitting
SRs. In the natural resource sciences, Biological Conservation (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/biological-conservation/)
directs authors to the extensive guidelines of the Collaboration for
Environmental Evidence (Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation,
2010) and requires compliance for publication. We reviewed 10
major agricultural journals for their guidance on preparation of
reviews and found reviews were generally welcomed but explicit
guidance was not directly offered. Finally, Stewart (2009) recommended a global registry for environmental monitoring and
research projects with the goals of reducing publication bias and
research duplication and encouraging standardization, collaboration and efcient use of scarce research dollars. Stewart (2009)
acknowledged this idea as radical and difcult to achieve but
potential advantages are obvious; the example of evidenced-based
28
medicine suggests this and other key infrastructure elements such

as data repositories can be achieved if valued and resourced.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Counsel (ISPC) for commissioning this
review and to James Stevenson for providing assistance and sharing
his database of accumulated references. Further, we are extremely
grateful to John Kirkegaard (CSIRO), Kenneth Cassman (Univ. of

Nebraska; ISPC, Chair) and James Stevenson (ISPC, Secretariat) for
their extensive reviews of and thoughtful suggestions for Table 7
and associated text. We thank Inmaculada Carmona for helping
with the initial engine searching of peer-reviewed literature.
Appendix A.
See Table A.1.
Table A.1
Comprehensive data extraction checklist to guide database development of a Systematic Review (SR) of the conservation agriculture primary or original literature. The checklist is modeled on the Checklist of items to consider in data collection or extraction in the Cochrane Handbook (Table 7.3.a
http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/corchrane/handbook/chapter 7/).
General
Individual Record
Descriptors
Field
Comments
Unique review identier

Review author identier
Databases & Bibliographies searched
Search terms
For aggregating databases that anticipate addition of new studies & subsequent re-analysis
Assigned for any reviewer with their rst contribution to the database
Inclusive of search dates by database
Inclusive of Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), truncations, wild card characters, other
specics
Only titles & abstracts searched, etc
Review author assigns when study added to database
Descriptive list
Inclusive of electronic access information
Inclusive of contact information
Sponsoring entity information (if noted) or not available (NA)
Country/region, latitude & longitude for on-farm or on-station empirical studies
Categorical classication according to FAO (Dixon et al., 2001) or similar
Primary study focus
Study duration (number of crop cycles, if appropriate), sampling years
Initial designator of t with research question & search criteria (Yes, No, Uncertain).
Could be expanded to exclusion criteria
Categorical classication: Systematic review (meta-analysis), qualitative review, On-farm
exp., on-station exp., survey, . . .
Categorical classication: Primary researcher, collaborating agency,
farmer-network/participant, etc.
Categorical: RCBD, factorial, . . . not given/available
Number (specic to comparisons for outcomes being assessed)
Categorical: Operation, intensity/frequency & implement (predominant practice for surveys,
etc.)
Categorical: No-till or conservation till (operation, intensity/frequency & implement)
Residue or living cover (species identied)
Categorical: Removed, grazed, left-on-surface, incorporated
Categorical (as above)
Inclusion/Exclusion strategy & criteria

Assigned primary study no.
Bibliography, search engine/source
Full reference
Corresponding author
Program/funding source
Location
Cropping system
Crop(s)
Timeframe of data collection
Eligibility for inclusion
Study scale or scope designator
Primary data collection responsibility
Methods & treatments
Outcome(s) data
Contextual factors &

covariates
Experimental design specics

Replicates
Tillage & soil mgmt. baseline (reference
treatment)
Tillage management intervention
Mulch baseline type
Mulch baseline management
Mulch intervention (type &
management)
Rotation baseline
Rotation management intervention
Outcome attribute(s) of interest
Measure(s) of intra-treatment
variation
Outcome baseline
Baseline variance
Outcome intervention
Outcome variance
FAO Agro-ecozone
Soil descriptors
Water Management
Precipitation
Daily temperature
Driving or constraining factor
Fertilizer
Weed control & other inputs
Quality assessment
Baseline appropriate/representative
Management intervention relevance
Experiment execution concerns

Level of record/data review
Overall subjective quality assessment
Categorical: No, yes (species & spatio-temporal descriptors: sequential, intercropping, etc.)
Categorical: No, yes (species, etc.)
Categorical: Grain yield, total above ground yield, etc.
Categorical: standard error, coefcient of variation, etc.
Numerical (standard units (kg/ha), moisture content specied or NA)
Numerical (or not available)
Numerical (standard units (kg/ha), moisture content specied or NA)
Numerical (or NA)
Classication based on length of available growing period
Texture, drainage
Irrigation, rainfed, soil structural modications (enhanced drainage, water retention
interventions)
Total annual & in season (location of measurement & relevance to experimental site) or not
available through record
Mean annual & seasonal (more detailed if available) or NA through record
Link to schematic for categories of factors/paths
Nutrient (N, P, K, lime, other) and rate
Categorical weed mgmt. (herbicide, mechanical, by hand, various) w/rate, frequency &
efcacy; description of use of improved seeds, manure, etc.
Category (Yes, No, Uncertain) & comment on rationale
Category (High, Low, Uncertain) and comment on rationale (e.g. if farmer survey, potential
confounding factors are distributed across baseline & intervention treatments (improved seed,
access to inputs, labor, etc.))
Descriptive: Problems with design relative to question (bias), methods concerns (publication
bias if a review), externalities, data loss, attrition
Categorical: Peer-reviewed journal (impact factor), other peer-reviewed format, agency
report, unpublished data, etc.
Category (High, Medium, Low, Uncertain) with respect only to the a priori question
29
Table A.1 (Continued)
Misc. info.
Field
Comments
Further correspondence
planned/required
Key conclusions of study authors
Other outcomes available
Category (Yes, No, Maybe) & purpose

Inclusive of assessment regarding appropriateness of conclusion given study inference space
Notes regarding other outcomes relevant to CA but not reviewed here (e.g. ecosystem service
measurements, adoption/economic data, etc.)
Dixon, J., Gulliver, A., Gibbon, D., 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty, Improving Farmers Livelihoods in a Changing World. FAO/World Bank, Rome/Washington, DC. FAO
Agroecozones http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Refer/AgroeZon.htm (veried 2/11/2013).
References
Acharya, C.L., Sharma, P.D., 1994. Tillage and mulch effects on soil physical environment, root growth, nutrient uptake and yield of maize and wheat on an Alsol
in north-west India. Soil Tillage Res. 32, 291302.
Alvarez, R., Steinbach, H.S., 2009. A review of the effects of tillage systems on some
soil physical properties, water content, nitrate availability and crops yield in the
Argentine Pampas. Soil Tillage Res. 104, 115.
Andersson, J.A., Giller, K.E., 2012. On heretics and Gods blanket salesmen: contested
claims for conservation agriculture and the politics of its promotion in African
smallholder farming. In: Sumberg, J., Thompson, J. (Eds.), Contested Agronomy:
Agricultural Research in a Changing World. Earthscan, London.
Araya, T., Cornelis, W.M., Nyssen, J., Govaerts, B., Bauer, H., Gebreegziabher, T., Oicha,
T., Raes, D., Sayre, K.D., Haile, M., Deckers, J., 2011. Effects of conservation agriculture on runoff, soil loss and crop yield under rainfed conditions in Tigray,
Northern Ethiopia. Soil Use Manage. 27, 404414.
Baker, C.J., Saxton, K.E., Ritchie, W.R., Chamen, W.C.T., Reicosky, D.C., Ribeiro, M.F.S.,
Justice, S.E., Hobbs, P.R., 2007. No-Tillage Seeding in Conservation Agriculture,
second ed. CABI and FAO, Rome, pp. 326.
Baker, K.S., Yarmey, L., 2009. Data stewardship: environmental data curation and a
web-of-repositories. Int. J. Digital Curation 4 (2), 1227.
Baudron, F., Tittonell, P., Corbeels, M., Letourmy, P., Giller, K.E., 2012. Comparative performance of conservation agriculture and current smallholder farming
practices in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Field Crops Res. 132, 117128.
Bayala, J., Sileshi, G.W., Coe, R., Kalinganire, A., Tchoundjeu, Z., Sinclair, F., Garrity, D., 2012. Cereal yield response to conservation agriculture practices
in drylands of West Africa: a quantitative synthesis. J. Arid Environ. 78,
1325.
Bland, C.J., Meurer, L.N., Maldonado, G., 1995. A systematic approach to conducting
a non-statistical meta-analysis of research literature. Acad. Med. 70, 642653.
Blevins, R.L., Frye, W.W., 1993. Conservation tillage: an ecological approach to soil
management. Adv. Agron. 51, 3378.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., Rothstein, H.R., 2009. Introduction to
Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Hoboken, NJ.
Boulal, H., Gmez-Macpherson, H., 2010. Dynamics of soil organic carbon in an innovative irrigated permanent bed system on sloping land in southern Spain. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 139, 284292.
Boulal, H., Gmez-Macpherson, H., Gmez, J.A., Mateos, L., 2011a. Effect of soil management and trafc on soil erosion in irrigated annual crops. Soil Tillage Res
115-116, 6270.
Boulal, H., Mateos, L., Gmez-Macpherson, H., 2011b. Soil management and trafc
effects on inltration of irrigation water applied using sprinklers. Irrig. Sci. 29,
403412.
Boulal, H., Gmez-Macpherson, H., Villalobos, F., 2012. Permanent bed planting in
irrigated Mediterranean conditions: short-term effects on soil quality, crop yield
and water use efciency. Field Crops Res. 130, 120127.
Bracke, M.S., 2011. Emerging data curation roles for librarians: a case study of agricultural data. J. Agric. Food Inf. 12 (1), 6574.
Cassman, K., Stevenson, J., Serraj, R., 2014. Evaluating conservation agriculture for
small-scale farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 110.
Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, 2010. Guidelines for Systematic
Review in Environmental Management, V 4.0., Environmental evidence:
http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Authors.htm (veried 2/11/2013).
Chauhan, B.S., Gill, G.S., Preston, C., 2006. Tillage system effects on weed ecology, herbicide activity and persistencea review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46,
15571570.
Cucherat, M., Boissel, J.P., Leizorovicz, A., 1997. Manuel Pratique de MetaAnalyse des Essays Therapeutiques, Available at http://www.spc.
univ-lyon1.fr/livreMA/frame.htm (veried 2/11/2013).
Diekmann, F., 2012. Data practices of agricultural scientists: results from an
exploratory study. J. Agric. Food Inf. 13, 1434.
Dore, T., Makowski, D., Malezieux, E., Munier-Jolain, N., Tchamitchian, M., Tittonell, P., 2011. Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensication in
agronomy: revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge. Eur. J. Agron. 34,
197210.
Dubreil, N., 2011. Targeting Conservation Agriculture (CA) Innovations to Combat
Soil Degradation and Food Insecurity in Semi-Arid Africaa Literature Review.
In: M.Sc. Thesis. Land Degradation and Development Group (LDD 80318),
Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Enfors, E., Barron, J., Makurira, H., Rockstrm, J., Tumbo, S., 2011. Yield and soil system
changes from conservation tillage in dryland farming: a case study from North
eastern Tanzania. Agric. Water Manage. 98, 16871695.
Erenstein, O., 2002. Crop residue mulching in tropical and semi-tropical countries:
an evaluation of residue availability and other technological implications. Soil
Tillage Res. 67, 115133.
Erenstein, O., 2009. Specication effects in zero tillage survey data in South Asias
ricewheat systems. Field Crops Res. 111, 166172.
Erenstein, O., 2010. Village surveys for technology uptake monitoring: case of tillage
dynamics in the trans-gangetic plains. Exp. Agric. 46, 277292.
Erenstein, O., 2011. Cropping systems and crop residue management in the transgangetic plains: issues and challenges for conservation agriculture from village
surveys. Agric. Sys. 104, 5462.
Erenstein, O., Farooq, U., Malik, R.K., Sharif, M., 2008. On-farm impacts of zero
tillage wheat in South Asias ricewheat systems. Field Crops Res. 105,
240252.
Evans, J.A., Foster, J.G., 2011. Metaknowledge. Science 331, 721725.
Faniel, I.M., Zimmerman, A., 2011. Beyond the data deluge: a research agenda
for large-scale data sharing and reuse. Int. J. Digital Curation 6 (1),
5869.
FAO, 2008. Conservation Agriculture, 2008-07-08. Available at http://www.fao.org/
ag/ca/index.html (veried 2/11/2013).
Farooq, M., Flower, K.C., Jabran, K., Wahid, A., Siddique, K.H.M., 2011. Crop yield and
weed management in rainfed conservation agriculture. Soil Tillage Res. 117,
172183.
Fink, R.J., Wesley, D., 1974. Corn yields as affected by fertilization and tillage system.
Agron. J. 66, 7071.
Franzluebbers, A.J., Hons, F.M., 1996. Soil-prole distribution of primary and secondary plant-available nutrients under conventional and no tillage. Soil Tillage
Res. 39, 229239.
Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R., Kassam, A., 2011. Global overview of the spread of conservation agriculture , Presentation at the Fifth World Congress of Conservation
Agriculture, Brisbane, 2629 September, http://aciar. gov. au/les/node/
13993/global overview of the spread of conservation agri 71883. pdf
(veried 2/11/2013).
Garca-Ponce, E., Gmez-Macpherson, H., Diallo, O., Djibril, M., Baba, C., Porcel, O.,
Mathieu, B., Comas, J., Mateos, L., Connor, D.J., 2013. Contribution of sorghum to
productivity of small-holder irrigation schemes: on-farm research in the Senegal
River Valley Mauritania. Agric. Syst. 115, 7282.
Giller, K.E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., Tittonell, P., 2009. Conservation agriculture
and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics view. Field Crops Res. 114,
2334.
Giller, K.E., Tittonell, P., Runo, M.C., van Wijk, M.T., Zingore, S., Mapfumo, P., AdjeiNsiah, S., Herrero, M., Chikowo, R., Corbeels, M., Rowe, E.C., Baijukya, F., Mwijage,
A., Smith, J., Yeboah, E., van der Burg, W.J., Sanogo, O.M., Misiko, M., de Ridder,
N., Karanja, S., Kaizzi, C., Kungu, J., Mwale, M., Nwaga, D., Pacini, C., Vanlauwe,
B., 2011. Communicating complexity: integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems to support
innovation and development. Agric. Syst. 104, 191203.
Gilley, J.E., 1995. In: Soil, Water Conservation Society (Ed.), Tillage effects on inltration, surface storage, and overland ow. Farming for a Better Environment,
Ankeny, USA, pp. 4647.
Govaerts, B., Sayre, K.D., Deckers, J., 2006. Towards minimum data sets for soil quality
assessment. The case of zero-tillage wheat/maize rotations in the highlands of
Mexico. Soil Tillage Res. 87, 163174.
Govaerts, B., Sayre, K.D., Lichter, K., Dendooven, L., Deckers, J., 2007. Inuence of permanent raised bed planting and residue management on physical and chemical
soil quality in rain fed maize/wheat systems. Plant Soil 291, 3954.
Govaerts, B., Verhulst, N., Castellanos-Navarrete, A., Sayre, K.D., Dixon, J., Dendooven,
L., 2009. Conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestration: between myth
and farmer reality. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 28, 97122.
Gowing, J.W., Palmer, M., 2008. Sustainable agricultural development in subSaharan Africa: the case for a paradigm shift in land husbandry. Soil Use Manage.
25 (1), 9299.
Grassini, P., Yang, H., Irmak, S., Thorburn, J., Burr, C., Cassman, K.G., 2011.
High-yield irrigated maize in the Western U.S Corn Belt. II. Irrigation
management and crop water productivity. Field Crops Res. 120,
133141.
Grifth, D.R., Mannering, J.V., Moldenhauer, W.C., 1977. Conservation tillage in the
Eastern cornbelt. J. Soil Water Conserv. 32, 2028.
Haggblade, S., Tembo, G., 2003. Development, Diffusion and Impact of Conservation Farming in Zambia. In: Working Paper No. 8. Food Security
Research Project, Lusaka, Zambia, Available at http://www.aec.msu.edu/
fs2/zambia/wp8zambia all.pdf (veried 2/13/2013).
30
Hartwig, R.O., Laen, J.M., 1978. A meterstick method for measuring crop residue
cover. J. Soil Water Conserv. 32, 9091.
He, J., Li, H.-W., Wang, Q.-J., Gao, H.W., Li, W.-Y., Zhang, X.M., McGiffen, M., 2010.
The adoption of conservation tillage in China. Sp. Issue, ecological complexity
and sustainability. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1195, E96E106.
Hernanz, J.L., Lpez, R., Navarrete, L., Snchez-Girn, V., 2002. Long-term effects
of tillage systems and rotations on soil structural stability and organic carbon
stratication in semiarid central Spain. Soil Tillage Res. 66, 129141.
Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S. (Eds.), 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic
Reviews of Interventions v 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, Available at
http://handbook.cochrane.org/ (veried 2/11/2013).
Hobbs, P.R., Sayre, K., Gupta, R., 2008. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 363, 543555.
Hulugalle, N.R., Scott, F., 2008. A review of the changes in soil quality and protability
accomplished by sowing rotation crops after cotton in Australian Vertosols from
1970 to 2006. Aust. J. Soil Res. 46, 173190.
Hunt, L.A., White, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., 2001. Agronomic data: advances in documentation and protocols for exchange and use. Agric. Syst. 70, 477492.
Hunt, L.A., Hoogenboom, G.H., Jones, J.W., White, J.W., 2006. ICASA v. 1.0. Data
Standards for Agricultural Research and Decision Support. ICASA, Honolulu, HI,
www.icasa.net/standards/index.html (veried 2/11/2013).
Ike, I.F., 1986. Soil and crop responses to different tillage practices in a ferruginous
soil in the Nigerian savanna. Soil Tillage Res. 6, 261272.
Jadad, A.R., Cook, D.J., Jones, A., Klassen, T.P., Moher, M., Moher, D., 1998. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. JAMA 280, 278280.
Jiang, X.J., Xie, D.T., 2009. Combining ridge with no-tillage in lowland rice-based
cropping system: long-term effect on soil and rice yield. Pedosphere 19,
515522.
Kirkegaard, J., Christen, O., Krupinsky, J., Layzell, D., 2008. Break crop benets in
temperate wheat production. Field Crops Res. 107, 185195.
Knowler, D., Bradshaw, B., 2007. Farmers adoption of conservation agriculture: a
review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32, 2548.
Kumar, V., Ladha, J.K., 2011. Direct seeding of rice: recent developments and future
research needs. Adv. Agron. 11, 297413.
Laborte, A.G., De Bie, C.A.J.M., Smaling, E.M.A., Moya, P.F., Boling, A.A., 2012. Rice
yields and yield gaps in Southeast Asia: past trends and future outlook. Eur. J.
Agron. 36, 920.
Lahmar, R., Bationo, B.A., Lamso, N.D., Guro, Y., Tittonell, P., 2012. Tailoring conservation agriculture technologies to West Africa semi-arid zones: building on
traditional local practices for soil restoration. Field Crop Res. 132, 158167.
Lal, R., 1997. Long-term tillage and maize monoculture effects on a tropical alsol
in western Nigeria I. Crop yield and soil physical properties. Soil Tillage Res. 42,
145160.
Lal, R., 1998. Soil quality changes under continuous cropping for seventeen seasons
of an alsol in western Nigeria. Land Degrad. Dev. 9, 259274.
Lampurlans, J., Angas, P., Cantero-Martnez, C., 2001. Root growth, soil water content and yield of barley under different tillage systems on two soils in semiarid
conditions. Field Crops Res. 69, 2740.
Lau, J., Antman, E.M., Jimenez-Silva, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F., Chalmers, T.C.,
1992. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction.
New England J. Med. 327, 248254.
Li, Y.X., Tullberg, J.N., Freebairn, D.M., 2007. Wheel trafc and tillage effects on runoff
and crop yield. Soil Tillage Res. 97, 282292.
Light, R.J., Smith, P.V., 1971. Accumulating evidence: procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harv. Educ. Rev. 41,
429471.
Loch, R.J., Donnollan, T.E., 1988. Effects of the amount of stubble mulch and overland
ow on erosion of cracking clay soil under simulated rain. Aust. J. Soil Res. 26,
661672.
Lpez, M.V., Sabre, M., Gracia, R., Arre, J.L., Gomes, L., 1998. Tillage effects on soil
surface conditions and dust emission by wind erosion in semiarid Aragn (NE
Spain). Soil Tillage Res. 45, 91105.
Mahata, K.R., Sen, H.S., Pradhan, S.K., Mandal, L.N., 1990. No tillage and dry ploughing
compared with puddling for wet-season rice on an alluvial sandy clayloam in
Eastern India. J. Agric. Sci. 114, 7986.
Mazvimavi, K., 2011. Socio-economic Analysis of Conservation Agriculture in Southern Africa. In: FAO Network Paper No. 2. FAO Regional Emergency Ofce of
Southern Africa, South Africa, ISBN: 978-92-5-106761-1.
Mishra, J.S., Singh, V.P., 2012. Tillage and weed control effects on productivity of a
dry seeded ricewheat system on a Vertisol in Central India. Soil Tillage Res. 123,
1120.
Mrabet, R., Saber, N., El-Brahli, A., Lahlou, S., Bessam, F., 2001. Total, particulate
organic matter and structural stability of a Calcixeroll soil under different wheat
rotations and tillage systems in a semiarid area of Morocco. Soil Tillage Res. 57,
225235.
Mupangwa, W., Dimes, J., Walker, S., Twomlow, S., 2011. Measuring and simulating
maize (Zea mays L.) yield responses to reduced tillage and mulching under semiarid conditions. Agric. Sci. 2, 167174.
Nix, H.A., 1984. Minimum data sets for agrotechnology transfer. In: Proc.
Int. Symposium on Minimum Data Sets for Agrotechnology Transfer, Patancheru, India, 2126 Mar, 1983, ICRISAT, Patansheru, AP, India,
pp. 181188.
Nkala, P., Mango, N., Corbeels, M., Jan Veldwisch, G., Huising, J., 2011. The conundrum
of conservation agriculture and livelihoods in Southern Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res.
6, 55205528.
Ogle, S.M., Swan, A., Paustian, K., 2012. No-till management impacts on crop productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
149, 3749.
Olaoye, J.O., 2002. Inuence of tillage on crop residue cover, soil properties and yield
components of cowpea in derived savannah ectones of Nigeria. Soil Tillage Res.
64, 179187.
Paul, B.K., Vanlauwe, B., Ayuke, F., Gassner, A., Hoogmoed, M., Hurisso, T.T., Koala, S.,
Lelei, D., Ndabamenye, T., Six, J., Pulleman, M.M., 2013. Medium-term impact of
tillage and residue management on soil aggregate stability, soil carbon and crop
productivity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 164, 1422.
Philibert, A., Loyce, C., Makowski, D., 2012. Assessment of the quality of metaanalysis in agronomy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 148, 7282.
Potter, K.N., Torbert, H.A., Morrison, J.E., 1995. Tillage and residue effects on inltration and sediment losses on vertisols. Trans. ASAE 38, 14131419.
Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., Williams, S., 2011. Sustainable intensication in African agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustainable 9, 524.
Pullin, A.S., Stewart, G.B., 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation
and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 20, 16471656.
Rawson, H.M., Gmez-Macpherson, H., Hossain, A.B.S., Saifuzzaman, M., ur-Rashid,
H., Suan, M.A., Samad, M.A., Sarker, A.Z., Ahmed, F., Talukder, Z.I., Rahman,
M., Siddique, M.M.A.B., Ammin, M., 2007. On-farm wheat trials in Bangladesh:
a study to reduce perceived constraints to yield in traditional wheat areas
and southern lands that remain fallow during the dry season. Exp. Agric. 43,
2140.
Roberts, P.D., Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S., 2006. Are review articles a reliable source of
evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine. Biol. Conserv. 132, 409423.
Rockstrm, J., Kaumbutho, P., Mwalley, J., Nzabi, A.W., Temesgen, M., Mawenya, L.,
Barron, J., Mutua, J., Damgaard-Larsen, S., 2009. Conservation farming strategies
in East and Southern Africa: yields and rain water productivity from on-farm
action research. Soil Tillage Res. 103, 2332.
Roose, E., Kabore, V., Guenat, C., 1419 November, 1994. Le zai, une technique
traditionnelle africaine de rhabilitation des terres dgrades de la rgion
soudano-sahlienne (Burkina Faso) , International Congress La restauration et
la rehabilitation des terres dgrades des zones arides et semi-arides, Tunisia,
pp. 125.
Rosenberg, M.S., Adams, D.C., Gurevitch, J., 1999. MetaWin: Statistical Software for Meta-Analysis v. 2.0. Sinauer Assoc., Sunderland, MA, Available at
http://www.metawinsoft.com/ (veried 2/11/2013).
Rusinamhodzi, L., Corbeels, M., van Wijk, M.T., Runo, M.C., Nyamangara, J., Giller,
K.E., 2011. A meta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation agriculture
on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agron. Sustainable Dev. 31,
657673.
Sackett, D.L., Rosenberg, W.M.C., 1995. The need for evidence-based medicine. J. R.
Soc. Med. 88, 620624.
Sadras, V.O., Angus, J.F., 2006. Benchmarking water-use efciency of rainfed wheat
in dry environments. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 57, 847856.
Schuller, P., Walling, D.E., Sepulveda, A., Castillo, A., Pino, I., 2007. Changes in
soil erosion associated with the shift from conventional tillage to a notillage system, documented using 137 Cs measurements. Soil Tillage Res. 94,
183192.
Shumba, E.M., Waddington, S.R., Rukuni, M., 1992. Use of tine-tillage with Atrazine
weed control, to permit earlier sowing of maize by smallholder farmers in
Zimbabwe. Exp. Agric. 28, 443452.
Silici, L., 2010. Conservation agriculture and sustainable crop intensication in
Lesotho. Integr. Crop Manage. 10, FAO; Rome.
Stewart, G., 2009. Meta-analysis in applied ecology. Biol. Lett. 6, 7881.
Thierfelder, C., Wall, P.C., 2009. Effects of conservation agriculture techniques on
inltration and soil water content in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Soil Tillage Res.
105, 217227.
Thierfelder, C., Mombeyarara, T., Mango, N., Rusinamhodzi, L., 2013a. Integration of conservation agriculture in smallholder farming systems of
southern Africa: identication of key entry points. Int. J. Agric. Sustainable,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2013.764222, in press.
Tittonell, P., Zingore, S., van Wijk, M.T., Corbeels, M., Giller, K.E., 2007. Nutrient use
efciencies and crop responses to N, P and manure applications in Zimbabwean
soils: exploring management strategies across soil fertility gradients. Field Crop
Res. 100, 348368.
Verhulst, N., Govaerts, B., Verachtert, E., Castellanos- Navarrete, A., Mezzalamaa, M.,
Wall, P., Chocobar, A., Deckers, J., Sayre, K.D., 2010. Conservation agriculture,
improving soil quality for sustainable production systems? In: Lal, R., Stewart,
B.A. (Eds.), Advances in Soil Science: Food Security and Soil Quality. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 137208.
Vogel, H., 1993. Tillage effects on maize yield, rooting depth and soilwater content
on sandy soils in Zimbabwe. Field Crops Res. 33, 367384.
Wang, M.C., Bushman, B.J., 2007. Integrating Results through Meta-Analytic Review
Using SAS Software. SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC, USA.
White, J.W., Corbett, J.D., Dobermann, A., 2002. Insufcient geographic characterization and analysis in the planning, execution and dissemination of agronomic
research? Field Crops Res. 76, 4554.
White, J.W., van Evert, F.K., 2008. Publishing Agronomic Data. Agron. J. 100 (5),
13961400.
White, J.W., van Evert, F.K., Flerchinger, G., 2010. Data Access and Interchange
in Agronomic and Natural Resource Management Research: Opportunities,
Challenges, and Ethical Implications. In: ASA-CSSA-SSSA 2010 Interna-
tional Meetings. Long Beach, CA, Available at http://a-c-s.confex.com/
crops/2010am/webprogram/Session7791.html (veried 2/13/2013).
Yuan, Y., Hunt, R.H., 2009. Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am.
J. Gastroenterol. 104, 10861092.
References for Table 3 (already listed in References (above):

Bayala et al., 2012; Dubreil, 2011; Farooq et al., 2011;
Gowing and Palmer, 2008; Nkala et al., 2011; Ogle et al.,
2012; Rusinamhodzi et al., 2011).
Benites, J.R., Ofori, C.S., 1993. Crop production through conservation-effective tillage
in the tropics: soil tillage for agricultural sustainability. Soil Tillage Res. 27, 933.
Erenstein, O., Laxmi, V., 2008. Zero tillage impacts in Indias ricewheat systems: a
review. Soil Tillage Res. 100, 114.
Gupta, R., Seth, A., 2007. A review of resource conserving technologies for sustainable
management of the ricewheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic plains
(IGP): weed science in time of transition. Crop Prot. 26, 436447.
Lal, R., 2006. Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degrad. Dev. 17,
197209.
Pretty, J.N., Noble, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., Penning de Vries, F.W.T., Morison, J.I.L., 2006. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing
countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 11141119.
References for Table 4: Maize (already listed in References

(above): Acharya and Sharma, 1994; Enfors et al., 2011; Ike,
1986; Lal, 1997, 1998)
Agboola, A.A., 1981. The effects of different soil tillage and management practices
on the physical and chemical properties of soil and maize yield in a rainforest
zone of Western Nigeria. Agron. J. 73, 247251.
Anazodo, U.G.N., Onwualu, A.P., Warrst, K.C., 1991. Evaluation of alternative tillage
systems in the absence of herbicides for maize production in a savannah loamy
sand. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 49, 259272.
Ghuman, B.S., Sur, H.S., 2001. Tillage and residue management effects on soil properties and yields of rainfed maize and wheat in a subhumid subtropical climate.
Soil Tillage Res. 58, 110.
Ishaya, D.B., Tunku, P., Kuchinda, N.C., 2008. Evaluation of some weed control treatments for long season weed control in maize (Zea mays L.)
under zero and minimum tillage at Samaru, in Nigeria. Crop Prot. 27,
10471051.
Kamara, C.S., 1986. Mulch-tillage effects on soil loss and soil properties on an ultisol
in the humid tropics. Soil Tillage Res. 8, 131144.
Kayode, J., Ademiluyi, B., 2004. Effect of tillage methods on weed control and maize
performance in southwestern Nigeria location. J. Sustainable Agric. 23, 3945.
Kayombo, B., Lal, R., Mrema, G.C., Jensen, H.E., 1991. Characterizing compaction
effects on soil properties and crop growth in southern Nigeria. Soil Tillage Res.
21, 325345.
Lal, R., 1976. No-tillage effects on soil properties under different crops in western
Nigeria. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40, 762768.
Lal, R., 1986a. Effects of eight tillage treatments on a tropical alsol: maize growth
and yield. J. Sci. Food Agric. 37, 10731082.
Lal, R., 1995. Tillage and mulching effects on maize yield for seventeen consecutive
seasons on a tropical alsol. J. Sustainable Agric. 5, 7993.
Matsumoto, N., Paisancharoen, K., Hakamata, T., 2008. Carbon balance in maize
elds under cattle manure application and no-tillage cultivation in Northeast
Thailand. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 54, 277288.
Maurya, P.R., 1986. Effect of tillage and residue management on maize and wheat
yield and on physical properties of an irrigated sandy loam soil in northern
Nigeria. Soil Tillage Res. 8, 161170.
Ngwira, A.R., Aune, J.B., Mkwinda, S., 2012a. On-farm evaluation of yield
and economic benet of short term maize legume intercropping systems under conservation agriculture in Malawi. Field Crops Res. 132,
149157.
Ngwira, A.R., Thierfelder, C., Lambert, D.M., 2012b. Conservation agriculture
systems for Malawian smallholder farmers: long-term effects on crop
productivity, protability and soil quality. Renewable Agric. Food Syst.,
114.
Ojeniyi, S.O., 1993. Nutrient availability and maize yield under reduced tillage practices. Soil Tillage Res. 26, 8992.
Osuji, G.E., 1984. Water storage, water use and maize yield for tillage systems on a
tropical alsol in Nigeria. Soil Tillage Res. 4, 339348.
Osuji, G.E., Babalola, O., Aboaba, F.O., 1980. Rainfall erosivity and tillage practices
affecting soil and water loss on a tropical soil in Nigeria. J. Environ. Manage. 10,
207217.
Thierfelder, C., Cheesman, S., Rusinamhodzi, L., 2012. A comparative analysis of
conservation agriculture systems: benets and challenges of rotations and intercropping in Zimbabwe. Field Crops Res. 137, 237250.
Thierfelder, C., Wall, P.C., 2012. Effects of conservation agriculture on soil quality and
productivity in contrasting agro-ecological environments of Zimbabwe. Soil Use
Manage. 28, 209220.
31
Thierfelder, C., Mwila, M., Rusinamhodzi, L., 2013b. Conservation agriculture in eastern and southern provinces of Zambia: long-term effects on soil quality and
maize productivity. Soil Tillage Res. 126, 246258.
Thierfelder, C., Chisui, J.L., Gama, M., Cheesman, S., Jere, Z.D., Bunderson, W.T., Eash,
N.S., Rusinamhodzi, L., 2013c. Maize-based conservation agriculture systems in
Malawi: long-term trends in productivity. Field Crops Res. 142, 4757.
References for Table 5: Rice (already listed in References

(above): Jiang and Xie, 2009; Mahata et al., 1990; Mishra and
Singh, 2012)
Ambassa- Kiki, R., Aboubakar, Y., Boulama, T., 1996. Zero-tillage for rice production
on Cameroonian vertisols. Soil Tillage Res. 39, 7584.
Bazaya, B.R., Sen, A., Srivastava, V.K., 2009. Planting methods and nitrogen effects on
crop yield and soil quality under direct seeded rice in the Indo-Gangetic plains
of eastern India. Soil Tillage Res. 105, 2732.
Bhushan, L., Ladha, J.K., Gupta, R.K., Singh, S., Tirol-Padred, A., Saharawata, Y.S., Gathalaa, M., Pathaka, H., 2007. Saving of water and labor in a ricewheat system with
no-tillage and direct seeding technologies. Agron. J. 99, 12881296.
Gathala, M.K., Ladha, J.K., Kumar, V., Saharawat, Y.S., Kumar, V., Sharma, P.K., Sharma,
S., Pathak, H., 2011. Tillage and crop establishment affects sustainability of South
Asian ricewheat system. Agron. J. 103, 961971.
Huang, M., Zou, Y., Feng, Y., Cheng, Z., Mo, Y., Ibrahim, M., Xia, B., Jiang, P., 2011.
No-tillage and direct seeding for super hybrid rice production in riceoilseed
rape cropping system. Eur. J. Agron. 34, 278286.
Kukal, S.S., Singh, Y., Yadav, S., Humphreys, E., Kaur, A., Thaman, S., 2008. Why grain
yield of transplanted rice on permanent raised beds declines with time? Soil
Tillage Res. 99, 267274.
Kushwaha, C.P., Singh, K.P., 2005. Crop productivity and soil fertility in a tropical
dryland agroecosystem: impact of residue and tillage management. Exp. Agric.
41, 3950.
Lal, R., 1986b. Effects of 6 years of continuous no-till or puddling systems on soil
properties and rice (Oryza sativa) yield of a loamy soil. Soil Tillage Res. 8,
181200.
Ogunremi, L.T., Lal, R., Babalola, O., 1986. Effects of tillage and seeding methods
on soil physical properties and yield of upland rice for an ultisol in southeast
Nigeria. Soil Tillage Res. 6, 305324.
Rodrguez, M.S., Lal, R., 1985. Growth and yield of paddy rice as affected by tillage
and nitrogen levels. Soil Tillage Res. 6, 163178.
Sharma, P.K., De Datta, S.K., Redulla, C.A., 1988. Tillage effects on soil physical properties and wetland rice yield. Agron. J. 80, 3439.
Singh, Y., Humphreys, E., Kukal, S.S., Singh, B., Kaur, A., Thaman, S., Prashar, A., Yadav,
S., Kaur, N., Dhillon, S.S., Smith, D.J., Timsina, J., Gajri, P.R., 2009. Crop performance in a permanent raised bed ricewheat cropping system in Punjab, India.
Field Crops Res. 110, 120.
Saharawat, Y.S., Ladha, J.K., Pathak, H., Gathala, M., Chaudhary, N., Jat, M.L., 2012.
Simulation of resource-conserving technologies on productivity, income and
greenhouse gas GHG emission in ricewheat system. J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manage.
3, 922.
Saharawat, Y.S., Singh, B., Malik, R.K., Ladha, J.K., Gathala, M., Jat, M.L., Kumar, V.,
2010. Evaluation of alternative tillage and crop establishment methods in a
ricewheat rotation in North Western IGP. Field Crops Res. 116, 260267.
Saito, K., Azoma, K., Oikeh, S.O., 2010. Combined effects of stylosanthes guianensis
fallow and tillage management on upland rice yield, weeds and soils in southern
Benin. Soil Tillage Res. 107, 5763.
References for Table 6: Sorghum

Agbede, T.M., Ojeniyi, S.O., 2009. Tillage and poultry manure effects on soil fertility
and sorghum yield in southwestern Nigeria. Soil Tillage Res. 104, 7481.
Guzha, A.C., 2004. Effects of tillage on soil microrelief, surface depression storage
and soil water storage. Soil Tillage Res. 76, 105114.
Laddha, K.C., Totawat, K.L., 1997. Effects of deep tillage under rainfed agriculture on
production of sorghum (Sorghum biocolor L Moench) intercropped with green
gram (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) in western India. Soil Tillage Res. 43, 241250.
Mesne, T., Abebe, G., Al-Tawaha, A.R.M., 2005. Effect of reduced tillage and crop
residue ground cover on yield and water use efciency of sorghum (Sorghum
bicolor (L.) Moench) under semi-arid conditions of Ethiopia. World J. Agric. Sci.
1, 152160.
McHugh, O.V., Steenhuis, T.S., Abebe, B., Fernandes, E.C.M., 2007. Performance of
in situ rainwater conservation tillage techniques on dry spell mitigation and erosion control in the drought-prone North Wello zone of the Ethiopian highlands.
Soil Tillage Res. 97, 1936.
Obalum, S.E., Amalu, U.C., Obi, M.E., Wakatsuki, T., 2011. Soil water balance and grain
yield of sorghum under no-till versus conventional tillage with surface mulch
in the derived Savanna zone of southeastern Nigeria. Exp. Agric. 47, 89109.
Omer, M.A., Elamin, E.M., 1997. Effect of tillage and contour diking on sorghum
establishment and yield on sandy clay soil in Sudan. Soil Tillage Res. 43, 229240.
Oudraogo, E., Mando, A., Brussaard, L., Stroosnijder, L., 2007. Tillage and fertility
management effects on soil organic matter and sorghum yield in semi-arid West
Africa. Soil Tillage Res. 94, 6474.
32
References for Table 6: Cowpea (already listed in References

(above): Lal, 1976, 1998; Kamara, 1986; Kayombo et al.,
1991; Olaoye, 2002; Thierfelder et al., 2012)
Adekalu, K.O., Balogun, J.A., Aluko, O.B., Okunade, D.A., Gowing, J.W., Faborode, M.O.,
2009. Runoff water harvesting for dry spell mitigation for cowpea in the savannah belt of Nigeria. Agric. Water Manage. 96, 15021508.
Akinyemi, J.O., Akinpelu, O.E., Olaleye, A.O., 2003. Performance of cowpea under
three tillage systems on an Oxic Paleustalf in southwestern Nigeria. Soil Tillage
Res. 72, 7583.
Khatibu, A.I., Lal, R., Jana, R.K., 1984. Effects of tillage methods and mulching on
erosion and physical properties of a sandy clay loam in an equatorial warm
humid region. Field Crops Res. 8, 239254.
Klaij, M.C., Ntare, B.R., 1995. Rotation and tillage effect on yield of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), and aspects of crop water
balance and soil fertility in a semi-arid tropical environment. J. Agric. Sci.,
Cambridge 124, 3944.

1 s2.0 S0167880913002703 Main PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 s2.0 S0167880913002703 Main PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 187 (2014) 1132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

The impact of conservation agriculture on smallholder agricultural

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 765 496 1489.

(Chauhan et al., 2006) although shifts to perennial weeds must be

Repeatability of the literature search/selection procedure

Analysis of outcome sensitivity to methods or observations

Investigation of publication bias

Applicable for narrative and quantitative reviews alike

Statistical program is made available

Criteria from Philibert et al. (2012).

Field description (no)

Critical identifying information for the

In the context of developing a database that can be augmented, data to

Individual record descriptors

Experimental design and associated details

Benites and Ofori (1993)

Global/crops and systems not specied

Narrative review only

Erenstein and Laxmi (2008)

Latin America, South Asia,

Nkala et al. (2011)

South Africa/crop not specied

Semi-arid Africa/various crops &

Indicate ways to develop best

Pretty et al. (2006)

Rusinamhodzi et al. (2011)

Mostly narrative review w/minimal averaging

References reported separately in References for Table 3.

characterizations of the tillage effects on soils or crop performance

3. Findings on CA yield impacts from the SSA and SA

references from which data were extracted. A noted exception,

but neither programs nor statistical code were made immediately

3.2. Empirical evidence of CA impacts on crop yields

incorporated (0.28 t grain/ha lower on average). The Rusinamhodzi

globe, Rusinamhodzi et al. (2011) found treatment durations of

3.2.1. Linking yield impacts to drivers and pathways

Soil type (texture)

Ngwira et al. (2012b) and

Ngwira et al. (2012a)

Lal (1986a) and Lal (1997)

Thierfelder et al. (2013b)

Thierfelder and Wall (2012)

Thierfelder et al. (2012)

Acharya and Sharma (1994)

Soil moisture (%)

Matsumoto et al. (2008)

Ngwira et al. (2012b) and

Ngwira et al. (2012a)

Lal (1986a) and Lal (1997)

Thierfelder et al. (2013b)

Thierfelder and Wall (2012)

Thierfelder et al. (2012)

Acharya and Sharma (1994)

References reported separately in References for Table 4.

Saito et al. (2010)

sandy clay loam 60

Jiang and Xie

Saito et al. (2010)

Jiang and Xie (2009)

Soil moisture (%)