Abstract
Soil fertility gradients develop on smallholder farms due to preferential allocation of inputs. A multi‐location on‐farm trial was conducted in Meru South, Central Kenya whose overall aim was to test minimum tillage and crop‐residue retention practices in socio‐ecological niches across heterogeneous smallholder farms. We identified three soil fertility classes together with the farmers, namely: good, medium, and poor. In each soil fertility class, two tillage (minimum or regular) and two crop residue (removed or retained) practices were tested for four consecutive seasons. Maize ( Zea mays L.) grain yields in the good fields were above 2.5 Mg ha −1 across cropping seasons and cumulated yields were not influenced by tillage or crop residue management. The grain yields in the medium fields ranged between 1.3 and 5.4 Mg ha −1 and were greater with crop residue retention. In the poor fields, grain yield was <3.6 Mg ha −1 and minimum tillage resulted in yield decrease while crop residue addition did not affect yields. Regular tillage and crop residue removal resulted in largest gross benefits in the good fields ($5376 ha −1 ) while in the medium fields, minimum tillage with residue retention was most profitable ($3214 ha −1 ). Retention of crop residues will give improved maize performance in the medium fields and the prevailing prices favor minimum tillage and crop residue retention. In the poor fields, the emphasis should be on the rehabilitation of soil physical and chemical attributes because none of the tillage and crop residue practices was profitable.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield in good fields exceeded 2.5 Mg ha −1 across seasons.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize ( Zea mays L.) grain yields in the good fields were above 2.5 Mg ha −1 across cropping seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and crop residue management did not influence cumulative maize yield in good fields.
- Treatment
- tillage or crop residue managemente0
- Outcome
- cumulated yieldse0
- Direction
- not influencede0
- Qualifier
- good fieldse1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cumulated yields were not influenced by tillage or crop residue management”
e1“Maize ( Zea mays L.) grain yields in the good fields were above 2.5 Mg ha −1 across cropping seasons”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield in medium fields ranged from 1.3 to 5.4 Mg ha −1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain yields in the medium fields ranged between 1.3 and 5.4 Mg ha −1”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention increased maize grain yield in medium fields.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain yields in the medium fields ranged between 1.3 and 5.4 Mg ha −1 and were greater with crop residue retention”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield in poor fields was below 3.6 Mg ha −1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the poor fields, grain yield was <3.6 Mg ha −1”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage decreased maize yield in poor fields.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the poor fields, grain yield was <3.6 Mg ha −1 and minimum tillage resulted in yield decrease”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding crop residue did not affect maize yield in poor fields.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“crop residue addition did not affect yields”
e1“In the poor fields, grain yield was <3.6 Mg ha −1”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Regular tillage and residue removal gave the largest gross benefit in good fields, $5376 ha −1.
- Treatment
- Regular tillage and crop residue removale0
- Outcome
- gross benefitse0
- Direction
- largeste0
- Value
- $5376 ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- good fieldse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regular tillage and crop residue removal resulted in largest gross benefits in the good fields ($5376 ha −1 )”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage and residue retention was most profitable in medium fields, at $3214 ha −1.
- Treatment
- minimum tillage with residue retentione0
- Outcome
- most profitablee0
- Direction
- most profitablee0
- Value
- $3214 ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- medium fieldse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the medium fields, minimum tillage with residue retention was most profitable ($3214 ha −1 )”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend residue retention for better maize performance in medium fields.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Retention of crop residues will give improved maize performance in the medium fields”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Current prices favor minimum tillage and residue retention.
- Outcome
- favor minimum tillage and crop residue retentione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the prevailing prices favor minimum tillage and crop residue retention”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
No tested tillage and residue practice was profitable in poor fields.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“none of the tillage and crop residue practices was profitable”
e1“In the poor fields, grain yield was <3.6 Mg ha −1”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend rehabilitating soil physical and chemical attributes in poor fields.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the poor fields, the emphasis should be on the rehabilitation of soil physical and chemical attributes”
t0“Maize Cropping Systems”
The same questions in other papers
organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.