Abstract
ABSTRACT Fertiliser microdosing (FM) is widely promoted in sub‐Saharan Africa as a means to improve fertiliser use efficiency in cereal crops. However, combining organic amendments with FM could further increase the agronomic efficiency of the latter because of possible synergies between both practices. This study therefore evaluated whether combining FM with organic amendments enhanced fertiliser use efficiency in sorghum crops and how local biophysical or management factors mediate this interaction. Over 2 years, 225 on‐farm trials were conducted across three provinces of Burkina Faso along a north–south climatic gradient. In the northern (Zandoma) and central (Oubritenga) provinces, eight treatments were tested at each site: FM (N‐P‐K 14–23‐14), hill‐placed compost, hill‐placed compost + FM, hill‐placed compost with rock phosphate (compost‐BP), hill‐placed compost‐BP + FM, hill‐placed biochar, hill‐placed biochar macerated with fertiliser, and control plots. In the Sissili province (south), compost‐BP was replaced by N‐P‐K 23‐10‐05. The highest sorghum yields were observed when FM was combined with compost or compost‐BP. However, yield gains attributable to FM (N‐P‐K 14‐23‐14) were not improved by adding compost, compost‐BP, or biochar compared to FM alone. In Sissili, FM with N‐P‐K 23‐10‐05 outperformed the conventional 14‐23‐14 formulation, highlighting the need to adapt fertiliser blends to agro‐climatic zones. Across all treatments, crop response to FM was strongly soil type‐dependent. In Zandoma, the driest province, it was observed that the residual effects of previous fertiliser applications affected yield response to FM. The results suggest that hill‐placement of macerated biochar or the combination of FM with compost‐BP are not suitable for optimising smallholder sorghum production. Combining FM with compost is recommended where sufficient compost is available. Otherwise, applying FM and compost in different fields or parts of fields is to be recommended. Further research is needed to explain the poor response to macerated biochar in Oubritenga and Zandoma.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
The highest sorghum yields occurred when microdosing was combined with compost.
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest sorghum yields were observed when FM was combined with compost or compost‐BP”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest sorghum yields also occurred when microdosing was combined with compost-BP.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest sorghum yields were observed when FM was combined with compost or compost‐BP”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding compost to FM did not improve yield gains attributable to FM.
- Treatment
- adding composte0
- Outcome
- yield gains attributable to FMe0
- Direction
- not improvede0
- Comparator
- FM alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield gains attributable to FM (N‐P‐K 14‐23‐14) were not improved by adding compost, compost‐BP, or biochar compared to FM alone”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding compost-BP to FM did not improve yield gains attributable to FM.
- Treatment
- adding compost, compost‐BPe0
- Outcome
- yield gains attributable to FMe0
- Direction
- not improvede0
- Comparator
- FM alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield gains attributable to FM (N‐P‐K 14‐23‐14) were not improved by adding compost, compost‐BP, or biochar compared to FM alone”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding biochar to FM did not improve yield gains attributable to FM.
- Treatment
- biochare0
- Outcome
- yield gains attributable to FMe0
- Direction
- not improvede0
- Comparator
- FM alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield gains attributable to FM (N‐P‐K 14‐23‐14) were not improved by adding compost, compost‐BP, or biochar compared to FM alone”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
In Sissili, FM with N-P-K 23-10-05 outperformed N-P-K 14-23-14.
- Treatment
- FM with N‐P‐K 23‐10‐05e0
- Outcome
- outperformede0
- Direction
- outperformede0
- Comparator
- conventional 14‐23‐14 formulatione0
- Setting
- Sissilie0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In Sissili, FM with N‐P‐K 23‐10‐05 outperformed the conventional 14‐23‐14 formulation”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop response to FM depended strongly on soil type.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Across all treatments, crop response to FM was strongly soil type‐dependent”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
In Zandoma, previous fertilizer applications affected sorghum yield response to FM.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In Zandoma, the driest province, it was observed that the residual effects of previous fertiliser applications affected yield response to FM”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors advise against hill placement of macerated biochar for smallholder sorghum production.
- Outcome
- hill‐placement of macerated biochare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“hill‐placement of macerated biochar or the combination of FM with compost‐BP are not suitable for optimising smallholder sorghum production”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors advise against combining FM with compost-BP for smallholder sorghum production.
- Outcome
- combination of FM with compost‐BPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“hill‐placement of macerated biochar or the combination of FM with compost‐BP are not suitable for optimising smallholder sorghum production”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend combining FM with compost when enough compost is available.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combining FM with compost is recommended where sufficient compost is available”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Otherwise, the authors recommend applying FM and compost in different fields or field parts.
- Outcome
- applying FM and compost in different fields or parts of fieldse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applying FM and compost in different fields or parts of fields is to be recommended”
t0“sorghum”
The same questions in other papers
biochar · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
13 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →fertilization · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
417 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
442 papers more in this group
See all 446 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.