Effect of planting technique and amendment type on pearl millet yield, nutrient uptake, and water use on degraded land in Niger
Due to increased population pressure and limited availability of fertile land, farmers on desert fringes increasingly rely on marginal land for agricultural production, which they have learned to rehabilitate with different technologies for soils and water conservation. One such method is the indige...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems 2006-11, Vol.76 (2-3), p.203-217 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 217 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2-3 |
container_start_page | 203 |
container_title | Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems |
container_volume | 76 |
creator | Fatondji, D Martius, C Bielders, C. L Vlek, P. L. G Bationo, A Gerard, B |
description | Due to increased population pressure and limited availability of fertile land, farmers on desert fringes increasingly rely on marginal land for agricultural production, which they have learned to rehabilitate with different technologies for soils and water conservation. One such method is the indigenous zai technique used in the Sahel. It combines water harvesting and targeted application of organic amendments by the use of small pits dug into the hardened soil. To study the resource use efficiency of this technique, experiments were conducted 1999-2000, on-station at ICRISAT in Niger, and on-farm at two locations on degraded lands. On-station, the effect of application rate of millet straw and cattle manure on millet dry matter production was studied. On-farm, the effects of organic amendment type (millet straw and cattle manure, at the rate of 300 g per plant) and water harvesting (with and without water harvesting) on millet grain yield, dry matter production, and water use were studied. First, the comparison of zai vs. flat planting, both unamended, resulted in a 3- to 4-fold (in one case, even 19-fold) increase in grain yield on-farm in both years, which points to the yield effects of improved water harvesting in the zai alone. Zai improved the water use efficiency by a factor of about 2. The yields increased further with the application of organic amendments. Manure resulted in 2-68 times better grain yields than no amendment and 2-7 times better grain yields than millet straw (higher on the more degraded soils). Millet dry matter produced per unit of manure N or K was higher than that of millet straw, a tendency that was similar for all rates of application. Zai improved nutrient uptake in the range of 43-64% for N, 50-87% for P and 58-66% for K. Zai increased grain yield produced per unit N (8 vs. 5 kg kg-¹) and K (10 vs. 6 kg kg-¹) compared to flat; so is the effect of cattle manure compared to millet straw (9 vs. 4 kg kg-¹, and 14 vs. 3 kg kg-¹), respectively, Therefore zai shows a good potential for increasing agronomic efficiency and nutrient use efficiency. Increasing the rate of cattle manure application from 1 to 3 t ha-¹ increased the yield by 115% TDM, but increasing the manure application rate further from 3 to 5 t ha-¹ only gave an additional 12% yield increase, which shows that optimum application rates are around 3t ha-¹. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10705-005-6209-9 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19608356</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>19608356</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-d9bcc6b508d3437d103a39c1161974488c0043b0e05937341d49253c4ead84ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkcFuFSEUhidGE2v1AVxJYuKqo-cMMMDSNNU2aXShXRMunLlS586MwKS5K19dpteVGxcnkPB9hJ-_aV4jvEcA9SEjKJAt1Ok7MK150pyhVLwF3aundc-1bJGjeN68yPkeqsO1OGt-Xw0D-cLmgS2jm0qc9qyQ_zHFXysxNwXmDjSFOoWV40JsnthCLo3sEMeRCjtGGsMFm9aS4gatS3E_6eJRfXCFElvzoxVon1ygwMbtKE7sS9xTetk8G9yY6dXf9by5-3T1_fK6vf36-eby423rRa9LG8zO-34nQQcuuAoI3HHjEXs0SgitPYDgOyCQhisuMAjTSe4FuaAFDfy8eXe6d0lzTZaLPcTsaayPoXnNVqhOw_Zh_wPR9KC57Cv49h_wfl7TVEPYrpNGd0JpWSk8UT7NOSca7JLiwaWjRbBbc_bUnK3N2a05a6rz5uQMbrZun2K2d986QA6IqGsw_gfMgJQX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2259824785</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of planting technique and amendment type on pearl millet yield, nutrient uptake, and water use on degraded land in Niger</title><source>SpringerLink (Online service)</source><creator>Fatondji, D ; Martius, C ; Bielders, C. L ; Vlek, P. L. G ; Bationo, A ; Gerard, B</creator><creatorcontrib>Fatondji, D ; Martius, C ; Bielders, C. L ; Vlek, P. L. G ; Bationo, A ; Gerard, B</creatorcontrib><description>Due to increased population pressure and limited availability of fertile land, farmers on desert fringes increasingly rely on marginal land for agricultural production, which they have learned to rehabilitate with different technologies for soils and water conservation. One such method is the indigenous zai technique used in the Sahel. It combines water harvesting and targeted application of organic amendments by the use of small pits dug into the hardened soil. To study the resource use efficiency of this technique, experiments were conducted 1999-2000, on-station at ICRISAT in Niger, and on-farm at two locations on degraded lands. On-station, the effect of application rate of millet straw and cattle manure on millet dry matter production was studied. On-farm, the effects of organic amendment type (millet straw and cattle manure, at the rate of 300 g per plant) and water harvesting (with and without water harvesting) on millet grain yield, dry matter production, and water use were studied. First, the comparison of zai vs. flat planting, both unamended, resulted in a 3- to 4-fold (in one case, even 19-fold) increase in grain yield on-farm in both years, which points to the yield effects of improved water harvesting in the zai alone. Zai improved the water use efficiency by a factor of about 2. The yields increased further with the application of organic amendments. Manure resulted in 2-68 times better grain yields than no amendment and 2-7 times better grain yields than millet straw (higher on the more degraded soils). Millet dry matter produced per unit of manure N or K was higher than that of millet straw, a tendency that was similar for all rates of application. Zai improved nutrient uptake in the range of 43-64% for N, 50-87% for P and 58-66% for K. Zai increased grain yield produced per unit N (8 vs. 5 kg kg-¹) and K (10 vs. 6 kg kg-¹) compared to flat; so is the effect of cattle manure compared to millet straw (9 vs. 4 kg kg-¹, and 14 vs. 3 kg kg-¹), respectively, Therefore zai shows a good potential for increasing agronomic efficiency and nutrient use efficiency. Increasing the rate of cattle manure application from 1 to 3 t ha-¹ increased the yield by 115% TDM, but increasing the manure application rate further from 3 to 5 t ha-¹ only gave an additional 12% yield increase, which shows that optimum application rates are around 3t ha-¹.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1385-1314</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0867</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10705-005-6209-9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers</publisher><subject>Agricultural production ; Agronomy ; animal manures ; Bovidae ; Cattle ; Cattle manure ; Cenchrus americanus ; crop residues ; Crop yield ; Dry matter ; dry matter accumulation ; Efficiency ; Farms ; fertilizer rates ; Grain ; grain yield ; Land degradation ; Manures ; Millet ; millets ; mulching ; Niger ; nitrogen ; Nutrient uptake ; organic fertilizers ; Pennisetum glaucum ; phosphorus ; plant nutrition ; Planting ; potassium ; Sahel ; Soil conservation ; Soil degradation ; soil fertility ; Soil water ; soil water content ; Straw ; tillage ; Water conservation ; Water harvesting ; Water use ; Water use efficiency ; zai (water harvesting)</subject><ispartof>Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 2006-11, Vol.76 (2-3), p.203-217</ispartof><rights>Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems is a copyright of Springer, (2006). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-d9bcc6b508d3437d103a39c1161974488c0043b0e05937341d49253c4ead84ef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-d9bcc6b508d3437d103a39c1161974488c0043b0e05937341d49253c4ead84ef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fatondji, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martius, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bielders, C. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlek, P. L. G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bationo, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerard, B</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of planting technique and amendment type on pearl millet yield, nutrient uptake, and water use on degraded land in Niger</title><title>Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems</title><description>Due to increased population pressure and limited availability of fertile land, farmers on desert fringes increasingly rely on marginal land for agricultural production, which they have learned to rehabilitate with different technologies for soils and water conservation. One such method is the indigenous zai technique used in the Sahel. It combines water harvesting and targeted application of organic amendments by the use of small pits dug into the hardened soil. To study the resource use efficiency of this technique, experiments were conducted 1999-2000, on-station at ICRISAT in Niger, and on-farm at two locations on degraded lands. On-station, the effect of application rate of millet straw and cattle manure on millet dry matter production was studied. On-farm, the effects of organic amendment type (millet straw and cattle manure, at the rate of 300 g per plant) and water harvesting (with and without water harvesting) on millet grain yield, dry matter production, and water use were studied. First, the comparison of zai vs. flat planting, both unamended, resulted in a 3- to 4-fold (in one case, even 19-fold) increase in grain yield on-farm in both years, which points to the yield effects of improved water harvesting in the zai alone. Zai improved the water use efficiency by a factor of about 2. The yields increased further with the application of organic amendments. Manure resulted in 2-68 times better grain yields than no amendment and 2-7 times better grain yields than millet straw (higher on the more degraded soils). Millet dry matter produced per unit of manure N or K was higher than that of millet straw, a tendency that was similar for all rates of application. Zai improved nutrient uptake in the range of 43-64% for N, 50-87% for P and 58-66% for K. Zai increased grain yield produced per unit N (8 vs. 5 kg kg-¹) and K (10 vs. 6 kg kg-¹) compared to flat; so is the effect of cattle manure compared to millet straw (9 vs. 4 kg kg-¹, and 14 vs. 3 kg kg-¹), respectively, Therefore zai shows a good potential for increasing agronomic efficiency and nutrient use efficiency. Increasing the rate of cattle manure application from 1 to 3 t ha-¹ increased the yield by 115% TDM, but increasing the manure application rate further from 3 to 5 t ha-¹ only gave an additional 12% yield increase, which shows that optimum application rates are around 3t ha-¹.</description><subject>Agricultural production</subject><subject>Agronomy</subject><subject>animal manures</subject><subject>Bovidae</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Cattle manure</subject><subject>Cenchrus americanus</subject><subject>crop residues</subject><subject>Crop yield</subject><subject>Dry matter</subject><subject>dry matter accumulation</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>fertilizer rates</subject><subject>Grain</subject><subject>grain yield</subject><subject>Land degradation</subject><subject>Manures</subject><subject>Millet</subject><subject>millets</subject><subject>mulching</subject><subject>Niger</subject><subject>nitrogen</subject><subject>Nutrient uptake</subject><subject>organic fertilizers</subject><subject>Pennisetum glaucum</subject><subject>phosphorus</subject><subject>plant nutrition</subject><subject>Planting</subject><subject>potassium</subject><subject>Sahel</subject><subject>Soil conservation</subject><subject>Soil degradation</subject><subject>soil fertility</subject><subject>Soil water</subject><subject>soil water content</subject><subject>Straw</subject><subject>tillage</subject><subject>Water conservation</subject><subject>Water harvesting</subject><subject>Water use</subject><subject>Water use efficiency</subject><subject>zai (water harvesting)</subject><issn>1385-1314</issn><issn>1573-0867</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkcFuFSEUhidGE2v1AVxJYuKqo-cMMMDSNNU2aXShXRMunLlS586MwKS5K19dpteVGxcnkPB9hJ-_aV4jvEcA9SEjKJAt1Ok7MK150pyhVLwF3aundc-1bJGjeN68yPkeqsO1OGt-Xw0D-cLmgS2jm0qc9qyQ_zHFXysxNwXmDjSFOoWV40JsnthCLo3sEMeRCjtGGsMFm9aS4gatS3E_6eJRfXCFElvzoxVon1ygwMbtKE7sS9xTetk8G9yY6dXf9by5-3T1_fK6vf36-eby423rRa9LG8zO-34nQQcuuAoI3HHjEXs0SgitPYDgOyCQhisuMAjTSe4FuaAFDfy8eXe6d0lzTZaLPcTsaayPoXnNVqhOw_Zh_wPR9KC57Cv49h_wfl7TVEPYrpNGd0JpWSk8UT7NOSca7JLiwaWjRbBbc_bUnK3N2a05a6rz5uQMbrZun2K2d986QA6IqGsw_gfMgJQX</recordid><startdate>20061101</startdate><enddate>20061101</enddate><creator>Fatondji, D</creator><creator>Martius, C</creator><creator>Bielders, C. L</creator><creator>Vlek, P. L. G</creator><creator>Bationo, A</creator><creator>Gerard, B</creator><general>Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20061101</creationdate><title>Effect of planting technique and amendment type on pearl millet yield, nutrient uptake, and water use on degraded land in Niger</title><author>Fatondji, D ; Martius, C ; Bielders, C. L ; Vlek, P. L. G ; Bationo, A ; Gerard, B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-d9bcc6b508d3437d103a39c1161974488c0043b0e05937341d49253c4ead84ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Agricultural production</topic><topic>Agronomy</topic><topic>animal manures</topic><topic>Bovidae</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Cattle manure</topic><topic>Cenchrus americanus</topic><topic>crop residues</topic><topic>Crop yield</topic><topic>Dry matter</topic><topic>dry matter accumulation</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>fertilizer rates</topic><topic>Grain</topic><topic>grain yield</topic><topic>Land degradation</topic><topic>Manures</topic><topic>Millet</topic><topic>millets</topic><topic>mulching</topic><topic>Niger</topic><topic>nitrogen</topic><topic>Nutrient uptake</topic><topic>organic fertilizers</topic><topic>Pennisetum glaucum</topic><topic>phosphorus</topic><topic>plant nutrition</topic><topic>Planting</topic><topic>potassium</topic><topic>Sahel</topic><topic>Soil conservation</topic><topic>Soil degradation</topic><topic>soil fertility</topic><topic>Soil water</topic><topic>soil water content</topic><topic>Straw</topic><topic>tillage</topic><topic>Water conservation</topic><topic>Water harvesting</topic><topic>Water use</topic><topic>Water use efficiency</topic><topic>zai (water harvesting)</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fatondji, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martius, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bielders, C. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlek, P. L. G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bationo, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerard, B</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fatondji, D</au><au>Martius, C</au><au>Bielders, C. L</au><au>Vlek, P. L. G</au><au>Bationo, A</au><au>Gerard, B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of planting technique and amendment type on pearl millet yield, nutrient uptake, and water use on degraded land in Niger</atitle><jtitle>Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems</jtitle><date>2006-11-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>2-3</issue><spage>203</spage><epage>217</epage><pages>203-217</pages><issn>1385-1314</issn><eissn>1573-0867</eissn><abstract>Due to increased population pressure and limited availability of fertile land, farmers on desert fringes increasingly rely on marginal land for agricultural production, which they have learned to rehabilitate with different technologies for soils and water conservation. One such method is the indigenous zai technique used in the Sahel. It combines water harvesting and targeted application of organic amendments by the use of small pits dug into the hardened soil. To study the resource use efficiency of this technique, experiments were conducted 1999-2000, on-station at ICRISAT in Niger, and on-farm at two locations on degraded lands. On-station, the effect of application rate of millet straw and cattle manure on millet dry matter production was studied. On-farm, the effects of organic amendment type (millet straw and cattle manure, at the rate of 300 g per plant) and water harvesting (with and without water harvesting) on millet grain yield, dry matter production, and water use were studied. First, the comparison of zai vs. flat planting, both unamended, resulted in a 3- to 4-fold (in one case, even 19-fold) increase in grain yield on-farm in both years, which points to the yield effects of improved water harvesting in the zai alone. Zai improved the water use efficiency by a factor of about 2. The yields increased further with the application of organic amendments. Manure resulted in 2-68 times better grain yields than no amendment and 2-7 times better grain yields than millet straw (higher on the more degraded soils). Millet dry matter produced per unit of manure N or K was higher than that of millet straw, a tendency that was similar for all rates of application. Zai improved nutrient uptake in the range of 43-64% for N, 50-87% for P and 58-66% for K. Zai increased grain yield produced per unit N (8 vs. 5 kg kg-¹) and K (10 vs. 6 kg kg-¹) compared to flat; so is the effect of cattle manure compared to millet straw (9 vs. 4 kg kg-¹, and 14 vs. 3 kg kg-¹), respectively, Therefore zai shows a good potential for increasing agronomic efficiency and nutrient use efficiency. Increasing the rate of cattle manure application from 1 to 3 t ha-¹ increased the yield by 115% TDM, but increasing the manure application rate further from 3 to 5 t ha-¹ only gave an additional 12% yield increase, which shows that optimum application rates are around 3t ha-¹.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers</pub><doi>10.1007/s10705-005-6209-9</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1385-1314 |
ispartof | Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 2006-11, Vol.76 (2-3), p.203-217 |
issn | 1385-1314 1573-0867 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19608356 |
source | SpringerLink (Online service) |
subjects | Agricultural production Agronomy animal manures Bovidae Cattle Cattle manure Cenchrus americanus crop residues Crop yield Dry matter dry matter accumulation Efficiency Farms fertilizer rates Grain grain yield Land degradation Manures Millet millets mulching Niger nitrogen Nutrient uptake organic fertilizers Pennisetum glaucum phosphorus plant nutrition Planting potassium Sahel Soil conservation Soil degradation soil fertility Soil water soil water content Straw tillage Water conservation Water harvesting Water use Water use efficiency zai (water harvesting) |
title | Effect of planting technique and amendment type on pearl millet yield, nutrient uptake, and water use on degraded land in Niger |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T15%3A29%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20planting%20technique%20and%20amendment%20type%20on%20pearl%20millet%20yield,%20nutrient%20uptake,%20and%20water%20use%20on%20degraded%20land%20in%20Niger&rft.jtitle=Nutrient%20cycling%20in%20agroecosystems&rft.au=Fatondji,%20D&rft.date=2006-11-01&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=203&rft.epage=217&rft.pages=203-217&rft.issn=1385-1314&rft.eissn=1573-0867&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10705-005-6209-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E19608356%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2259824785&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |