Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKimaro, Anthony A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMpanda, Mathewen_US
dc.contributor.authorRioux, J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAynekulu, Ermiasen_US
dc.contributor.authorShaba, S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorThiong'o, M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMutuo, P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAbwanda, Sheila O.en_US
dc.contributor.authorShepherd Ken_US
dc.contributor.authorNeufeldt, Henryen_US
dc.contributor.authorRosenstock, Todd S.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-18T15:55:31Zen_US
dc.date.available2016-03-18T15:55:31Zen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/72655en_US
dc.titleIs conservation agriculture ‘climate-smart’ for maize farmers in the highlands of Tanzania?en_US
cg.identifier.ccafsprojectFP3_SAMPLESen_US
dcterms.abstractConservation agriculture (CA) is promoted extensively to increase the productivity and environmental sustainability of maize production systems across sub-Saharan Africa and is often listed as a climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practice. However, the impacts of CA on food security, resilience/adaptive capacity and climate change mitigation are location-dependent and it is unknown whether CA can simultaneously address CSA’s multiple objectives. Here we evaluate four variations of CA: reduced tillage plus mulch (mulch), reduced tillage plus mulch and leguminous cover crop (Lablab), reduced tillage plus mulch and leguminous trees (CAWT), and reduced tillage plus mulch and nitrogen fertilizer (CA + F)—for their effect on CSA-relevant outcomes in highland Tanzania maize production. By comparison to conventional practice in the region, intensification of maize production by Lablab, CAWT, and CA + F significantly increases yields by 40, 89 and 77 %, respectively. Likewise, rainfall use efficiency was highest in these three treatments and significantly greater than conventional practices in 7 of 12 comparisons. Seasonal and annual greenhouse gas fluxes were similar across all treatments; however, yield-scaled global warming potential (Mg CO2 eq Mg grain−1) was lower in CAWT (2.1–3.1) and CA + F (1.9–2.3) than conventional practice (1.9–8.3), averaging 62 and 68 % of the emission intensity of conventional practice, respectively. The findings demonstrate that CA can deliver benefits consistent with the objectives of CSA for farmers in this region, particularly when soil nitrogen limitation is alleviated, providing other constraints to adoption are removed.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Accessen_US
dcterms.available2015-06-29en_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationKimaro AA, Mpanda M, Rioux J, Aynekulu E, Shaba S, Thiong'o M, Mutuo P, Abwanda S, Shepherd K, Neufeldt H, Rosenstock TS. 2015. Is conservation agriculture 'climate-smart' for maize farmers in the highlands of Tanzania?. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 1-12.en_US
dcterms.extent1-12en_US
dcterms.issued2016-07en_US
dcterms.languageenen_US
dcterms.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLCen_US
dcterms.subjectconservation agricultureen_US
dcterms.subjectclimate smart agricultureen_US
dcterms.subjectmitigationen_US
dcterms.subjectclimate changeen_US
dcterms.subjectagricultureen_US
dcterms.subjectfood securityen_US
dcterms.typeJournal Articleen_US
cg.subject.ccafsLOW EMISSIONS DEVELOPMENTen_US
cg.identifier.urlhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10705-015-9711-8en_US
cg.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-015-9711-8en_US
cg.coverage.regionAfricaen_US
cg.coverage.regionEastern Africaen_US
cg.coverage.countryTanzaniaen_US
cg.contributor.crpClimate Change, Agriculture and Food Securityen_US
cg.coverage.iso3166-alpha2TZen_US
cg.journalNutrient Cycling in Agroecosystemsen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record