Experimental Agriculture (2022), vol. 58, e7, 1–17
doi:10.1017/S0014479721000247
REVIEW
Unravelling causes of poor crop response to
applied N and P fertilizers on African soils‡
Gudeta W. Sileshi1,2,* , Job Kihara3, Lulseged Tamene4, Bernard Vanlauwe5, Elijah Phiri6 and
Bashir Jama7
1Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2School of
Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 3International
Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), c/o ICIPE Duduville Complex, Nairobi, Kenya, 4International Center for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT), Sub-regional Office for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 5International Institute for Tropical Agriculture
(IITA), c/o ICIPE Duduville Complex, Nairobi, Kenya, 6University of Zambia, Department of Soil Science, Lusaka, Zambia
and 7Islamic Development Bank, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
*Corresponding author. Email: sileshigw@gmail.com
(Received 20 July 2021; revised 15 November 2021; accepted 01 December 2021)
Summary
A number of studies across sub-Saharan Africa have recently reported poor crop responses and low agro-
nomic use efficiencies of applied nitrogen (AEN), phosphorus (AEP) and potassium (AEK). However, the
conditions under which non-responsiveness occurs, its underlying causes and its probability of occurrence on
different soil types are not well understood. Using data from 542 sites and 14 soil types in 23 African coun-
tries, we provide novel insights into the linkage between lack of response to applied N, P and K, the miner-
alogy of soils and their resilience to erosion. We estimated mean responses as well as the probabilities (ϕ) of
no response in terms of response ratio (RR), yield gain (YG) and agronomic efficiency. Here we defined ‘no
response’ as zero agronomic response to fertilizer inputs in a given site and year indexed by either RR≤ 1,
AEN≤ 0, AEP≤ 0 or AEK≤ 0. The highest risks of no response were recorded on the iron-rich Plinthosols
(ϕ= 0.26) followed by the aluminium-rich Alisols (ϕ= 0.16) and the erosion-prone Lixisols (ϕ= 0.16) and
Leptosols (ϕ= 0.13). In terms of yield gains, the highest risk of low response (i.e., YG≤ 0.5) was recorded on
Alisols (ϕ= 0.47) and the lowest on Fluvisols (ϕ= 0.05). Cambisols, Fluvisols, Luvisols and Nitisols were
deemed highly responsive to NPK fertilizer. The risks of no response were significantly higher on soils
derived from siliceous than mafic parent materials, soil types with low resilience to erosion, soils with
low-activity clays and high P fixation capacity. It is concluded that maize grain yields can exceed 3 t ha-
1 with high probability (ϕ> 0.80) on Andosols, Nitisols and Vertisols, but with very low probability
(ϕ< 0.30) on Alisols and Arenosols. It is also concluded that across soil types and agroecological zones,
the risk of no response is up to two times more on farmers’ fields than on research stations. Here, we discuss
the implications of these finding for the design and location of future agronomic trials. We also provide
insights to guide the targeting of fertilizer subsidies where nutrients can be more efficiently used.
Keywords: Alisols; Andosols; Cambisols; Luvisols; Nitisols; Phaeozems; Resilience; Saturated fertility
Introduction
In most of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), crop production is practiced on highly variable soils, which
have different biophysical constraints (Jones et al., 2013). A growing number of studies have
shown that crops respond favourably to nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K)
‡The original version of this article was published with incorrect funding information. A notice detailing this has been pub-
lished and the errors rectified in the online PDF and HTML version.
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduc-
tion, provided the original article is properly cited.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
2 Gudeta W. Sileshi et al.
fertilizers on some soils; but they do not respond in any significant manner on other soils, which
are now called ‘non-responsive soils’ (Ichami et al., 2019; Kihara et al., 2016; Nziguheba et al.,
2021; Roobroeck et al., 2021; Vanlauwe et al., 2011). The problem of non-responsive soils is both
widespread and severe in some countries. For example, in diagnostic trials across sites in Kenya,
Malawi, Mali, Nigeria and Tanzania, 25% of the fields were non-responsive, whereas 28% showed
low response to any nutrient amendment (Kihara et al., 2016). In nutrient omission trials con-
ducted on farmers’ fields across three states of Nigeria, Shehu et al. (2018) found 9–16% of the
maize fields to be non-responsive to any nutrient application. In a recent meta-analysis, non-
responsive soils constituted 14% for Kenya and 11% for SSA (Ichami et al., 2019). In a study
by Roobroeck et al. (2021), NPK fertilizers also failed to increase maize yields by more than
0.5 t ha−1 in up to 68 % of the farmers’ fields in western Kenya, eastern DR Congo, west-central
Tanzania and northern Nigeria. Using data sets from 41 on-farm fertilizer response trials
across 11 countries, Nziguheba et al. (2021) estimated the proportion of non-responsive fields
at 4.9% for cereals and 17% for legumes. Nziguheba et al. (2021) further estimated that roughly
0.3–2.5 million ha of cereal and 3.2–4.6 million ha of legume fields could be non-responsive in any
particular year. Poor and variable crop responses to nutrient inputs may pose a barrier to fertilizer
adoption (Nziguheba et al., 2021). However, non-responsiveness is neither well-defined nor its
extent and causes fully understood in SSA (Roobroeck et al., 2021; Ichami et al., 2019).
The frequently cited causes of low response include farmer management practices, soil organic
matter (SOM) content, clay content, soil acidity, nutrient deficiencies and imbalances, soil mois-
ture deficits and competition by parasitic weeds (Ichami et al., 2019; Kihara et al., 2016; Njoroge
et al., 2018; Roobroeck et al., 2021; Vanlauwe et al., 2011). Although farmer’s field management
may play a key role in crop response, management alone may not explain the broader occurrence
of non-responsiveness. Nor was SOM a defining factor where soil organic carbon (SOC) content
was low for all the response classes in studies by Kihara et al. (2016) and Njoroge et al. (2018). The
application of secondary nutrients and micronutrients also did not significantly increase response
to N and P on some soil types (Kihara et al., 2017). Even under good organic input management,
maize yield responses to N, P and K fertilizer inputs have been very modest. The median yield gain
over the no-input control was 0.6 t ha−1 with green manure legumes (Sileshi et al., 2008) and
1.3 t ha−1 with animal manure applied in excess of 10 t ha−1 yr-1 (Sileshi et al., 2017; 2019).
Thus, the problem of non-responsive soils remains a conundrum. It is also not clear under what
conditions and with what probability non-responsiveness occurs on farmers’ fields. More recent
analyses focusing on fertilizer and grain prices also reveal considerable variation in the profitabil-
ity of fertilizers within countries (Bonilla-Cedrez et al., 2021). This emphasizes the need for tai-
loring fertilizer recommendations to smaller areas targeting localized environmental conditions
(Bonilla-Cedrez et al., 2021).
African soils have been derived from diverse parent materials and mineralogical composition
(Jones et al., 2013; Towett et al., 2015) that cause significant variability in crop response to nutrient
inputs (Sileshi et al., 2010). Patterns of variation in element concentrations in SSA are largely due
to the high variability in mineralogy (Towett et al., 2015). Clay minerals, mainly composed of
silica, aluminium (Al), iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) oxides, play an important role in the supply,
retention and fixation of many macronutrients and micronutrients (Batjes, 2011; Florence et al.,
2017; Jones et al., 2013). Generally, soils with low-activity clay minerals have low capacity to sup-
ply nutrients than do high-activity clay minerals (Jones et al., 2013). Soils that contain 2:1 clay
minerals can fix NH4 and K within their lattice structures (Florence et al., 2017; Scherer et al.,
2014), whereas soils rich in 1:1 clay minerals and amorphous clay (e.g., allophane) have a high
capacity for P fixation (Batjes, 2011). The capacity of clay minerals to fix nutrients can influence
responsiveness of soils to applied N, P and K inputs. Thus, the full agronomic potential of fertilizer
inputs cannot be realised unless the conditions under which non-responsiveness occurs and its
underlying causes are identified, and measures are formulated to address the specific limitations
on a case-by-case basis.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Experimental Agriculture 3
Table 1. Soil type, the number of countries and sites covered in this analysis (details in supplementary material tables S1),
total number of observations (N), resilience to erosion, clay activity, P fixation capacity, clay content, sand content, cation
exchange capacity (CEC in cmolc kg-1), base saturation percentage (BSP), pH and soil organic carbon (SOC) content
Soil Countries Sites* Parent material‖ Resilience§ Clay activity† P fixation‡ CEC BSP (%) pH SOC (%)
Acrisols 10 44 Intermediate Low Low V. High 14.0 3 4.2 1.6
Alisols 4 9 Intermediate Low High High 7.8 6 3.3 0.6
Andosols 4 42 Mafic Low High V. High 39.2 2 4.9 5.8
Arenosols 6 18 Silicic Low Low Low 1.1 100 7.2 0.1
Cambisols 5 34 Intermediate High High Low 20.0 63 5.2 4.4
Ferralsols 12 66 Intermediate High Low V. High 5.7 5 4.2 1.5
Fluvisols 6 17 Intermediate High High Moderate 27.7 100 6.5 3.3
Leptosols 8 45 Intermediate Low Low Low 14.5 100 6.8 0.1
Lixisols 10 66 Silicic Low Low High 4.1 100 6.9 0.2
Luvisols 8 55 Intermediate High High Low 15.3 93 7.5 1.1
Nitisols 7 86 Mafic High Low High 15.0 63 5.7 2.0
Phaeozems 3 12 Mafic High High Low 33.4 63 6.2 1.9
Plinthosols 7 27 Intermediate Low Low High 11.9 88 5.9 NA
Vertisols 4 21 Mafic High High Moderate 76.7 100 7.5 NA
NA = not available.*Site represents geographic areas at district or comparable level, where several farms were covered.
†Clay activity classes are as defined in Jones et al. (2013).
‡P fixation categories are as defined in Batjes (2011).
§Resilience to degradation following Stocking (2003) and IUSS (2014).
‖Parent material is defined in Supplementary Table S2.
Although recent meta-analyses and reviews (e.g., Ichami et al., 2019; Jama et al., 2017; Kihara
et al., 2017; Sileshi et al., 2010) have shown variations in maize yield response to N, P and
K fertilizers with soil type, the underlying mechanisms for lack of response remain unclear.
The linkage between crop response and parent materials, clay mineralogy and the resilience of
soils to erosion has also received little attention in SSA. Examining these linkages can provide
useful insights into the pervasive problem of non-responsive soils. Therefore, the objectives of
this study were to (1) quantify the relative risks of “no response” to N, P and K inputs on different
soil types and (2) determine the linkage between crop response, parent materials and the miner-
alogy of soils and their resilience to erosion. Resilience refers to the intrinsic susceptibility of the
soil to erosion and attendant degradation (Stocking, 2003). We hypothesise that (1) responsive-
ness to N, P and K fertilizers is linked to their mineralogy and resilience to erosion and (2) the risk
of no response is higher on farmers’ fields than on research stations across soil types.
Methods
For all analyses, we used maize yield because maize is a strategic crop in most countries in SSA,
and more than 200 million people depend on it as a source of food and income (Abate et al., 2017).
Maize was also chosen because data were widely available from research stations and farmers’
fields to test our hypothesis. But we believe the insights gained can be applicable to other crops.
Data compilation
We compiled a large data set on maize grain yield (in t ha−1) with N, P and K fertilizer and the
corresponding yield from the control (without any external nutrient inputs) on 542 sites across 23
countries (Table 1) accounting for over 90% of the maize area harvested in SSA. The sites covered
all agroecological zones (Figure 1a) and most of the soil types on which maize is grown (Table 1;
Figure 1b). We retrieved the data from trials conducted under 23 projects supported by the Alliance
for a Green Revolution in Africa, eight legacy data sets, and 147 peer-reviewed studies
(Supplementary Table S1). The legacy data sets included trials implemented by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and the International
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
4 Gudeta W. Sileshi et al.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. (a) Map of agroecological zones and trial sites across Africa and (b) the percentage area of continental Africa
covered by each of the soil types included in this study (Data from Jones et al., 2013).
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Experimental Agriculture 5
Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) across SSA. When extracting data, we only included studies
that used improved cultivars of maize grown with fertilizer and the same cultivar grown without
fertilizer. We also included data only when yield data came from N application rates of at least
48 kg N ha−1 and 10 kg P ha−1 on elemental basis. These minimum N and P rates were required
because levels below those were deemed to be inadequate to satisfy the requirement of a maize cul-
tivar with yields exceeding 3 t ha−1. Improved cultivars of maize on average use 24 kg N ha−1 and 12
kg P ha−1 to produce 1 t ha−1 of maize grain (Zingore et al., 2014). Therefore, N and P rates below
these will not have enabled us to detect the yield response of improved maize cultivars. The 3 t ha−1
yield target corresponds to the minimum required to kick start the African green revolution
(Sánchez, 2015). In all trials, all agronomic practices, including weeding, planting date, density, were
applied optimally following the recommended practices for the site.
For each trial site, we extracted grain yield, the amount of N, P and K fertilizer applied
(in kg ha−1), the geographic coordinates, agroecological zones (AEZ), elevation and information
on soil type where available. Across the sites, the median N rate, P rate and K rate were 80, 20
and 25 kg ha−1, respectively. The K fertilizer was applied only on 45.9% of the sites, and therefore
our primary focus is on N and P response. On some of the sites where K fertilizer was applied, the
rates were not mentioned. Therefore, we created an additional category for K application coded as
‘applied’ or ‘omitted’. Soil pH, SOM, sand and clay content of the till layer (0–20 cm depth) of the trial
sites were also extracted from the studies as these are considered to be fundamental indicators of the
agricultural potential of a soil (Gray et al., 2009). Since some studies had reported soil organic carbon
(SOC), to facilitate analysis we converted all SOM to SOC by dividing SOM by 1.72. We have pre-
sented the SOC, pH, clay and sand content of the different soil type in the form of box and whisker
plots in Supplementary Figures S1 and S2. In addition, we extracted the base saturation percentage
(BSP), cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH and SOC content from ISSS (1998). We also extracted
information about clay activity of the different soil types from Gray et al. (2011) and ISSS (1998).
The soil type strictly refers to the WRB Reference Soil Groups (RSG) and the Soil Atlas of
Africa (IUSS, 2014; Dewitte et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2013). The third edition of theWRB published
in 2014 (IUSS, 2014) provides the most up-to-date classification of soils of the world. This edition
has replaced Albeluvisols of earlier edition with Retisols and Lithosols with Leptosols. It has also
broadened the definition of Gleysols and Arenosols and narrowed the definition of Acrisols,
Alisols, Luvisols and Lixisols (IUSS, 2014). Therefore, we assigned older soil names and those
given in other systems to the updated WRB RSG through pro parte matching. When soil type
was not given for a site, we extracted the information from the harmonised Soil Atlas of
Africa (Jones et al., 2013) using the locational information. Accordingly, we identified a total
of 14 RSGs from the trial sites (Table 1; Supplementary Table S1). These are briefly described
below following the mineralogy of their parent materials (Supplementary Table S2) and soil-
forming processes as described in Gray et al. (2011) and (IUSS, 2014). Based on their parent mate-
rials, soils are often classified as calcareous, silicic or mafic (Gray et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2013).
Calcareous parent materials include limestone, dolomite, calcareous shale and sands with >50%
CaCO3 or MgCO3 (Gray et al., 2011). Silicic (also called acidic) refers to rocks that contain sig-
nificant amounts of silica (>68% Si), while intermediate parent materials contain 52–68% Si. The
termmafic (basic) is applied to rocks with relatively low amounts of silica (45–52% Si) (Gray et al.,
2011). The 14 RSGs of the trial sites in alphabetic order are Acrisols, Alisols, Andosols, Arenosols,
Cambisols, Ferralsols, Fluvisols, Leptosols, Lixisols, Luvisols, Nitisols, Phaeozems, Plinthosols and
Vertisols together covering 85% of the land area of continental Africa (Figure 1b).
Acrisols are weathering products of a wide variety of intermediate parent material under humid
climates (Gray et al., 2011). They typically occur on old land surfaces with hilly or undulating topogra-
phy (Gray et al., 2011; IUSS, 2014). They are acidic, strongly leached and have low base status (Table 1).
Acrisols also have low resilience to erosion, they become degraded very quickly (Stocking, 2003) and
lose their productivity rapidly when cultivated without adequate soil cover (Sileshi et al., 2010). They
require substantial applications of fertilizer to produce satisfactory crop yields.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
6 Gudeta W. Sileshi et al.
Alisols evolve from intermediate parent material under humid climates in hilly or undulating
topography (Gray et al., 2011; IUSS, 2014). They are characterised by very low pH and SOC con-
tent (Table 1; Supplementary Figure S1), high-activity clay rich in exchangeable Al (IUSS, 2014)
and Al toxicity. They are also prone to drought and have an unstable surface, which makes them
susceptible to erosion (IUSS, 2014).
Andosols are relatively young soils formed from glass-rich volcanic ejecta and pyroclastic mate-
rials (IUSS, 2014). Andosols may also develop from silicate-rich materials under acid weathering
in humid climates. They occur in undulating to mountainous regions. They have high SOC con-
tent, high pH, high clay activity (Table 1; Supplementary Figure S1) and are generally fertile. But
they have the highest P fixation capacity, which is caused by active Al and Fe and their amorphous
clay (allophane) mineralogy (Batjes, 2011; IUSS, 2014).
Arenosols are deep sandy soils that develop on extremely silicic (>85% Si) parent materials.
They can also evolve from weathering of quartz-rich sediments or from Ferralsols after kaolinite
weathering (IUSS, 2014). They develop under a wide range of annual rainfall, varying from very
dry (<500 mm) to extremely wet (>2000 mm) climates (Gray et al., 2011). They represent the
largest soil type covering 21.5% of the land area of Africa (Figure 1b). Arenosols are characterised
by high permeability, low water and nutrient storage capacity (IUSS, 2014) and low SOC content
(Supplementary Figure S1). They are also easily erodible.
Cambisols are derived from a wide range of intermediate parent material of medium to fine
texture under very dry to wet climates (Gray et al., 2011). They represent the third largest soil type
covering 10.8% of the land area of Africa (Figure 1b). They are relatively young soils with slight to
moderate weathering (IUSS, 2014). Cambisols are characterised by high resilience, high SOC con-
tent, high clay activity and low P fixation (Table 1; Supplementary Figure S1). They also do not
contain appreciable amounts of Al and Fe compounds (IUSS, 2014).
Ferralsols represent deeply weathered red or yellow soils of the humid tropics. They develop on
intermediate silicious parent material under very wet climates on level to undulating land (Gray
et al., 2011). Ferralsols represent the fourth largest soil type covering 10.3% of the land area of
Africa (Figure 1b). They are dominated by low-activity clay minerals, mainly kaolinite (IUSS,
2014). They have good physical properties including great soil depth, permeability and stable
microstructure making them less susceptible to erosion (IUSS, 2014). However, they are inher-
ently acidic (Table 1; Supplementary Figure S1), nutrient-poor and suffer from high P fixation
caused by Fe and Al oxides (IUSS, 2014).
Fluvisols are young soils in fluvial, lacustrine or marine deposits. They have good natural fertility
because they occur in periodically flooded areas receiving fresh sediment (IUSS, 2014). The have high
SOC content, high pH, high clay activity and base saturation (Table 1; Supplementary Figure S1).
Leptosols are very thin soils that are extremely rich in coarse fragments over continuous rock
(IUSS, 2014). The have low SOC content, high pH and high base saturation (Table 1; Supplementary
Figure S1). They occur in all climate zones, in particular in strongly eroding mountainous regions.
They are the second largest soil type in SSA, and they cover 17.5% of the land area of continental
Africa (Figure 1b). Erosion is the greatest threat to Leptosols in cultivated areas.
Lixisols are weathering products of highly silicic parent material (65–85% Si) in seasonally dry
tropical regions on flat land to sloping land (Gray et al., 2011). They form in a variety of strongly
weathered and fine textured materials (IUSS, 2014). Lixisols have low resilience to erosion. When
degraded, they are prone to slaking and erosion. Tillage and use of heavy machinery compact the
soil causing structural deterioration (IUSS, 2014).
Luvisols evolved from a wide variety of intermediate silicious parent material in regions with
distinct dry and wet seasons (Gray et al., 2011; IUSS, 2014). They are characterised by high-
activity clays and a high base saturation (Table 1). Most Luvisols are fertile and suitable for a wide
range of agricultural uses. However, Luvisols with a high silt content are susceptible to structural
degradation when tilled with heavy machinery, while Luvisols on steep slopes are prone to erosion
(IUSS, 2014).
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Experimental Agriculture 7
Nitisols are deep, well-drained and clay-rich soils formed of mafic parent material under wet to
very wet and warm conditions on level to hilly land (Gray et al., 2011; IUSS, 2014). Their clay is
dominated by kaolinite and/or (meta) halloysite. Nitisols have good internal drainage and fair
water holding properties. Nitisols also have clay content >30% and relatively high SOC content
in surface soils (Supplementary Figure S1). Their deep and porous soil and their stable structure
permit deep rooting and make them resistant to erosion (IUSS, 2014). However, they suffer from
high P fixation (Batjes, 2011) and acidification (Agegnehu et al., 2021).
Phaeozems are weathering products of mafic parent material in warm to cool climates on flat to
undulating land (Gray et al., 2011). They have dark, humus-rich surface horizons, and porous and
fertile soils. But wind and water erosions are serious hazards (IUSS, 2014).
Plinthosols are soils with plinthite, petroplinthite or pisoliths. The later develop from plinthite
by hardening. Plinthite is a Fe-rich and/or Mn-rich, humus-poor mixture of kaolinitic clay and
other products of strong weathering such as gibbsite and quartz (IUSS, 2014). Plinthosols occur on
level to gently sloping areas with seasonally fluctuating groundwater or stagnating surface water.
They have poor natural soil fertility caused by strong weathering, and they are prone to concre-
tions or formation of hardpan (IUSS, 2014). They also have very low SOC content (Supplementary
Figure S1).
Vertisols are heavy clay soils with a high proportion of swelling clays. Smectite is the major clay
mineral, while kaolinite is of secondary importance. Vertisols are weathering products of mafic
parent material (Gray et al., 2011) occurring in depressions and level plains in climates varying
from semiarid to humid with an alternation of distinct wet and dry seasons (IUSS, 2014).
Although they have good chemical fertility, their use is limited by their susceptibility to water-
logging when wet and moisture stress when dry.
Criteria and metrics
In the past, non-responsiveness was evaluated using different metrics (e.g., yield gain vs response
ratios). Kihara et al. (2016) separated non-responsive soils into two clusters based on the yield in
the fertilized plots: non-responsive poor (<3 t ha−1) and non-responsive fertile soils (>3 t ha−1).
Similarly, Njoroge et al. (2018) defined soils as responsive when yield increases by 2 t ha−1 above
the control. On the other hand, Roobroeck et al. (2021) used yield gain of<0.5 t ha−1 to categorise
farms as non-responsive to NPK fertilizer in maize and <0.15 t ha−1 in soybean. Ichami et al.
(2019) used the response ratio (RR) to categorise soils as responsive and non-responsive to fertil-
izer. To achieve a more rigorous classification, we applied two criteria, namely, mean effects and
probabilities of no response. We also distinguished between metrics of (1) overall non-
responsiveness and (2) non-responsiveness to specific nutrients. We used the RR as defined
by Ichami et al. (2019) and yield gain of <0.5 t ha−1 as defined by Roobroeck et al. (2021) to
judge the overall non-responsiveness of soils to NPK fertilizer. The RR is the ratio of some mea-
sured quantity in experimental and control groups, which quantifies the proportionate change
that results from an experimental manipulation (Hedges et al., 1999). We calculated RR by divid-
ing the treatment yield by the control yield and. We transformed the RR values to their natural
logarithm, i.e., ln(RR), to satisfy the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of error variance
(Hedges et al., 1999).
To quantify the lack of response to one nutrient, we used the agronomic use efficiency of N
(AEN), P (AEP) and K (AEK) as the effect size metrics. Negative values of AEN and AEP are
common in empirical studies (Jama et al., 2017; Kihara et al., 2016; Vanlauwe et al., 2011),
but these are often thought to be inexplicable (Kihara and Njoroge, 2013; Vanlauwe et al.,
2011). We calculated AEN, AEP and AEK following Ladha et al. (2005) as
AEN 
 Yt  Yc=Ni (1)
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
8 Gudeta W. Sileshi et al.
AEP 
 Yt  Yc=Pi (2)
AEK 
 Yt  Yc=Ki (3)
where Yt and Yc are the grain yields (in kg ha−1) in the treatment and the control, whereas Ni, Pi
and Ki represent N, P and K inputs (in kg ha−1), respectively. We defined ‘no response’ as zero
agronomic response, i.e., a case where the yield differences between fertilized and unfertilized
treatments is 0 or lower than 0 (Nziguheba et al., 2021) resulting in RR≤ 1 (Ichami et al.,
2019) or AEN≤ 0, AEP≤ 0 or AEK≤ 0. We also took AEN, AEP and AEK below their first quar-
tiles as indicative of “low response” to N, P and K. In the data analysed here, the first quartiles were
10, 30 and 20 kg kg-1 for AEN, AEP and AEK, respectively. AEN< 10 kg kg-1 is also considered
too low (Vanlauwe et al., 2011). Accordingly, we took AEN≤ 10, AEP≤ 30 and AEK≤ 20 as
additional criteria to represent “low response”.
Statistical analysis
We applied exploratory analysis using general linear models to evaluate the relative contribution
of agroecological zones, soil type, trial location (on research station vs farmers’ fields) and K appli-
cation (applied vs omitted) to the variations in RR, AEN, AEP and AEK. Then, we calculated the
percentage of variation explained from the type 3 sum of squares (Supplementary Table S3). Soil
type contributed the largest proportion of the explained variations in RR, AEN, AEP and AEK,
whereas the contributions of agroecological zone and trial location were very small
(Supplementary Table S3). In addition, we implemented multiple regression analysis to evaluate
the contribution of SOC, pH, clay content, N rate, P rate and K rate to the variations in RR, AEN,
AEP and K. These variables together explained only ∼7.8, 2.8, 15.2 and 20.3% of the variations in
RR, AEN, AEP and AEK, respectively (Supplementary Table S4). SOC did not significantly con-
tribute to the variation in RR and AEP and AEK (Supplementary Table S4). Although soil pH and
clay content had statistically significant effects, their partial R2 values were <0.05 (Supplementary
Table S4). Given the relatively small contributions of soil pH and SOC to the various metrics, we
focused our attention on soil type. We undertook two sets of analyses to get a deeper understand-
ing of the variations in non-responsiveness.
Our first set of analyses involved linear mixed effects models (LMM) implemented via
restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation in the SAS system. To accommodate imbal-
ances in sample sizes among predictors, we used the Kenward–Roger method for approximating
the denominator degrees of freedom (Spilke et al., 2005). Initially, we tested various models by
adding or removing variables until an optimal model was achieved. At each step, we examined
improvements in model fit using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). We used agroecological
zone (A), soil type (S), trial location (L), N fertilizer rate (N), P rate (P), K application (K), soil clay
content, pH and SOC content as the fixed effects. We entered country as the random effect
because data from one country are likely to be more correlated than data from another country.
We calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as the ratio of the covariance estimate of
the random effect (i.e., country) to the covariance estimate of the residual  random effect. The
ICC estimates how much of the total variation in the outcome is accounted for by the random
effect. Our initial analyses revealed that entering soil pH, SOC and clay content in the same model
with soil type was problematic for two reasons: (1) pH, clay and SOCmeasurements were available
for only 29–30% of the sites and (2) most soil type have characteristic soil pH, SOC and clay
contents that vary in a narrow range (Table 1; Supplementary Figure S1). Taking these facts into
consideration, we included a reasonable set of variables (Supplementary Table S5) in our mixed
models for the control yield (CY), treatment yield (TY), yield gain (YG), RR, AEN, AEP and AEK
specified as follows:
CYijk 
 Ai  Sj  Lk  ɛijk (4)
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Experimental Agriculture 9
TYijklmn 
 Ai  Sj  Lk  Nl  Pm  Kn  ɛijklmn (5)
YGijklmn 
 Ai  Sj  Lk  Nl  Pm  Kn  ɛijklmn (6)
lnRRijklmn 
 Ai  Sj  Lk  Nl  Pm  Kn  ɛijklmn (7)
AENijklm 
 Ai  Sj  Lk  Pl  Km  ɛijklm (8)
AEPijklm 
 Ai  Sj  Lk  Nl  Km  ɛijklm (9)
AEKijklm 
 Ai  Sj  Lk  Nl  Pm  ɛijklm (10)
To avoid confounding of AEN, AEP and AEK with N rate, P rate and K application, we omitted
the respective nutrient rates from equations 8, 9 and 10.
We implemented a second set of analyses with the premise that information on the probability
(ϕ) of falling below a critical level or exceeding a desired target yield is more useful than mean
values for decision making. Here, we implemented stepwise logistic regression of the forms given
in equations 6–10 using the same variables used in the LMM (Supplementary Table S6) to predict
the probabilities of no response in terms of YG, RR, AEN, AEP and AEK. We analysed binary
responses after dummy-coding the response variables. For example, we coded YG as ‘0’ when
YG values are <0.5 t ha−1 and ‘1’ when they exceed 0.5 t ha−1. We coded RR as ‘0’ when its values
are ≤1 and ‘1’ when they exceed 1. Similarly, we coded AEN, AEP and AEK as ‘0’ when their
values are≤ 0 and ‘1’ when they exceed 0. We implemented stepwise logistic regression using
the Logistic procedure of the SAS system. Using the best model thus selected, we generated
the predicted probabilities (ϕ) for each observation, and then ϕ for each soil controlling for
the other independent variables retained in the final model. Our analytical procedure uses the
average marginal effects (AME) of both categorical and continuous predictors to estimate indi-
vidual, cross-validated, predicted probabilities. The AME was preferred over other marginal
effects as it represents the effect for a case picked at random from the sample (Breen et al.,
(2018) and as such being the most representative. For the continuous predictors (e.g., N rate,
P rate), the AME is the partial derivative of the event probability (i.e., no response) with respect
to the predictor of interest. For the categorical predictors (e.g., agroecology, soil type, location, K
application), the AME is the change in event probability when each predictor is changed between
its levels. Accordingly, we estimated the probability of ‘no response’ as well as ‘low response’ as
defined above.
In the same manner, we also estimated ϕ of the various metrics for the different classes of
parent materials, resilience to erosion, clay activity and P fixation capacity of soils. Here, we
replaced soil type with each of these variables in equations 6–10. Following Gray et al. (2011),
we grouped parent materials of the soils on the trial sites into “silicic,” “intermediate” and “mafic”
before analysis (Table 1). None of the study sites were on calcareous parent material. We also
grouped the soil types based on their clay activity as “high” and “low” activity soils (Table 1).
High-activity clay minerals are less weathered, have high effective surface area and high cation
exchange capacity (CEC)≥ 24 cmol/kg clay with 2:1 clay lattice (2 silica sheets per 1 alumina
sheet, e.g., montmorillonite, smectite, vermiculite, illite and chlorite) or amorphous (non-crystal-
line) materials like allophane, inmogolite and halloysite. Low-activity clay minerals are highly
weathered and have low CEC (≤ 24 cmol/kg clay) and 1:1 lattice (one silica sheet per alumina
sheet, e.g., kaolinite or halloysite) (Jones et al., 2013). In addition, we grouped the soil types into
classes of resilience to erosion as “low” or “high” following Stocking (2003) and P fixation capacity
as “low,” “moderate” or “high” following Batjes (2011) before analyses.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
10 Gudeta W. Sileshi et al.
(a) Control yield (b) NPK yield (c) Response ratio
Andosols 3.5 Andosols 5.1 Andosols 1.5
Luvisols 2.9 Luvisols 4.8 Luvisols 1.7
Fluvisols 2.7 Fluvisols 4.6 Fluvisols 1.9
Nitisols 2.7 Nitisols 4.7 Nitisols 2.1
Vertisols 2.7 Vertisols 4.4 Vertisols 1.9
Arenosols 2.5 Arenosols 3.6 Arenosols 1.6
Cambisols 2.4 Cambisols 3.9 Cambisols 2.0
Leptosols 2.4 Leptosols 3.4 Leptosols 1.7
Lixisols 2.3 Lixisols 4.1 Lixisols 2.3
Ferralsols 2.1 Ferralsols 4.0 Ferralsols 2.2
Phaeozms 2.1 Phaeozms 3.8 Phaeozms 2.0
Acrisols 2.1 Acrisols 4.4 Acrisols 2.7
Plinthosols 2.1 Plinthosols 3.8
Plinthosols 2.2
Alisols 1.7 Alisols 3.5
Alisols 2.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4
Grain yield (t ha–1) Grain yield (t ha–1) Response ratio (RR)
(d) AEN (e) AEP (f) AEK
Andosols 18.3 Andosols 59.6 Andosols 49.1
Luvisols 23.2 Luvisols 75.6 Luvisols 40.2
Fluvisols 24.0 Fluvisols 93.1 Fluvisols 64.4
Nitisols 22.1 Nitisols 74.6 Nitisols 30.6
Vertisols 17.9 Vertisols 63.5 Vertisols 43.6
Arenosols 14.8 Arenosols 44.7 Arenosols 41.0
Cambisols 21.6 Cambisols 67.6 Cambisols 17.0
Leptosols 14.5 Leptosols 41.5 Leptosols 27.3
Lixisols 22.2 Lixisols 73.1 Lixisols 55.2
Ferralsols 20.0 Ferralsols 59.8 Ferralsols 43.2
Phaeozms 20.4 Phaeozms 61.2 Phaeozms 63.3
Acrisols 28.2 Acrisols 67.7 Acrisols 57.6
Plinthosols 16.4 Plinthosols 49.5 Plinthosols 32.0
Alisols 15.9 Alisols 50.8 Alisols 39.2
–10 0 10 20 30 40 –40 0 40 80 120 160 –40 0 40 80 120
AEN (kg grain increase kg–1 N) AEP (kg grain increase kg–1 P) AEK (kg grain increase kg–1 K)
Figure 2. Plots of the 95% confidence limits (CLs) (horizontal bars) of mean grain yields, response ratios (RR), agronomic
use efficiency of nitrogen (AEN), phosphorus (AEP) and potassium (AEK). Means are given on the left-hand side of each CL.
Means on two or more soil types are deemed significantly different from each other if the 95% CLs do not overlap. The red
broken line in (c) represents the point where control yield is equal to yield with fertilizer (i.e., RR= 1).
Results
Grain yield and yield gain (YG)
Maize grain yields in the control significantly (p< 0.001) varied with agroecological zones, trial
location and soil type, while yields in the NPK fertilizer significantly varied with soil type, N rate
and K application. The highest and lowest control yields were recorded on Andosols and Alisols,
respectively (Figure 2a). With NP fertilizer, Andosols also consistently produced significantly
higher yields than Leptosols, Alisols and Arenosols (Figure 2b). Relative to sites where K was omit-
ted, sites where K was applied had 0.2–1.4 t ha−1 higher yields. Larger yield increases were recorded
on Arenosols (54%), Acrisols (45%) and Fluvisols (31%) when K was applied, while K application
led to lower yields than K omission on Cambisols, Leptosols, Lixisols, Phaeozems and Plinthosols
(Supplementary Table S7). The probability of exceeding 3 t ha−1 with NPK fertilizer was higher
(ϕ> 0.80) on Andosols, Nitisols and Vertisols but very low (ϕ< 0.30) on Alisols and Arenosols
(Table 2). On 8.7% of the sites YG was less than 0.5 t ha−1. The probability of no response
(YG< 0.5 t ha−1) was twice as much on soils formed on silicic than mafic parent materials and
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Experimental Agriculture 11
Table 2. Predicted probabilities (ϕ) of non-response to NPK fertilizers expressed in terms of response ratios (RR≤ 1), yield
gain (YG≤ 0.5 t ha−1), agronomic use efficiency of N (AEN≤ 0), P (AEP≤ 0) and K (AEK≤ 0), AEN≤ 10), AEP≤ 30, AEK≤ 20
and treatment yields exceeding 3 t ha−1 with NPK fertilizer (yield>3) on different soil types
Predicted probability (ϕ) of
Soil type No response Poor response
(RSG) RR≤ 1 YG≤ 0.5 AEN≤ 0 AEP≤ 0 AEK≤ 0 AEN≤ 10 AEP≤ 30 AEK≤ 20 Yield>3 t ha−1
Acrisols 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.28 0.33 0.39 0.62
Alisols 0.16 0.47 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.69 0.59 0.78 0.28
Andosols 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.20 0.23 0.66 0.91
Arenosols 0.11 0.27 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.38 0.42 0.47 0.26
Cambisols 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.28 0.20 0.62 0.63
Ferralsols 0.09 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.57
Fluvisols 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.17 0.40 0.71
Leptosols 0.13 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.30 0.28 0.66 0.50
Lixisols 0.16 0.25 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.43 0.41 0.55 0.56
Luvisols 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.18 0.16 0.28 0.72
Nitisols 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.81 0.82
Phaeozems 0.08 0.22 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.29 0.34 0.77 0.57
Plinthosols 0.26 0.39 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.49 0.44 0.61 0.52
Vertisols 0.08 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.22 0.21 0.53 0.82
Farmers’ field 0.12 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.37 0.36 0.56 0.62
Research station 0.06 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.28 0.29 0.54 0.66
Overall 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.55 0.63
AEN≤ 10, AEP≤ 30 and AEK≤ 20 represent the probability of poor response, defined as values of AEN, AEP and AEK below their first quartile.
Table 3. Predicted probabilities (ϕ) of non-response to NPK fertilizers expressed in terms of response ratios (RR≤ 1),
agronomic use efficiency of N (AEN≤ 0) and P (AEP≤ 0), K (AEK≤ 0) and yield gain (YG≤ 0.5 t ha−1) with the
mineralogy of parent materials, resilience to erosion and degradation, clay activity and P-sorption capacity of African soils
Predicted probability (ϕ)
Variable Category RR≤ 1 YG≤ 0.5 t ha−1 AEN≤ 0 AEP≤ 0 AEK≤ 0 Yield>3 t ha−1
Parent material Siliceous 0.16 0.25 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.54
Intermediate 0.10 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.59
Mafic 0.06 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.82
Resilience High 0.06 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.69
Low 0.14 0.23 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.57
Clay activity High 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.72
Low 0.11 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.61
P fixation* Very high 0.09 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.62
High 0.13 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.65
Moderate 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.76
Low 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.59
*P fixation categories ‘high’ and ‘very high’ were merged into a single category ‘high’ to reduce fragmentation of data.
on soils with low resilience than those with high resilience to erosion (Table 3). Non-responsiveness
assessed in terms of RR, YG and AE also significantly varied with clay activity and P-sorption capac-
ity of soils (Table 3). Across soil types, the probability of YG< 0.5 t ha−1 was significantly higher on
farmers’ fields (ϕ= 0.20) than on research stations (ϕ= 0.15). The probability of exceeding 3 t ha−1
was also lower on farmers’ fields (ϕ= 0.62) than on research stations (ϕ= 0.66). The probability of
exceeding 3 t ha−1 was significantly lower on arid and semi-arid sites (ϕ= 0.59) than on subhumid
(ϕ= 0.65) and humid (ϕ= 0.67) sites.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
12 Gudeta W. Sileshi et al.
(a) (b) (c)
20 120 400
18 300
16 80
200
14 40
12 100
10 0 0
8 –100
6 –40
–200
4 –80
2 –300
0 –120 –400
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Soil organic carbon (SOC %) Soil organic carbon (SOC %) Soil organic carbon (SOC %)
(d) (e) (f)
20 120 400
18 300
16 80
200
14 40
12 100
10 0 0
8 –100
6 –40
–200
4 –80
2 –300
0 –120 –400
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Soil pH Soil pH Soil pH
(g) (h) (i)
20 120 400
18 300
16 80
200
14 40
12 100
10 0 0
8 –100
6 –40
–200
4 –80
2 –300
0 –120 –400
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Soil clay content (%) Soil clay content (%) Soil clay content (%)
Figure 3. Trends in the variations of RR, AEN and AEP with soil organic carbon, pH and clay contents. The red lines repre-
sent the level below which maize crops do not efficiently use N or P.
Response ratios (RR)
The overall probability of no response (RR≤ 1) was 0.10. The probability of no response was two
times more on farmers’ fields (ϕ= 0.12) than on research stations (ϕ= 0.05) (Table 2). In the
multiple regression analysis, SOC was not a significant predictor of RR (Supplementary Table
S4). A plot of RR on SOC also did not reveal any significant trend (Figure 3a). In the linear mixed
effects model, RR significantly (p< 0.001) varied with agroecological zone, soil type, trial location,
N rate and P rate (Supplementary Table S5). The ICC indicated that the random effects (i.e., coun-
try) accounted for 21% of the total variation in RR. The RR estimated using the mixed effects
model was highest (2.7) on Acrisols and lowest (1.5) on Andosols (Figure 2c). The highest
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Response ratio (RR) Response ratio (RR) Response ratio (RR)
Agronomic efficiency of N (AEN) Agronomic efficiency of N (AEN) Agronomic efficiency of N (AEN)
Agronomic efficiency of P (AEP) Agronomic efficiency of P (AEP) Agronomic efficiency of P (AEP)
Experimental Agriculture 13
probability of no response was recorded on Plinthosols followed by Alisols, Lixisols and Leptosols,
whereas Fluvisols, Luvisols and Nitisols had very low probabilities of no response (Table 2). The
probability of no response was significantly higher on siliceous than mafic parent material, and
soils with low resilience than those with high resilience to erosion (Table 3). Except on Andosols,
Fluvisols and Leptosols, K omission reduced the risk of no response (Supplementary Table S7).
The probability of no responses was significantly higher on soils with low-activity clays than on
soils with high-activity clays, on soils with high P fixation capacity than on medium or low P
fixation capacity (Table 3).
Agronomic efficiency (AE) of N, P and K
Trials on farmers’ fields had significantly higher probability (ϕ= 0.10) of no response to N, P and
K than on research stations (ϕ= 0.05). Across the entire data set, the probabilities of poor
response (AE≤ 1st quartile) to N, P and K were 0.34, 0.34 and 0.55, respectively (Table 2). In
the stepwise multiple regression, SOC was a significant predictor of AEN, but not AEP and
AEK (Supplementary Table S4). A plot of AEN, AEP and AEK on SOC also did not reveal visible
trends (Figure 3b–c). AEN, AEP and AEK significantly (p< 0.001) varied with soil type
(Figure 2d–f), agroecological zone, trial location, N rate, P rate and K application
(Supplementary Table S5). AEN and AEP were low on Leptosols, Arenosols, Alisols and
Plinthosols, while their highest mean values were recorded on Acrisols (Figure 1d) followed
by Fluvisols (Figure 1d). Plinthosols had the highest probability (ϕ= 0.24) of no response to
applied N (i.e., AEN≤ 0) followed by Alisols and Lixisols (Table 2). Fluvisols, Luvisols,
Cambisols and Nitisols had very low risk (ϕ= 0.02–0.04) of failure to respond to N and P
(Table 2). The risks of no response to N and P were also higher on soils derived from silicic than
mafic parent materials, and on soils with low resilience than those with high resilience to erosion
(Table 3). The risks of no response to applied N were two times higher on soils with low-activity
than high-activity clay (Table 3).
Discussion
Using multiple response metrics and robust statistical tools, this study has provided novel insights
into the non-responsiveness of African soils to the recommended N, P and K fertilizers. Overall,
the results show that the risks of no response are greater on soils derived from siliceous than mafic
parent materials, soil types with low resilience to erosion, soils with low-activity clays and high P
fixation capacity. The results also show that soil type is an important determinant of response. The
analyses also indicated that the response on each soil type is not a single value, but probabilities of
varying likelihoods depending on explanatory variables. Since the predicted probabilities provide
information on the actual risk of no response, they are easier for use by decision makers, especially
agronomists and agricultural extension staff who develop fertilizer recommendations for farmers.
The ranking of soil types based on mean effect sizes (Figure 1) and the predicted probabilities
(Table 2) slightly differed. This emphasise that the traditional approach of categorising soils as
responsive and non-responsive based on metrics of mean response alone is inadequate.
None of the criteria or metrics identified any soil type as totally non-responsive. Taken
together, the different metrics were consistent in separating poorly responsive soils from interme-
diate and highly responsive ones. Plinthosols, Alisols and Lixisols were found to be poorly respon-
sive, while Acrisols, Cambisols, Fluvisols, Luvisols and Nitisols were highly responsive to NPK
fertilizer. On the other hand, Andosols, Arenosols, Ferralsols, Leptosols, Phaeozems and
Vertisols fell in an intermediate category according to the different metrics.
The high probability of no response on Plinthosols is apparently linked to their unfavourable
soil structure, poor water relations (IUSS, 2014) and their high P fixation capacity (Batjes, 2011).
On the other hand, poor response on Alisols is associated with their inherently low pH (Table 1),
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
14 Gudeta W. Sileshi et al.
Al toxicity and P fixation (Batjes, 2011). The relatively low response on Lixisols may be attributed
to their low cation retention capacity, high P fixation and susceptibility to erosion and degradation
when cultivated (Table 1). These characteristics make recurrent inputs of fertilizers a precondition
for continuous cultivation of Lixisols (IUSS, 2014).
The low response on Andosols despite their inherently high SOC and nutrient contents indi-
cates that productivity on these soils is constrained by factors other than NPK. The lower AEN
and AEP could be due to their highly erodible nature and their high P fixation capacity (Batjes,
2011). The very low probability of exceeding 3 t ha−1 on Arenosols may be linked to their sandy
texture, low resilience to erosion and very poor water and nutrients-holding capacity. This can
severely limit crop performance in the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa where they cover vast
expanses of land estimated at over 650 million ha. This calls for adoption of soil and water man-
agement practices specifically tailored to Arenosols. The problem with Leptosols is their shallow
rooting depth, coarse texture and their susceptibility to erosion (IUSS, 2014). They need to be
carefully managed through soil and water conservation practices including terracing and agrofor-
estry practices if crops are to be grown sustainably. The low probability of exceeding 3 t ha−1 on
Ferralsols could be associated with their inherently low pH and high P fixation capacity
(Batjes, 2011).
Although Acrisols are inherently acidic, they achieved the highest RR and AEN. Nevertheless,
their low resilience to erosion and rapid degradation (Stocking, 2003) means that productivity can
only be maintained with appropriate soil and water management practices combined with NPK
fertilizer. Cambisols, Fluvisols, Nitisols and Luvisols generally carried very low risks of no
response and high probabilities of yields exceeding 3 t ha−1. This is partly due to their stable struc-
ture, good internal drainage and high resilience to erosion. These soils also have high-activity clay
minerals, high base status and low P fixation (Table 1). Soils with high base saturation can be more
responsive because they have little or no acid cations such as Al, have relatively high pH and there-
fore more buffered against acid cations. The results also show that target yields of 3 t ha−1 can be
exceeded with high probability on Andosols, Nitisols and Vertisols, which are derived from mafic
parent materials. According to Gray et al. (2009), pH increased with increasing mafic characters.
Soils derived from mafic materials also tend to have high clay activity compared to those derived
from silicic materials.
In some countries, K is missing in national fertilizer recommendations because it is believed to
be non-limiting (Jama et al., 2017; Sileshi, 2021). Our analyses show that K application increases
yields substantially on Acrisols, Arenosols and Fluvisols, while on Cambisols, Leptosols and
Phaeozems K application tended to depress yields relative to omission (Supplementary Table
S7). Yield depression is likely to occur due to various factors, but imbalances and antagonism
between K, magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca) seem more plausible. Roobroeck et al. (2021) simi-
larly linked differences in occurrences of non-responsiveness to imbalances in exchangeable Ca,
Mg and K in soils. Antagonistic interactions occur between Ca, Mg and K such that high levels of
one or more of these nutrients can result in decreased uptake of another, despite sufficient soil
levels (Laekemariam et al. 2018; Rhodes et al., 2018; Rietra et al., 2017). Therefore, we recommend
further studies on the interactions between K, Ca and Mg in the different soils for better targeting
of K inputs.
The unique characteristic and limitations of each soil type revealed in this analysis emphasise
the point that management recommendations need to be more tailored and nutrient inputs need
to be sufficiently soil-specific. Past research (e.g., Ichami et al., 2019; Kihara et al., 2016; Roobroeck
et al., 2021; Shehu et al., 2018) has generally focused on relating crop response to dynamic soil
properties such as pH, SOM and nutrient levels. According to our analyses, the contributions of
pH, SOC and clay content to the variations in RR, AEN and AEP did not show clear trends
(Figure 3a–i; Supplementary Table S4). Similarly, across 18 on-farm trials covering different soil
types in western Kenya, Njoroge et al. (2018) found no significant difference in SOC, pH and clay
content between sites with good response to NPK fertilizer and those with poor response. In
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Experimental Agriculture 15
analyses of maize response across Ghana, Bua et al. (2020) also found variable influence of SOC
and pH on grain yield. In studies by Kihara et al. (2016) and Shehu et al. (2018), nonrespon-
sive fields also had relatively higher SOC than the responsive fields. From Table 1 and
Supplementary Figure S1, it is evident that pH, SOM and clay content are intrinsically linked
to soil type, but their levels can also be modified by farmer management. Therefore, we argue
that fertilizer recommendations should be guided by a good knowledge of the soil type, man-
agement history, and periodic soil tests to establish limiting nutrients. The fact that the risks of
no response are up to two times more on farmers’ fields than on research stations (Table 2)
highlights the role of management in crop response. These findings have implications for the
design and location of future agronomic trials. Until recently, agronomic trials have been
mostly located on research stations, which may not adequately represent the diversity of soil
types on farmers’ fields (Sileshi, 2021). We also recommend careful location of future trials on
farmers’ fields, taking into account the dominant reference soil groups.
Our findings also have implications for policies and investments relating to input subsidies. In
development circles, much emphasis has been placed on stimulating NPK fertilizer use by
farmers without critically examining where their use can be risky. The concept of smart sub-
sidies has also gained popularity in SSA, and such subsidies usually target fertilizer inputs to
resource-poor households. Here we argue that targeting fertilizer subsidies by taking into
account the inherent limitations of soils together with farmers’ resource endowment could
lead to more efficient use of the investment. On soils that are prone to acidification such
as Alisols, Acrisols, Ferralsols and Nitisols, subsidizing NPK fertilizer together with lime
and integrated acid soil management practices is likely to result in greater pay-offs than sub-
sidizing NPK fertilizer alone. The promotion of acid-tolerant germplasm is also highly
encouraged (Agegnehu et al., 2021). Soil types dominated by clay minerals such as kaolinite,
halloysite, montmorillonite and illite are likely to fix P necessitating application of higher P
rates (Batjes, 2011). On P fixing soils (e.g., Acrisols, Andosols, Ferralsols and Nitisols), greater
emphasis should also be placed on the choice of P sources and appropriate combinations of P
fertilizer with organic inputs such as farmyard manure (Sileshi et al., 2019) and agroforestry
practices (Sileshi et al., 2010). On inherently fertile soils such as Andosols, investments should
focus on erosion control measures and maintenance of fertility by targeted application of N, P
and K combined with the other yield-limiting nutrients.
Conclusion
This analysis has attempted to quantify the probability of non-responsiveness and its underlying
causes on African soils. The main conclusions emerging from this analysis are (1) the soil type, its
mineralogy and resilience to erosion are important determinants of responsiveness to NPK fer-
tilizers; (2) the target yield of 3 t ha−1 can be attained with greater probability (>0.80) on
Andosols, Vertisols and Nitisol, but with very low probability (<0.30) on Alisols and
Arenosols and (3) the risks of no response can be up to two times more on farmers’ fields than
on research stations. The diversity of soils and their mineralogy emphasise that land management
needs to be tailored to address the unique limitations of each soil type and fertilizer inputs need to
be sufficiently site and soil specific. It does also have important policy implications with respect to
NPK fertilizer subsidies in many SSA countries that are generally poor in targeting inputs to soils
where the investment is likely to be more efficiently used.
Supplementary Material. For supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0014479721000247
Acknowledgements. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft manuscript.
Conflict of Interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
16 Gudeta W. Sileshi et al.
Funding support. This work was supported, in whole or in part, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [INV-005460].
Under the grant conditions of the Foundation, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License has already been assigned
to the Author Accepted Manuscript version that might arise from this submission.
References
Abate T., Fisher M., Abdoulaye T., Kassie G.T., Lunduka R., Marenya P. and Asnake W. (2017). Characteristics of maize
cultivars in Africa: how modern are they and how many do smallholder farmers grow? Agriculture and Food Security 6, 30.
doi: 10.1186/s40066-017-0108-6
Agegnehu G., Amede T., Erkossa T., Yirga C., Henry C., Tyler R., Nosworthy M.G., Beyene S. and Sileshi G.W. (2021)
Extent and management of acid soils for sustainable crop production system in the tropical agroecosystems: a review. Acta
Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B 71, 852–869. doi: 10.1080/09064710.2021.1954239
Batjes N.H. (2011). Global Distribution of Soil Phosphorus Retention Potential. Wageningen: ISRIC—World Soil Information
(with Dataset), ISRIC Report 2011/06. Available at https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/185289 (accessed 26
August 2021).
Bonilla-Cedrez C., Chamberlin J. and Hijmans R.J. (2021). Fertilizer and grain prices constrain food production in sub-
Saharan Africa. Nature Food 2, 766–772. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00370-1
Breen R., Karlson K.B. and Holm A. (2018). Interpreting and understanding logits, probits, and othernonlinear probability
models. Annual Review of Sociology 44, 4.1–4.16. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041429
Bua S., El Mejahed K., MacCarthy D., Adogoba D.S., Kissiedu I.N., Atakora W.K., Fosu M. and Bindraban P.S. (2020).
Yield Response of Maize to Fertilizers in Ghana. IFDC FERARI Research Report No. 2. Available at https://ifdc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/IFDC-FERARI-Research-Report-No-2.pdf (accessed 18 October 2021).
Dewitte O., Jones A., Spaargaren O., Breuning-Madsen H., Brossard M., Dampha A., Deckers J., Gallali T., Hallett S.,
Jones R., Kilasara M., Le Roux P., Michéli E., Montanarella L., Thiombiano L., van Ranst E., Yemefack M. and
Zougmore R. (2013). Harmonisation of the soil map of Africa at the continental scale. Geoderma 212, 138–153. doi:
10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.07.007
Florence A., Ransom M. and Mengel D. (2017). Potassium fixation by oxidized and reduced forms of phyllosilicates. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 81, 1247–1255. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2016.12.0420
Gray J.M., Humphreys G.S. and Deckers J.A. (2009). Relationships in soil distribution as revealed by a global soil database.
Geoderma 150, 309–323.
Gray J.M., Humphreys G.S. and Deckers J.A. (2011). Distribution patterns of world reference base soil groups relative to soil
forming factors. Geoderma 160, 373–383. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.10.006
Hedges L.V., Gurevitch J., Curtis P.S. (1999). The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80,
1150–1156.
Ichami S.M., Shepherd K.D., Sila A., Stoorvogel J.J. and Hoffland E. (2019). Fertilizer response and nitrogen use efficiency
in African smallholder maize farms. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 113, 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10705-018-9958-y
ISSS Working Group RB. (1998). World Reference Base for Soil Resources – Atlas. Acco, Leuven: ISRIC, FAO, ISSS.
IUSSWorking GroupWRB. (2014).World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. International Soil Classification System for
Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. World Soil Resources Reports No. Rome: FAO. Available at http://www.
fao.org/3/i3794en/I3794en.pdf (accessed 10 January 2015).
Jama B., Kimani D., Kiwia A., Rebbie H. and Sileshi G.W. (2017). Maize yield response, nitrogen use efficiency and financial
returns to fertilizer on smallholder farms in southern Africa. Food Security 9, 577–593. doi: 10.1007/s12571-017-0674-2
Jones A., Breuning-Madsen H., Brossard M., Dampha A., Deckers J., Dewitte O., Hallett S., Jones R., Kilasara M., Le
Roux P., Micheli E., Montanarella L., Spaargaren O., Tahar G., Thiombiano L., Van Ranst E., Yemefack M. and
Zougmore R. (2013). Soil Atlas of Africa. Luxembourg: European Commission.
Kihara J. and Njoroge S. (2013). Phosphorus agronomic efficiency in maize-based cropping systems: a focus on western
Kenya. Field Crop Research 150, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.05.025
Kihara J., Nziguheba G., Zingore S., Coulibaly A., Esilaba A., Kabambe V., Njoroge S., Palm S. and Huising J. (2016).
Understanding variability in crop response to fertilizer and amendments in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 229, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.05.012
Kihara J., Sileshi W.G., Nziguheba G., Kinyua M., Zingore S. and Sommer R. (2017). Application of secondary nutrients
and micronutrients increase crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 37, 25. doi: 10.1007/
s13593-017-0431-0
Ladha J.K., Pathak H., Krupnik T.J., Six J. and van Kessel C. (2005). Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production:
retrospects and prospects. Advances in Agronomy 87, 85–156. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(05)87003-8
Laekemariam F., Kibret K. and ShiferawH. (2018). Potassium (K)-to-magnesium (Mg) ratio, its spatial variability and impli-
cations to potential Mg-induced K deficiency in Nitisols of Southern Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security 7, 13. doi: 10.
1186/s40066-018-0165-5
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Experimental Agriculture 17
Njoroge R., Otinga A.N., Okalebo J.R., Pepela M. and Merckx R. (2018) Maize (Zea mays L.) response to secondary and
micronutrients for profitable N, P and K fertilizer use in poorly responsive soils. Agronomy 8, 49. doi: 10.3390/
agronomy8040049
Nziguheba G., van Heerwaarden J. and Vanlauwe B. (2021). Quantifying the prevalence of (non)-response to fertilizers in
sub-Saharan Africa using on-farm trial data. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems 121, 257–269. doi: 10.1007/s10705-021-
10174-1
Rhodes R., Miles N. and Hughes J.C. (2018). Interactions between potassium, calcium and magnesium in sugarcane grown
on two contrasting soils in South Africa. Field Crops Research 223, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.01.001.
Rietra R.P.J.J., Heinen M., Dimkpa C.O. and Bindraban P.S. (2017). Effects of nutrient antagonism and synergism on yield
and fertilizer use efficiency. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 48, 1895–1920. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2017.
1407429.
Roobroeck D., Palm C.A., Nziguheba G., Weil R. and Vanlauwe B. (2021). Assessing and understanding non-
responsiveness of maize and soybean to fertilizer applications in African smallholder farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 305, 107165. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.107165.
Sánchez P.A. (2015). En route to plentiful food production in Africa. Nature Plants 1, 1–2.
Scherer H.W., Feils E. and Beuters P. (2014). Ammonium fixation and release by clay minerals as influenced by potassium.
Plant and Soil Environment 60, 325–331. doi: 10.17221/202/2014-PSE
Shehu B.M., Merckx R., Jibrin J.M., Kamara A.Y. and Rurinda J. (2018). Quantifying variability in maize yield response to
nutrient applications in the northern Nigerian savanna. Agronomy 8, 18. doi: 10.3390/agronomy8020018
Sileshi G., Akinnifesi F.K., Ajayi O.C. and Place F. (2008). Meta-analysis of maize yield response to planted fallow and green
manure legumes in sub-Saharan Africa. Plant and Soil 307, 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s11104-008-9547-y
Sileshi G., Akinnifesi F.K., Debusho L.K., Beedy T., Ajayi O.C. and Mong’omba S. (2010). Variation in maize yield gaps
with plant nutrient inputs, soil type and climate across sub-Saharan Africa. Field Crops Research 116, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.
fcr.2009.11.014
Sileshi G.W. (2021) Dose-response models to guide site-specific nutrient management and lessons for fertilizer trial design in
sub-Saharan Africa. Experimental Agriculture, 1–18. doi: 10.1017/S0014479721000193
Sileshi G.W., Jama B., Vanlauwe B., Negassa W. and Harawa R. (2019). Nutrient use efficiency and crop yield response to
the combined application of cattle manure and inorganic fertilizer in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems 113, 181–199. doi: 10.1007/s10705-019-09974-3
Sileshi G.W., Nhamo N., Mafongoya P.L. and Tanimu J. (2017). The stoichiometry of animal manure and its implications
for nutrient cycling and agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 107, 91–105. doi: 10.1007/
s10705-016-9817-7
Spilke J., Piepho H.P. and Hu X. (2005). Analysis of unbalanced data by mixed linear models using the mixed procedure of
the SAS System. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Sciences 191, 47–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037x.2004.00120.x
Stocking M.A. (2003). Tropical soils and food security: the next 50 years. Science 302, 1356–1359. doi: 10.1126/science.
1088579
Towett E.K., Shepherd K.D., Tondoh J.E., Winowiecki L.A., Lulseged T., Nyambura M., Sila A., Vågenb T.G. and Cadish
G. (2015). Total elemental composition of soils in Sub-Saharan Africa and relationship with soil forming factors. Geoderma
Regional 5, 157–168. doi: 10.1016/j.geodrs.2015.06.002
Vanlauwe B., Kihara J., Chivenge P., Pypers P., Coe R. and Six J. (2011). Agronomic use efficiency of N fertilizer in maize-
based systems in sub-Saharan Africa within the context of integrated soil fertility management. Plant and Soil 339, 35–50.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0462-7
Zingore S., Njoroge S., Chikowo R., Kihara J., Nziguheba G. and Nyamangara J. (2014). 4R Plant Nutrient Management in
African Agriculture: An Extension Handbook for Fertilizer Management in Smallholder Farming Systems. Nairobi:
International Plant nutrition Institute (IPNI).
Cite this article: Sileshi GW, Kihara J, Tamene L, Vanlauwe B, Phiri E, and Jama B. Unravelling causes of poor crop response
to applied N and P fertilizers on African soils. Experimental Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479721000247 Published online by Cambridge University Press