Nitrogen and phosphorus capture and recovery efficiencies, and crop responses to a range of soil fertility management strategies in sub-Saharan Africa

Abstract

This paper examines a number of agronomic field experiments in different regions of subSaharan Africa to assess the associated variability in the efficiencies with which applied and available nutrients are taken up by crops under a wide range of management and environmental conditions. We consider N and P capture efficiencies (NCE and PCE, kg uptake kg -1 nutrient availability), and N and P recovery efficiencies (NRE and PRE, kg uptake kg -1 nutrient added). The analyzed cropping systems employed different soil fertility management practices that included (1) N and P mineral fertilizers (as sole or their combinations) (2) cattle manure composted then applied or applied directly to fields through animal corralling, and legume based systems separated into (3) improved fallows/cover cropscereal sequences, and (4) grain legume-cereal rotations. Crop responses to added nutrients varied widely, which is a logical consequence of the wide diversity in the balance of production resources across regions from arid through wet tropics, coupled with an equally large array of management practices and inter-season variability. The NCE ranged from 0.05 to 0. 123Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst DOI 10.1007/s10705-009-9303-6 quality manure immobilized soil N, while response to P was in many cases poor due to P fixation by soils. Other than good agronomy, it was apparent that flexible systems of fertilization that vary N input according to the current seasonal rainfall pattern offer opportunities for high resource capture and recovery efficiencies in semi-arid areas. We suggest the use of cropping systems modeling approaches to hasten the understanding of Africa's complex cropping systems.

Inter- and intra-species intercropping of barley cultivars and legume species, as affected by soil phosphorus availability

“…Where n is the number of species in the intercropped treatment, and ΔRP A is the difference between the observed and expected relative yield for species A (i.e., the difference between the partial LER and a cropping density of 0.5 for an individual plant) (Loreau and Hector 2001). The Phosphorus Recovery Efficiency (PRE) is the amount of P accumulated in the plants relative to the amount added to the soils (Chikowo et al 2010). Unlike the two previous metrics, PRE is not a direct comparison of the intercropped and monoculture treatments.…”

Response of Maize (Zea mays L.) Secondary Growth Parameters to Conservation Agriculture and Conventional Tillage Systems in Zimbabwe

“…Furthermore lower dry matter and fewer leaves were observed under CA in light textured soils compared with heavy textured soils. This is because light textured soils have lower soil fertility and nutrient supply to growing plants is therefore limited compared to heavy textured soils (Chikowo et al, 2010). In addition, the soil chemical and physical analysis in this study revealed a high nutrient base in Hereford, DTC and UZ compared to Zimuto and Madziva.…”

“…However, increased mineralization leads into high potential loss of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) from the soil through erosion, leaching and mining by plants (Barbera et al, 2012). As a result, maize under CP can have increased access to soil nutrients leading to high early plant vigour and a higher rate of growth compared with maize under CA (Chikowo et al, 2010). This creates differences in growth of plants under CA and CP cropping systems.…”

Factors driving cereal response to fertilizer microdosing in sub‐Saharan Africa: A meta‐analysis

“…Therefore, the scaling-up of FM in West Africa has so far focused on phosphorus, while also providing nitrogen (Bagayoko et al, 2011;Bielders & Gérard, 2015;Buerket et al, 2001;Camara et al, 2013). Chikowo et al (2010) showed that the uptake efficiencies of N and P tend to improve when they are applied simultaneously. Figure 6 shows crop response as a function of rates of N and P. It should be noted that in most studies, these elements were combined ( Figure 5).…”