Nutrient use efficiency and crop yield response to the combined application of cattle manure and inorganic fertilizer in sub-Saharan Africa
- 58 Downloads
The combined application of cattle manure and inorganic fertilizer has been widely recommended in the context of integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) on smallholder farms in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, the conditions under which this combination (hereafter ISFM) improves nutrient and water use efficiency and crop yields have not been systematically studied. Therefore, we undertook a meta-analysis of studies conducted in rain-fed maize production systems across SSA with the objective of (1) quantifying the magnitude of improvement in grain yield, rain use efficiency (RUE), agronomic efficiency of nitrogen (AEN) and phosphorus (AEP) due to ISFM; (2) determining conditions under which ISFM achieves greater yield response, RUE, AEN and AEP; and (3) compare yield responses to the substitutive and additive approaches of ISFM with sole application of cattle manure. Application of high rates of cattle manure in combination with high N fertilizer rates increased yield response only by 27.5%, but it achieved 47% lower AEN and 27% lower AEP relative to a combination of low manure and low N fertilizer rate. The substitutive approach of ISFM achieved 54% greater AEN and 16% greater AEP than the additive ISFM approach. Yield response and AEN also significantly varied with soil type. On most soil types, AEN was 2–195% lower under sole manure than under ISFM or sole fertilizer. We recommend application of moderate rates of cattle manure (5–10 t ha−1) combined with moderate doses of N fertilizer (< 50 kg N ha−1) on responsive soils to optimize AEN and maize yield response.
KeywordsAdditive ISFM Agronomic efficiency Substitutive ISFM Water use efficiency
We would like to thank the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the generous funding for this work. We are also grateful to anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Batjes NH (2011) Global distribution of soil phosphorus retention potential. ISRIC—world soil information (with dataset), Wageningen, ISRIC report 2011/06Google Scholar
- Eghball B,Wienhold BJ, Gilley JE, Eigenberg RA (2002) Mineralization of manure nutrients. Biological Systems Engineering: Papers and Publications. Paper 139. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosysengfacpub/139. Accessed 01 June 2016
- FAO and ITPS (2015) Status of the world’s soil resources (SWSR)—main report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- Garrity D, Dixon J, Boffa J-M (2012) Understanding African farming systems: science and policy implications. Australia Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Sydney, p 55Google Scholar
- Mugwira LM, Murwira HK (1997) Use of cattle manure to improve soil fertility in Zimbabwe. Soil fertility network research results working paper 2, CIMMYT, Harare, ZimbabweGoogle Scholar
- Murwira HR (1994) Synchrony relationships of nitrogen release and plant uptake in a Zimbabwean sand soil amended with manure and fertilize nitrogen. Afr Crop Sci J 2:69–77Google Scholar
- Musinguzi P, Tenywa JS, Ebanyat P, Tenywa MM, Mubiru DN, Basamba TA, Leip A (2013) Soil organic carbon thresholds and nitrogen management in tropical agroecosystems: concepts and prospects. J Sustain Dev 6:31–43Google Scholar
- Sanchez PA (2015) En route to plentiful food production in Africa. Nat Plants 1:1–2Google Scholar