One of the primary challenges of our time is to feed a growing and more demanding world population with reduced external inputs and minimal environmental impacts, all under more variable and extreme climate conditions in the future. Conservation agriculture represents a set of three crop management principles that has received strong international support to help address this challenge, with recent conservation agriculture efforts focusing on smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. However, conservation agriculture is highly debated, with respect to both its effects on crop yields and its applicability in different farming contexts. Here we conduct a global meta-analysis using 5,463 paired yield observations from 610 studies to compare no-till, the original and central concept of conservation agriculture, with conventional tillage practices across 48 crops and 63 countries. Overall, our results show that no-till reduces yields, yet this response is variable and under certain conditions no-till can produce equivalent or greater yields than conventional tillage. Importantly, when no-till is combined with the other two conservation agriculture principles of residue retention and crop rotation, its negative impacts are minimized. Moreover, no-till in combination with the other two principles significantly increases rainfed crop productivity in dry climates, suggesting that it may become an important climate-change adaptation strategy for ever-drier regions of the world. However, any expansion of conservation agriculture should be done with caution in these areas, as implementation of the other two principles is often challenging in resource-poor and vulnerable smallholder farming systems, thereby increasing the likelihood of yield losses rather than gains. Although farming systems are multifunctional, and environmental and socio-economic factors need to be considered, our analysis indicates that the potential contribution of no-till to the sustainable intensification of agriculture is more limited than often assumed.

a b s t r a c tNo-till agriculture represents a relatively widely adopted management system that aims to reduce soil erosion, decrease input costs, and sustain long-term crop productivity. However, its impacts on crop yields are variable, and an improved understanding of the factors limiting productivity is needed to support evidence-based management decisions. We conducted a global meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of various crop and environmental variables on no-till relative to conventional tillage yields using data obtained from peer-reviewed publications (678 studies with 6005 paired observations, representing 50 crops and 63 countries). Side-by-side yield comparisons were restricted to studies comparing conventional tillage to no-till practices in the absence of other cropping system modifications. Crop category was the most important factor influencing the overall yield response to no-till followed by aridity index, residue management, no-till duration, and N rate. No-till yields matched conventional tillage yields for oilseed, cotton, and legume crop categories. Among cereals, the negative impacts of no-till were smallest for wheat (−2.6%) and largest for rice (−7.5%) and maize (−7.6%). No-till performed best under rainfed conditions in dry climates, with yields often being equal to or higher than conventional tillage practices. Yields in the first 1-2 years following no-till implementation declined for all crops except oilseeds and cotton, but matched conventional tillage yields after 3-10 years except for maize and wheat in humid climates. Overall, no-till yields were reduced by 12% without N fertilizer addition and 4% with inorganic N addition. Our study highlights factors contributing to and/or decreasing no-till yield gaps and suggests that improved targeting and adaptation, possibly including additional system modifications, are necessary to optimize no-till performance and contribute to food production goals. In addition, our results provide a basis for conducting trade-off analyses to support the development of no-till crop management and international development strategies based on available scientific evidence.

No abstract

Agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute approximately 12% to total global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Cereals (rice, wheat, and maize) are the largest source of human calories, and it is estimated that world cereal production must increase by 1.3% annually to 2025 to meet growing demand. Sustainable intensification of cereal production systems will require maintaining high yields while reducing environmental costs. We conducted a meta‐analysis (57 published studies consisting of 62 study sites and 328 observations) to test the hypothesis that the global warming potential (GWP) of CH4 and N2O emissions from rice, wheat, and maize, when expressed per ton of grain (yield‐scaled GWP), is similar, and that the lowest value for each cereal is achieved at near optimal yields. Results show that the GWP of CH4 and N2O emissions from rice (3757 kg CO2 eq ha−1 season−1) was higher than wheat (662 kg CO2 eq ha−1 season−1) and maize (1399 kg CO2 eq ha−1 season−1). The yield‐scaled GWP of rice was about four times higher (657 kg CO2 eq Mg−1) than wheat (166 kg CO2 eq Mg−1) and maize (185 kg CO2 eq Mg−1). Across cereals, the lowest yield‐scaled GWP values were achieved at 92% of maximal yield and were about twice as high for rice (279 kg CO2 eq Mg−1) than wheat (102 kg CO2 eq Mg−1) or maize (140 kg CO2 eq Mg−1), suggesting greater mitigation opportunities for rice systems. In rice, wheat and maize, 0.68%, 1.21%, and 1.06% of N applied was emitted as N2O, respectively. In rice systems, there was no correlation between CH4 emissions and N rate. In addition, when evaluating issues related to food security and environmental sustainability, other factors including cultural significance, the provisioning of ecosystem services, and human health and well‐being must also be considered.

No-tillage and reduced tillage (NT/RT) management practices are being promoted in agroecosystems to reduce erosion, sequester additional soil C and reduce production costs. The impact of NT/RT on N2 O emissions, however, has been variable with both increases and decreases in emissions reported. Herein, we quantitatively synthesize studies on the short- and long-term impact of NT/RT on N2 O emissions in humid and dry climatic zones with emissions expressed on both an area- and crop yield-scaled basis. A meta-analysis was conducted on 239 direct comparisons between conventional tillage (CT) and NT/RT. In contrast to earlier studies, averaged across all comparisons, NT/RT did not alter N2 O emissions compared with CT. However, NT/RT significantly reduced N2 O emissions in experiments >10 years, especially in dry climates. No significant correlation was found between soil texture and the effect of NT/RT on N2 O emissions. When fertilizer-N was placed at ≥5 cm depth, NT/RT significantly reduced area-scaled N2 O emissions, in particular under humid climatic conditions. Compared to CT under dry climatic conditions, yield-scaled N2 O increased significantly (57%) when NT/RT was implemented <10 years, but decreased significantly (27%) after ≥10 years of NT/RT. There was a significant decrease in yield-scaled N2 O emissions in humid climates when fertilizer-N was placed at ≥5 cm depth. Therefore, in humid climates, deep placement of fertilizer-N is recommended when implementing NT/RT. In addition, NT/RT practices need to be sustained for a prolonged time, particularly in dry climates, to become an effective mitigation strategy for reducing N2 O emissions.

Agriculture is faced with the challenge of providing healthy food for a growing population at minimal environmental cost. Rice (Oryza sativa), the staple crop for the largest number of people on earth, is grown under flooded soil conditions and uses more water and has higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than most crops. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that alternate wetting and drying (AWD--flooding the soil and then allowing to dry down before being reflooded) water management practices will maintain grain yields and concurrently reduce water use, greenhouse gas emissions and arsenic (As) levels in rice. Various treatments ranging in frequency and duration of AWD practices were evaluated at three locations over 2 years. Relative to the flooded control treatment and depending on the AWD treatment, yields were reduced by <1-13%; water-use efficiency was improved by 18-63%, global warming potential (GWP of CH4 and N2 O emissions) reduced by 45-90%, and grain As concentrations reduced by up to 64%. In general, as the severity of AWD increased by allowing the soil to dry out more between flood events, yields declined while the other benefits increased. The reduction in GWP was mostly attributed to a reduction in CH4 emissions as changes in N2 O emissions were minimal among treatments. When AWD was practiced early in the growing season followed by flooding for remainder of season, similar yields as the flooded control were obtained but reduced water use (18%), GWP (45%) and yield-scaled GWP (45%); although grain As concentrations were similar or higher. This highlights that multiple environmental benefits can be realized without sacrificing yield but there may be trade-offs to consider. Importantly, adoption of these practices will require that they are economically attractive and can be adapted to field scales.

No abstract

No abstract