No abstract

No abstract

Soil property and class maps for the continent of Africa were so far only available at very generalised scales, with many countries not mapped at all. Thanks to an increasing quantity and availability of soil samples collected at field point locations by various government and/or NGO funded projects, it is now possible to produce detailed pan-African maps of soil nutrients, including micro-nutrients at fine spatial resolutions. In this paper we describe production of a 30 m resolution Soil Information System of the African continent using, to date, the most comprehensive compilation of soil samples ($$N \approx 150,000$$ N ≈ 150 , 000 ) and Earth Observation data. We produced predictions for soil pH, organic carbon (C) and total nitrogen (N), total carbon, effective Cation Exchange Capacity (eCEC), extractable—phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S), sodium (Na), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn)—silt, clay and sand, stone content, bulk density and depth to bedrock, at three depths (0, 20 and 50 cm) and using 2-scale 3D Ensemble Machine Learning framework implemented in the (Machine Learning in ) package. As covariate layers we used 250 m resolution (MODIS, PROBA-V and SM2RAIN products), and 30 m resolution (Sentinel-2, Landsat and DTM derivatives) images. Our fivefold spatial Cross-Validation results showed varying accuracy levels ranging from the best performing soil pH (CCC = 0.900) to more poorly predictable extractable phosphorus (CCC = 0.654) and sulphur (CCC = 0.708) and depth to bedrock. Sentinel-2 bands SWIR (B11, B12), NIR (B09, B8A), Landsat SWIR bands, and vertical depth derived from 30 m resolution DTM, were the overall most important 30 m resolution covariates. Climatic data images—SM2RAIN, bioclimatic variables and MODIS Land Surface Temperature—however, remained as the overall most important variables for predicting soil chemical variables at continental scale. This publicly available 30-m Soil Information System of Africa aims at supporting numerous applications, including soil and fertilizer policies and investments, agronomic advice to close yield gaps, environmental programs, or targeting of nutrition interventions.

No abstract

If future rice production is to contribute to food security for the increasing population of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), effective strategies are needed to control weeds, the crop's fiercest competitors for resources. To gain better insights into farmers' access to, and use of, herbicides as part of weed control strategies, surveys were conducted in key rice production locations across SSA. Farm surveys were held among 1965 farmers across 20 countries to collect data on rice yields, farmer's weed management practices, herbicide use, frequencies of interventions and information sources regarding herbicides. Markets were surveyed across 17 countries to collect data on herbicide availability, brand names and local prices (converted to US$ ha −1 ). Herbicides are used by 34% of the rice farmers in SSA, but adoption ranges from 0 to 72% across countries. Herbicides are more often used by men (40%) than by women (27%) and more often in irrigated (44% of farmers) than in rainfed lowland (36%) or upland rice growing environments (24%). Herbicides are always used supplementary to hand weeding. Following this combination, yield loss reductions in irrigated lowlands and rainfed uplands are estimated to be 0.4 t ha −1 higher than hand weeding alone. In rainfed lowlands no benefits were observed from herbicide use. Sixty-two percent of the herbicides sold at rural agro-chemical supply markets are unauthorized. These markets are dominated by glyphosate and 2,4-D, sold under 55 and 41 different brand names, respectively, and at relatively competitive prices (below average herbicide price of US $17 ha −1 ). They are also the most popular herbicides among farmers. For advice on herbicide application methods, farmers primarily rely on their peers, and only a few receive advice from extension services (<23%) or inform themselves by reading the product label (<16%). Herbicide application timings are therefore often (38%) sub-optimal. Herbicide technologies can contribute to reduced production losses in rice in SSA. However, through negative effects on crop, environment and human health, incorrect herbicide use may unintentionally counteract efforts to increase food security. Moving away from this status quo will require strict implementation and monitoring of national pesticide regulations and investment in research and development to innovate and diversify the currently followed weed management strategies, agricultural service provision and communications with farmers.

No abstract

The demand for rice in Eastern and Southern Africa is rapidly increasing because of changes in consumer preferences and urbanization. However, local rice production lags behind consumption, mainly due to low yield levels. In order to set priorities for research and development aimed at improving rice productivity, there is a need to characterize the rice production environments, to quantify rice yield gaps—that is, the difference between average on‐farm yield and the best farmers’ yield—and to identify causes of yield gaps. Such information will help identifying and targeting technologies to alleviate the main constraints, and consequently to reduce existing yield gaps. Yield gap surveys were conducted on 357 rice farms at eight sites (19–50 farmers per site) across five rice‐producing countries in Eastern and Southern Africa—that is Ethiopia, Madagascar, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda—for one or two years (2012–13) to collect both quantitative and qualitative data at field and farm level. Average farm yields measured at the eight sites ranged from 1.8 to 4.3 t/ha and the average yield gap ranged from 0.8 to 3.4 t/ha. Across rice‐growing environments, major causes for yield variability were straw management, weeding frequency, growth duration of the variety, weed cover, fertilizer (mineral and organic) application frequency, levelling and iron toxicity. Land levelling increased the yield by 0.74 t/ha, bird control increased the yield by 1.44 t/ha, and sub‐optimal management of weeds reduced the yield by 3.6 to 4.4 t/ha. There is great potential to reduce the current rice yield gap in ESA, by focusing on improvements of those crop management practices that address the main site‐specific causes for sub‐optimal yields.

No abstract