1998
DOI: 10.1023/a:1006066128640
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Among these, shrubs and fodder trees (leaves and seeds) are considered to have high potential value as source of essential nutrients. This is due to their high nutritive value, in terms of protein and mineral content, but also to its tolerance to a wide range of management practices, high longevity and capacity to produce fodder when other species become dormant to avoid adverse climatic conditions (Paterson et al 1998; Camero et al 2001; Sarwatt et al 2002; Ben Salem et al 2004). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among these, shrubs and fodder trees (leaves and seeds) are considered to have high potential value as source of essential nutrients. This is due to their high nutritive value, in terms of protein and mineral content, but also to its tolerance to a wide range of management practices, high longevity and capacity to produce fodder when other species become dormant to avoid adverse climatic conditions (Paterson et al 1998; Camero et al 2001; Sarwatt et al 2002; Ben Salem et al 2004). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Seed production of fodder crops in term of quality and quantity is important for sustainable fodder production and continuous supply of feed stuff to the livestock (Paterson et al, 1998). Seed production in forage crops are affected by various factors including unavailability of improved and hybrid seed, temperature fluctuation, untimely agronomical performs, less and untimely availability of farm inputs including absence of better-quality seed of best performed varieties at the farm level (Surinder et al, 2019;Anwar et al, 2012).…”
Section: Seed Yieldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Selected evidence for soil-enhancing practices Productivity: Increased production and/or improved quality and value of production Increased yield Legume rotation/forage/cover cropping- (Lal et al, 1978;Sileshi et al, 2008;Franke et al, 2018;Zemek et al, 2018) Perennial intercropping- (Bayala, 2012;Bright et al, 2017) No-till, legume intercropping- (Thierfelder et al, 2016) Organic amendments/biochar addition- (Soma et al, 2018;Kätterer et al, 2019) Planting basins, ridging, weed management- (Dahlin and Rusinamhodzi, 2019) Fertilizer microdosing- (Bielders and, 2015) Precision agriculture, seed treatment- (Aune et al, 2017) Rhizobium inocula and phosphorus fertilization- (Belete et al, 2019) Tied ridging, crop residue incorporation, legume rotation- (Kouyaté et al, 2000) Zaï farming- (Schuler et al, 2016) Reduced costs of production: Decreased input (e.g., fertilizers; crop protection products) and/or labor costs Yield return on labor Planting basins, ridging, weed management- (Dahlin and Rusinamhodzi, 2019) Reduced fertilizer use Perennial intercropping - (Bright et al, 2017) Integrated soil fertility management- (Vanlauwe et al, 2015) Reduced fertilizer in green manure legume rotation- (Mupangwa et al, 2016) Starter nitrogen for cowpea- (Nurudeen et al, 2018) Phosphate rock-legume compost- (Shitindi et al, 2019) Organic amendments- (Soma et al, 2018) Reduced weed/pest pressure Ecological weed management- (Bàrberi, 2019) Legume intercropping/trap crop rotation- (Gbèhounou and Adango, 2003;Khan et al, 2006) Integrated pest management (push-pull)- (Hassanali et al, 2008) Resilience: Decreased variability of production; diversified income sources Increased resilience to drought No-till- (Jemai et al, 2013) Perennial intercropping- (Paterson et al, 1998) Environmental benefits: Accruing both on-and off-farm…”
Section: Benefitsmentioning
confidence: 99%