Environmental Impacts of Zero Tillage in Brazil — A First Approximation

Enhancing Carbon Sequestration Using Organic Amendments and Agricultural Practices

“…In Haryana, India, conventional and zero tillage techniques were tested for the efficiency of CS; results showed that nearly USD 97.5 ha −1 can be earned extra by adopting zero tillage as zero tillage reduces the tillage implement costs, labor and fuel costs by spending USD 76 ha −1 and 97.5 USD earnings show that shifting from conventional to zero tillage reduces cost and additionally, sequester C emission by 1.5 Mg C ha −1 season −1 [28,29]. Zero tillage generates considerable benefits up to US D 97 ha −1 ; it also increases the crop yield by 5-7%, saving costs up to USD 52 ha −1 [30][31][32].…”

Potential impact of plans and policies based on the principles of conservation agriculture on the control of soil erosion in Brazil

“…Other positive impacts of the adoption of ZT/CA and iCLF‐CA include off‐farm effects considering both direct and environmental benefits, including yield and support capacity decline and land value depreciation in croplands and rangelands due to water erosion, especially due to the intensive soil preparation, monoculture practice, and overgrazing (Landers, Barros, Rocha, Manfrinato, & Weiss, 2003). There are also off‐farm benefits that imply reduction in public spending such as the maintenance cost of rural earth roads—an annual economy of 3.5 US$ in 1 Mha of crop areas, which implies in a public economy of 280 million US$; the reduction of turbidity and lower cost for water treatment for human consumption, estimated to be of US$ 5.80 for each 10000 m 3 (based on Carroll, 1997); and the reduction in reservoir volume storage by silting in dams for hydroelectric power plants, and for irrigation projects estimated as being of more than 700 million US$ yr −1 (Carvalho, Filizola‐Júnior, Santos, & Lima, 2000).…”

“…The adoption of ZT/CA principles in irrigated areas with central pivot, micro‐irrigation, drip‐ irrigation, or localized irrigation, which comprises 4.84 Mha in 2017, implies an economy of 10% in water volume and in pumping costs. Landers et al (2003), considering 10% less in consumptive use of water in annual crop irrigated areas, an annual economy of US$ 20.00 ha −1 in need of pumping energy, and 800 m 3 ha −1 in water volume, valued to be US$ 8.00 ha −1 . This means that, if ZT/CA adoption occurs in the irrigated area, an annual economy of 38.7 million US$, considering prices of 2001.…”

“…Other positive impacts of the adoption of ZT/CA and iCLF-CA include off-farm effects considering both direct and environmental benefits, including yield and support capacity decline and land value depreciation in croplands and rangelands due to water erosion, especially due to the intensive soil preparation, monoculture practice, and overgrazing (Landers, Barros, Rocha, Manfrinato, & Weiss, 2003).…”

Essences végétales et techniques de restauration des zones d’érosion (dongas) du Parc W et de sa périphérie à Karimama (Nord-Bénin)

“…En effet, selon Ganaba (2005) (Bologo, 1998;Sawadogo, 2001). Cet intérêt à utiliser des technologies locales pour améliorer la production a été largement documenté (Landers et al, 2001;Power et al, 2002;Pretty et al, 2003;Cholter et al, 2003). Performances variables des espèces: La présence des arbres dans l'écosystème conditionne dans une certaine mesure la durabilité des systèmes de production soudano-sahéliens (Zombré, 2003), ainsi que la protection du sol contre l'érosion éolienne et hydrique (Ganaba, 2011).…”