Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research (IJAAR)

ISSN: 2223-7054 (Print) 2225-3610 (Online)
http://www.innspub.net
Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 1-7, 2020
RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS

Effect of conservation agriculture on soil moisture content and

biomass water productivity: Case study of crop residues as soil
cover
O. A. Akilapa*, L. O. Adebisi, C. O. Farayola

Agriculture and Rural Management Training Institute (ARMTI), Ajase-ipo Highway,

Ilorin, Nigeria

Article published on August 19, 2020

Key words: Crop residue, Water use efficiency (WUE), Randomized, Biomass, Straw, Treatment

Abstract

One of the important principles of Conservation Agriculture is the permanent soil cover with crop residues which
enhances soil and water productivity that leads to improved agricultural productivity. The effect of crop residues
on soil moisture content, relative growth rate and biomass water productivity were examined in a completely
randomized design at the University of Reading, Berkshire district, England. Straw treatment was significant on
moisture content and water use efficiency at (p< 0.01) respectively while there is no significant difference on
mean relative growth rate and dry final biomass weights. The study concluded that soil moisture content is
conserved with increased use of crop residues as soil cover. The study therefore recommended that project based
research on Conservation Agriculture should be carried out by governments and NGO’s that will involve farmers;
also they should provide support for the knowledge diffusion of Conservation Agriculture to local farmers since it
will improve yield and productivity. Extension agents and other agencies that work with farmers should also be
properly trained to be able to disseminate this technology to farmers.
* Corresponding Author: O. A. Akilapa  [email protected]

Akilapa et al. Page 1

 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

Introduction management of water quality (Unger, 1994; Steiner,

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a resource saving 1994). The effect of water conservation using crop
concept of agricultural production which aims to residue may potentially lead to increase crop yields in
achieve acceptable profits and sustainable production tropical environments especially areas where there
levels while saving environmental costs (STOA, are potential risks of drought stress (Lal, 1998).
2009). It is based on three basic principles which are
minimum soil disturbance or zero tillage operations; There have been studies on water conservation

permanent soil cover with crop residues or the use of capacity of crop residues used as soil cover which is

cover crops; and diversification of crops through crop successfully done by the reduction of evaporation of

rotation, mainly the rotation of staple crops with soil moisture and the reduction of water loss through

legumes depending on farming systems (Dumanski et run-off and a reduction of wind and water pressure

al., 2006). One of the important principles of (Klocke et al., 2004; Klocke et al., 2006; Gicheru,

Conservation Agriculture is the permanent soil cover 1994; Powell and Unger, 1997) but there are few

with crop residues which enhances soil and water studies on the effect of crop residues on water

productivity (Hobbs et al., 2007), its water saving productivity. Therefore, this study examined the

capacity through the reduction of evaporation, effect of conservation agriculture on soil moisture

increased infiltration and run-off reduction has made content and biomass water productivity: case study of

it very important in improving agricultural crop residues as soil cover.

productivity (Ling-ling et al., 2011) Hence, this study seeks to:

• Examine the effect of crop residues on soil
Soils under CA are expected to be 100% covered by moisture content;
crop residues and a minimum of 30% coverage is • Examine the effect of crop residues on relative
allowed under this system and anything below this is growth rate;
not regarded as Conservation Agriculture (Kassam et • Examine the effect of crop residues on water use
al., 2009). Crop residues help in preventing erosion efficiency; and
by intercepting rain drops and reducing its energy • Examine the effect of crop residues on biomass
before hitting the soil, thereby preventing the production.
clogging of soil micro pores and reducing the risk of
runoff and erosion (Hobbs et al., 2007); it was found Materials and methods
to increase crop yields in Mexico, where zero till plots Study Site
with residues resulted in higher yields than those This experiment was carried out in the glass house of
without residues (Sayre and Hobbs, 2004); it reduces Agriculture department, University of Reading. The
weed infestation by reducing light access to the weeds average temperature of the glass house was about
and also by the release of allelopatic chemicals that 22.86°C with a maximum temperature of 47.13°C on
suppresses the growth of weeds by inhibition of hot days and a minimum of 11.87°C on cooler days. It
surface weed seed germination (Hobbs et al., 2007); also has an average relative humidity of about
it was found to reduce evaporation, soil temperature, 54.03%RH with a maximum of 85.55%RH and a
increasing aggregate stability, soil porosity and minimum of 16.73%RH. Recommended irrigation
improving water infiltration (Giller et al., 2009); it schedules were followed uniformly over all treatments
was also found to reduce the risk of crop failure and within the experimentfor the first 3 weeks, after
drought due to a better water use efficiency in semi- which treatments T5 –T8 of the maize crop and
arid regions (Scopel et al., 2004; Bationo et al., 2007; treatments T13 – T16 of cowpea with their replicates
Parry et al, 2005). Water availability for crop use is were made to undergo a drought treatment where no
often a major problem to crop production in the irrigation was applied for the remaining 3 weeks of
tropics (Muchow et al., 1994) and improved use of the experiment, while the remaining treatment’s
crop residue can provide a more efficient irrigation schedule was maintained.

Akilapa et al. Page 2

 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

Experimental Design
The experimental layout of this study was arranged
in a completely randomized design for the first
week, but was re-arranged into a completely
randomized block design of two crops (maize and
cowpea) with four treatments and four replicates
each (2x4x4) to eliminate the effects of the different
positions of the pots in the glass house. The
experiment consisted of 64 poly vynil pots, 7 inches
in size which was filled three quarter (¾) way with
slow fertilizer releasing compost in which the seeds
(Maize, cowpea) were planted.
Fig. 1. View of different straw treatments.
Table 1. Experimental Design.
Treatments Data Collection and Analysis
T1-Maize +0% Soil Cover T9 – Cowpea + 0% Soil Cover
T2-Maize +50% Soil Cover T10 – Cowpea + 50% Soil Cover The data and measurements taken during the
T3-Maize +100% Soil Cover T11 – Cowpea + 100% Soil Cover
T4-Maize +150% Soil Cover T12 – Cowpea +150% Soil Cover experiment includes the rate of emergence (this was
T5-Maize +0% Soil Cover + T13 – Cowpea + 0% Soil Cover+
Drought Drought
recorded immediately after planting by counting the
T6-Maize +50% Soil Cover + T14 – Cowpea + 50% Soil Cover+
Drought Drought
number of plants that emerged above the soil and the
T7-Maize +100% Soil Cover + T15 – Cowpea + 100% Soil Cover+
Drought Drought
time of emergence within the first few days of
T8-Maize +150% Soil Cover + T16 – Cowpea + 150% Soil Cover+ planting); tether probe readings (for soil velocity and
Drought Drought
volumetric soil moisture content reading); plant
Table 2. Experimental pot layout height (this was done on weekly basis except for the

T16 T4 T3 T8 T4 T16 T15 T3 5th week where 3 measurements were taken within a
T5 T11 T7 T15 T10 T5 T1 T14 week to emphasize the stagnant growth within the
T10 T12 T13 T14 T8 T7 T9 T11
T2 T9 T6 T1 T2 T13 T6 T12 drought treatments compared to the wet treatments);
T9 T6 T8 T3 T4 T7 T3 T5 soil core samples (this was taken at the end of the
T10 T15 T12 T7 T14 T5 T11 T10
6weeks experiments); and biomass harvests (this was
T1 T13 T2 T11 T2 T1 T6 T12
T5 T14 T4 T16 T8 T16 T13 T9 harvested twice, the first biomass harvest was carried
out at the 3rd week and the second at the end of the
Seed and Straw Treatments experiments in week 6). The calculated parameters
The seeds (cowpea and maize seeds) used for this included the soil moisture content, relative growth
experiment were gotten from the department of rate from biomass and relative growth rate from plant
Agriculture, which was tested for viability in the seed
height. Data from all parameters obtained were
laboratory according to the germination test
subjected to an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using
procedures of the International seed testing
Genstat computer software, although the final
association (ISTA, 2005) before the start of the
biomass harvest was analysed using an unbalanced
experiment in the glass house. The straw used in this
experiment is dry wheat straw gotten from the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to mitigate the effects

university farm in Sonning, the straw was already of the missing plots due to the first harvest done at
chopped into reasonable sizes and used as crop the 3rd week. Least Significant Difference test (LSD)
residue soil surface cover treatments in varying levels was performed to separate mean values.
of soil coverage such as 0%, 50%, 100% and 150% as
observed in Table 1 below. A 100% sample was Results
represented by 9g of dry wheat straw, which was Effect of Crop Residues on Soil Moisture Content
gotten from sampling and weighing the amount of The difference in moisture content between the wet
straw that completely covered the soil surface. and drought regimes was found to be significant at p<

Akilapa et al. Page 3

 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

0.01 with the wet treatment having about 54.87% treatments with lower levels of crop residue (straw)
higher moisture content than the drought treatment, inclusion have a higher mean relative growth rate.
the relationship between the moisture content and
both the crops (maize and cowpea) planted and the
straw treatments were also found to be significantly
different at p=0.003 (p<0.05) and p= 0.004 (p<0.05)
respectively where the cowpea was about 3.01% higher
than the maize treatments in moisture content and the
crop residue treatments 50%, 100% and 150% were
1.17%, 3.77% and 4.99% higher in moisture content
than the 0% crop residue treatment [Fig.2 and 3].

Fig. 4. Relationships between mean relative growth

rate (Mrgr), Straw treatments and crops.
Average least significant difference 0.3620
Average standard error of difference 0.1758

Effect of Crop Residues on Water Use Efficiency (WUE)

The effect of individual crops planted on water use
efficiency was significant at p≤0.001 with maize crop
Fig. 2. Relationship between straw and moisture being 0.0716 higher than the WUE value of cowpea,
content. the straw treatments were also significantly different
Average least significant difference 3.940 in their effect on the WUE at p≤0.030 and also
Average standard error of difference 1.913 having a trend of high WUE mean values with
increasing crop residue (straw inclusion), with the
50%, 100% and 150% crop residue treatments having
values of 0.0146, 0.02898 and 0.0353 higher than the
0% no crop residue treatment. [Fig. 5].

Fig. 3. Relationship between crops and moisture

content.
Average least significant difference 3.892
Average standard error of difference 1.890

Effect of Crop Residues on Relative Growth Rate Fig. 5. Relationships between straw treatments,
The effect of crop residue (straw) on the mean relative crops and WUE.
growth rate was not statistically different, Average least significant difference 0.1104
observations from the values gotten shows that some Average standard error of difference 0.05109

Akilapa et al. Page 4

 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

Effect of Crop Residues on Biomass Production

The dry final biomass weights were not significantly
different with regards to the straw treatments at
p<0.05, however, a trend of increasing biomass
weight was observed with an increase in straw level as
soil cover as shown in Fig. 6 and 7.
Fig. 6. Relationship between Final biomass dry wt.
and Straw treatments. On the other hand, effect of the crops were found to
Average least significant difference 1.200 be significant at p<0.001 with maize crop having
Average standard error of difference 0.5555 about 4.04% biomass dry matter higher than the
cowpea treatments.

The difference in the biomass fresh weight was

significant at p<0.001 for the straw treatments, with
the 50%, 100% and 150% straw treatments having
5.86%, 8.78% and 12.86% higher means of biomass
fresh weight than the 0% straw treatment respectively.
Fig. 7. Relationship between Final biomass fresh wt. However, the effects of the individual crops planted
and Straw treatments. were not significantly different at p < 0.05 level, but the
Average least significant difference 3.820 cowpea had a greater weight by 0.59% from the
Average standard error of difference 1.768 regression predictions.

Table 3. Mean effects of Crop residue (Straw) treatments on calculated parameters.

Straw Drought
treatments Moisture Relative Moisture WUE dry WUE Biomass Biomass
content height rate content fresh dry fresh
0% 51.13a 2.188 27.37a 0.1211a 0.5011a 6.465 26.39a
50% 52.30ab 2.193 27.82ab 0.1357abc 0.6100b 7.182 32.21b
100% 54.86bc 2.183 28.87bc 0.1500bc 0.6812b 7.785 35.17b
150% 56.12c 2.194 29.53c 0.1564c 0.7675c 8.083 39.25c
LSD 2.746 0.1789 1.244 0.02325 0.07836 1.183 3.82
Means within a column having the same superscript are not significantly different (P<0.05). WUE=Water use efficiency

Discussion highest moisture conservation capacity. The inclusion

The result from the experiments implies that there is of crop residues as mulch were also found to conserve
increasing soil moisture conservation with increased more moisture down the soil profile in two growing
level of crop residues used as soil cover, and was seasons within two years (Gicheru, 1994).
significant at p≤0.05. Cover crop residues influence
soil water content as this could help both natural The relationship between the mean relative growth
precipitation and irrigation water to infiltrate in the rate, straw treatments and crops is shown in Fig. 4,
soil where it can be utilized by plants. Which makes where treatments with the highest biomass outputs
moisture available for efficient plant growth and do not have the highest mean relative growth rate.
biomass production, as this will help to improve This is similar to the results of Verhulstet al., (2001),
agricultural productivity in the Arid and semi-arid where treatments with zero tillage and crop residue
regions. This is in line with the study carried out by retention had a slow initial growth but however,
Klockeet al., (2006) where treatments with 100% increased growth in the later stages making up for
crop residue soil cover was observed to have the initial loss in growth rate.

Akilapa et al. Page 5

 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

The sample crops used in the study performed better References

in terms of growth and water use efficiency Bationo A, Kihara J, Vanlauwe B, Waswa B,
accordingly as evident in Fig.s 4 and 5 above. Biomass Kinetu J. 2007. Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics,
production increases with an increased soil cover Functions and Management in West African Agro-
which indicates that the availability of more moisture ecosystems. Agricultural Systems 94,12-25.
in the soil improved the biomass productivity as seen
in Fig.s 6 and 7 above. This will give farmers the Dumanski J, Peiretti R, Benetis J, McGarry D,
avenue to produce enough biomass to use as soil Pieri C. 2006. The paradigm of conservation tillage. In:
cover and also as feed their livestock. Proceedings of the World Association of Soil and Water
Conservation P1-7, pp. 58–65. Beijing, P.R. China.
The residues apart from conserving soil moisture,
also increases soil fertility when the residues decay Gicheru PT. 1994. Effects of residue mulch and
leading to improved biomass production. It has also tillage on soil moisture conservation. SoilTechnology
been observed that the presence of these crop 7(3), 209-220.
residues eventually reduces weeds on the farm
thereby reducing the cost of farm management and Giller KE, Witter E, Corbeels M, Tittonell P.
Agricultural productivity in terms of herbicide use or 2009. Conservation Agriculture and Small Holder
cost of manual labour. Farming in Africa: The heretics view. Field Crops
Research 144(1), 23-34
This implies that Conservation Agriculture (use of
crop residue as soil cover) has the potential to Hobbs PR, Sayre K, Gupta R. 2007. The role of
increase crop yields, this is evident in that treatments conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Phil.
with crop residue inclusion 50%, 100% and 150% Trans. The Royal Society B. 363(1491), 543-555.
have a better water use efficiency than the treatment
with no crop residue (0%) and subsequently also International Seed Testing Association. 2005.
having a higher biomass yield. Germination Test. International rules for seed testing.
The Seed Testing Association, Bassersdorf, CH-
Conclusion Switzerland.
This study concluded that soil moisture content is
conserved with increased use of crop residues as soil Kassam A, Friedrich T, Shaxson F, Pretty J.
cover, and increase crop water productivity by 2009. The Spread of Conservation Agriculture:
improved biomass yield. Also, with the use of crop Justification, Sustainability and Uptake. International
residues as soil cover, the risk of drought can be Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7(4), 292-320.
reduced. This study therefore recommends based on DOI: 10.3763/ijas.2009.0477
the findings that project based research should be
carried out by governments and NGO’s that involves Klocke NL, Currie RS, Dumler TJ. 2006. The effects
farmers where farmer field schools and other of crop residue on sprinkler irrigation management. In:
extension tools can be used to both introduce the Colby, K.S., (Edt) Central plains irrigation conference and
technology and also involve local knowledge in its exposition proceedings pp. 115-121.
refinement, since this study was carried out in a
controlled greenhouse experiment. Government, social Klocke NL, Schneekloth JP, Melvin SR, Clark
structures and NGO’s should provide support for the RT, Payero JO. 2004. Field Scale Limited Irrigation
knowledge diffusion of Conservation Agriculture which Scenarios for Water Policy Strategies. J. of App. Eng.
include soil cover as one of its principles especially to in Agric 20(5), 623-631.
local farmers for improved rate of adoption. Also,
extension agents and other agencies that work with Lal R. 1998. Mulching effects on runoff, soil erosion
farmers should be properly trained to be able to and crop response on alfisols in western Nigeria,
disseminate this technology to farmers. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 11, 135-154.

Akilapa et al. Page 6

 Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.

Ling-ling LI, Gao-bao H, Ren-zhi Z, Belloti B, Scopel E, Triomph B, Seguy L, dos Santos
Li G, Chan KY. 2011. Benefits of conservation Ribeiro MF, Denardin JE, Kochhan RA. 2004.
agriculture on soil and water conservation and its Direct Seeding Mulch-Based Cropping Systems (DMC)
progress in China. Agricultural Sciences in China in Latin America. Communication presented at the 4th
10(6), 850-859. International crop science congress Brisbane, Australia.
26th September to 1st October 2004.
Muchow RC, Hammer GL, Vanderlip RL. 1994.
Assessing climatic risk to sorghum production in
water-limited subtropical environments II Effects of STOA. 2009. Conservation Agriculture: Final Report,

planting date, soil water at planting and cultivar Agricultural Technologies for Developing Countries,
phenology. Field Crop Research 36, 235-246. STOA project “Agricultural technologies for
developing countries” April 2009. European
Parry MAJ, Flexas J, Medrano H. 2005. Technology Assessment Group (ETAG). ITAS. DBT.
Prospects for crop production under drought: Viwta. POST. Rathenau.
research priorities and future directions. Annuals for
Applied Biology 147, 211-226. Verhulst N, Govaets B, Nelissen V, Sayre KD,
Crossa J, Raes D, Deckers J. 2011. The Effect of
Powell JM, Unger PW. 1997. Alternatives to Crop
Tillage, Crop Rotation and Residue Management on
Residues for SoilAmendment. In: Renard, C., (Edtr.)
Maize and Wheat Growth and Development
Crop Residue in sustainable Mixed Crop/Livestock
Evaluated with Optical Sensor. Field Crops Research
Farming System. CAB international. Wallingford
120(1), 58-67.
Oxon OX 10 8DE UK.
DOI:10.1016/j.fcr.2010.08.012.
Sayre KD, Hobbs PR. 2004. The Raised-bed
System of Cultivation for Irrigated Production
Conditions. In: Lal, R., Hobbs, P., Uphoff, N. and
Hansen, D.O., (Eds) Sustainable agriculture and rice-
wheat system. Paper 20 2004 pp.337-355. Columbus,
OH: Ohio State University.

Akilapa et al. Page 7