Cultivation Systems Using Vegetation Cover Improves Sustainable Production and Nutritional Quality of New Rice for Africa in the Tropics

doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2018.08.003

Abstract

Abstract:

Little is known about the impact of direct sowing under vegetation cover on the production and quality of New Rice for Africa (NERICA) on poor oxisol. In this study, two NERICA varieties (NERICA 3 and NERICA 8) were grown under tropical oxisol soil with very low nutrient contents. Four cultivation systems were used in completely randomized block design, including plowing (control), unplowed soil with dead vegetation cover (DVC), unplowed soil with live vegetation cover (LVC) and unplowed soil with mixed vegetation cover (MVC). DVC significantly improved the exponential growth of NERICAs. NERICA 3 was the more productive (2.16-3.05 t/hm²) compared with NERICA 8 (0.71-1.21 t/hm²). Cultivation systems improved the nutritional quality of NERICAs. The total protein content of NERICA 3 under DVC and MVC was 84.8% and 75.0% higher than control, respectively. The total soluble carbohydrate contents of NERICA 8 under LVC and MVC was 73.2% and 57.3% higher than control, respectively. These results suggested that conservative approach like direct sowing on unplowed soil with vegetation cover systems can improve the nutritional quality of rainfed NERICAs and their sustainable production under poor oxisol soil in sub-Saharan Africa.

Key words: direct sowing, sustainable production, nutritional quality, rice, vegetation cover, yield, protein, soluble carbohydrate content

Popice Kenmogne Nuemsi Pierre, Brice Tonfack Libert, Mbogne Taboula Judith, Ahmad Mir Bilal, Roger Baleba Mbanga Moise, Ntsomboh Ntsefong Godswill, Nono Temegne Carine, Youmbi Emmanuel. Cultivation Systems Using Vegetation Cover Improves Sustainable Production and Nutritional Quality of New Rice for Africa in the Tropics[J]. Rice Science, 2018, 25(5): 286-292.

Figures/Tables 6

References 32

1	Abdellaoui Z, Teskrat H, Belhadj A, Zaghouane O.2006. Comparative study of the effect of conventional tillage, direct seeding and minimum tillage on the behavior of a durum wheat crop in the subhumid zone. In: Bouzerzour H, Irekti H, Vadon B. Third Mediterranean Meetings of Direct Seeding. Ciheam Zaragoza-Spain: 71-87.
2	Adjahossou B S, Adjahossou V N, Adjahossou D F, Edorh P, Sinsin B, Boko M.2009. Nutritional aspects of optimizing a cropping system combining maize and groundnuts in South Benin.Int J Biol Chem Sci, 3(5): 1141-1150.
3	AFD.2006. Direct seeding on permanent vegetation cover, an alternative solution to conventional farming systems in Southern countries. France: 68.
4	Corbeels M, Scopel E, Cardoso A, Bernoux M, Douzet J M, Siqueira Neto M.2006. Soil carbon storage potential of direct seeding mulch-based cropping systems in the Cerrados of Brazil.Global Change Biol, 12(9): 1773-1787.
5	Davidson E A, Suddick E C, Rice C W, Prokopy L S.2015. More food, low pollution (Mo Fo Lo Po): A grand challenge for the 21st century.J Environ Qual, 44(2): 305-311.
6	de Vita P, di Paolo E, Fecondo G, di Fonzo N, Pisante M.2007. No-tillage and conventional tillage effects on durum wheat yield, grain quality and soil moisture content in southern Italy. Soil Till Res, 92: 69-78.
7	Dorel M, Lakhia S, Pététin C, Bouamer S, Risède J M.2010. Banana planting without tillage on a mulch of crop residues: Effect on soil quality and crop functioning.Fruits, 65(2): 55-68.
8	Dubois O. 2011. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture: Managing systems at risk. Rome: FAO. 2011.
9	Fortas B, Mekhlouf A, Hamsi K, Boudiar R, Laouar A M, Djaïdjaa Z.2013. Impacts of cultivation techniques on the physical behavior of the soil and the cultivation of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) under the semi-arid conditions of the Sétif region.Rev Agric, 6: 12-20.
10	Hornick S B.1992. Factors affecting the nutritional quality of crops.Am J Altern Agric, 7: 63-68.
11	Kaur A, Brar A S.2016. Influence of mulching and irrigation scheduling on productivity and water use of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) in north-western India.Irrig Sci, 34(4): 261-269.
12	Mbaye M S, Kane A, Gueye M, Bassene C, Ba N, Diop D, Sylla S N, Noba K.2014. Optimum date and density of cowpea seed [Vigna unguiculata(L.) Walp.] in association with millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.].J Appl Biosci, 76: 6305-6315.
13	MʼBiandoun M, Dongmo A L, Balarabe O, Nchoutnji I.2009. Crop cover systems in Central Africa: Technical and socio- economic conditions for its development. In: Seiny-Boukar L, Boumard P. African Savannahs in Development: Innovate to Last. Cirad, Garoua: 1-10.
14	Mekhlouf A, Makhlouf M, Achiri A, Ait-Ouali A, Kourougli S.2011. Comparative study of the effect of tillage systems and previous crops on the soil and the behavior of common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under semi-arid conditions.Agriculture, 2: 52-65.
15	Mohammed B, Rachid M, Rachid M, Oumaima I, Mohamed B, Mohamed G, Bouchaib B.2013. Impact of agricultural practices on structural stability and soil organic matter in semi-arid Moroccan areas.Int J Inno Appl Stud, 4(2): 322-333.
16	Muthayya S, Sugimoto J D, Montgomery S, Maberly G F.2014. An overview of global rice production, supply, trade, and consumption.Ann New York Acad Sci, 1324: 7-14.
17	Pimentel D, Michael B.2013. Soil erosion threatens food production.Agriculture, 3(3): 443-463.
18	Rakotoarisoa J, Oliver R, Dusserre J, Muller B, Douzet J M, Michellon R, Moussa N, Razafinjara L A, Rajeriarison C, Scopel E.2010. Assessment of mineral nitrogen during the rainfed rice cycle under-cropping subsystems under vegetal cover in ferralitic clay soil in Madagascar.Etud Gest Sols, 2(17): 169-186.
19	Rodenburg J, Cissoko M, Kayeke J, Dieng I, Khan Z R,., Midega C A O, Onyuka E A, Scholes J D.2015. Do NERICA rice cultivars express resistance toStriga hermonthica(Del.) Benth. and Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze under field conditions?Field Crops Res, 170: 83-94.
20	SAS.2004. SAS Base 9.3.1: Procedures Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., USA.
21	Sihi D, Dari B, Sharma D K, Pathak H, Nain L, Sharma O P.2017. Evaluation of soil health in organic vs. conventional farming of basmati rice in North India.J Plant Nutr Soil Sci, 180: 389-406.
22	Shaon K D.2014. Role of micronutrient in rice cultivation and management strategy in organic agriculture: A reappraisal.Agric Sci, 5: 765-769.
23	Smogyi M.1952. Notes on sugar determination.J Biol Chem, 195(1): 19-23.
24	Sokei Y, Shinya Y, Kosaka M M, Inoue K M, Koimaru T.2011. NERICA Culture Guide. Cotonou, Benin: Rice Center for Africa, JICA: 43.
25	Thirze H.2016. Modelling Grain Surplus/Deficit in Cameroon for 2030. Master degree thesis INES 393. Lund University, Sweden: 59.
26	Tonfack L B, Bernadac A, Youmbi E, Mbouapouognigni V P, Ngueguim M, Akoa A.2009. Impact of organic and inorganic fertilizers on tomato vigour, yield and fruit composition under tropical andosol soil conditions.Fruits, 64: 167-177.
27	Tonfack L B, Youmbi E, Amougou A, Bernadac A.2013. Effect of organic/inorganic-cation balanced fertilizers on yield and temporal nutrient allocation of tomato fruits under andosol soil conditions in sub-Saharan Africa.Int J Agric Food Res, 2(2): 27-37.
28	van Ittersum M K, van Bussel L G J, Wolf J, Grassini P, van Wart J, Guilpart N, Claessens L, de Groot H, Wiebe K, Mason- D’Croz D, Yang H S, Boogaard H, van Oort P A J, van Loon M P, Saito K, Adimo O, Adjei-Nsiah S, Agali A, Bala A, Chikowo R, Kaizzi K, Kouressy M, Makoi J H J R, Ouattara K, Tesfaye K, Cassman K G.2016. Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself?Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 113(52): 14964-14969.
29	Yengoh G T, Ardö J.2014. Crop yield gaps in Cameroon.Ambio, 43(2): 175-190.
30	Wang Z H, Li S X, Malhi S.2008. Effects of fertilization and other agronomic measures on nutritional quality of crops.J Sci Food Agric, 88(1): 7-23.
31	Williams S W.1980. Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, AOAC: 5-9.
32	Zhou W, Lv T F, Chen Y, Westby A P, Ren W J.2014. Soil physicochemical and biological properties of paddy-upland rotation: A review.Sci World J, 2014: 1-8.

Variety	Treatment	Time (week)	Regression equation for plant height (cm)	R²	Time (week)	Regression equation for number of leaves per plant	R²
NERICA 3	Control	-	Y = 5.01e^0.32x	0.98	-	Y' = 3.3x - 1.24	0.99
	DVC	-	Y = 5.17e^0.31x	0.99	-	Y' = 3.3x - 1.24	0.99
	LVC	-	Y = 5.25e^0.31x	0.98	4-7	Y' = 2.73e^0.23x (*)	0.98
	MVC	-	Y = 5.71e^0.23x	0.98	4-7	Y' = 2.06e^0.24x (*)	0.94
NERICA 8	Control	-	Y = 5.41e^0.31x	0.98	-	Y' = 5x - 5.04	0.97
	DVC	10	Y = 5.49e^0.32x (**)	0.98	4-10	Y' = 4.02x - 2.31 (*)	0.97
	LVC	-	Y = 5.95e^0.27x	0.99	4-7	Y' = 2.3e^0.24x (**)	0.96
	MVC	-	Y = 6.61e^0.27x	0.98	4-7	Y' = 2.38e^0.24x (**)	0.99

Variety	Treatment	Time (week)	Regression equation for plant height (cm)	R²	Time (week)	Regression equation for number of leaves per plant	R²
NERICA 3	Control	-	Y = 5.01e^0.32x	0.98	-	Y' = 3.3x - 1.24	0.99
	DVC	-	Y = 5.17e^0.31x	0.99	-	Y' = 3.3x - 1.24	0.99
	LVC	-	Y = 5.25e^0.31x	0.98	4-7	Y' = 2.73e^0.23x (*)	0.98
	MVC	-	Y = 5.71e^0.23x	0.98	4-7	Y' = 2.06e^0.24x (*)	0.94
NERICA 8	Control	-	Y = 5.41e^0.31x	0.98	-	Y' = 5x - 5.04	0.97
	DVC	10	Y = 5.49e^0.32x (**)	0.98	4-10	Y' = 4.02x - 2.31 (*)	0.97
	LVC	-	Y = 5.95e^0.27x	0.99	4-7	Y' = 2.3e^0.24x (**)	0.96
	MVC	-	Y = 6.61e^0.27x	0.98	4-7	Y' = 2.38e^0.24x (**)	0.99

Variety	Treatment	No. of panicles per hill	No. of spikelets per panicle	1000-grain weight (g)	Dry matter content (%)	Yield (t/hm²)
NERICA3	Control	16 ± 5	143.7 ± 54.6	32.08 ± 0.02	50.44 ± 19.27	3.05 ± 0.82
	DVC	17 ± 4	89.3 ± 23.0	31.65 ± 0.01	40.43 ± 4.78	2.62 ± 0.88
	LVC	15 ± 2	88.7 ± 42.4	29.74 ± 0.03	53.87 ± 9.42	2.42 ± 1.42
	MVC	15 ± 7	50.2 ± 43.8	30.28 ± 0.03	42.88 ± 3.88	2.16 ± 1.50
	Mean	16 ± 5 a	93.0 ± 40.9 a	30.94 ± 0.02 a	46.91 ± 9.33 a	2.50 ± 1.40 a
NERICA8	Control	20 ± 5	43.4 ± 14.7	27.83 ± 0.01	33.51 ± 6.04	1.21 ± 0.95
	DVC	14 ± 2	44.1 ± 10.9	28.52 ± 0.01	33.88 ± 8.12	1.02 ± 0.40
	LVC	16 ± 7	25.2 ± 14.5	24.65 ± 0.06	32.61 ± 2.04	0.71 ± 0.21
	MVC	19 ± 3	30.5 ± 1.8	30.31 ± 0.03	37.26 ± 3.85	0.93 ± 0.34
	Mean	17 ± 4 a	35.8 ± 10.4 b	27.83 ± 0.03 b	34.32 ± 5.01 b	0.97 ± 0.59 b
Cultivation system		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Variety		ns	***	*	**	*
Cultivation system × variety		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

Variety	Treatment	No. of panicles per hill	No. of spikelets per panicle	1000-grain weight (g)	Dry matter content (%)	Yield (t/hm²)
NERICA3	Control	16 ± 5	143.7 ± 54.6	32.08 ± 0.02	50.44 ± 19.27	3.05 ± 0.82
	DVC	17 ± 4	89.3 ± 23.0	31.65 ± 0.01	40.43 ± 4.78	2.62 ± 0.88
	LVC	15 ± 2	88.7 ± 42.4	29.74 ± 0.03	53.87 ± 9.42	2.42 ± 1.42
	MVC	15 ± 7	50.2 ± 43.8	30.28 ± 0.03	42.88 ± 3.88	2.16 ± 1.50
	Mean	16 ± 5 a	93.0 ± 40.9 a	30.94 ± 0.02 a	46.91 ± 9.33 a	2.50 ± 1.40 a
NERICA8	Control	20 ± 5	43.4 ± 14.7	27.83 ± 0.01	33.51 ± 6.04	1.21 ± 0.95
	DVC	14 ± 2	44.1 ± 10.9	28.52 ± 0.01	33.88 ± 8.12	1.02 ± 0.40
	LVC	16 ± 7	25.2 ± 14.5	24.65 ± 0.06	32.61 ± 2.04	0.71 ± 0.21
	MVC	19 ± 3	30.5 ± 1.8	30.31 ± 0.03	37.26 ± 3.85	0.93 ± 0.34
	Mean	17 ± 4 a	35.8 ± 10.4 b	27.83 ± 0.03 b	34.32 ± 5.01 b	0.97 ± 0.59 b
Cultivation system		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Variety		ns	***	*	**	*
Cultivation system × variety		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

Variety	Treatment	Total protein content (%)	Total soluble carbohydrate (%)
NERICA 3	Control	4.28 ± 0.16 D	3.58 ± 0.03 C
	DVC	7.91 ± 0.19 A	3.55 ± 0.04 C
	LVC	7.05 ± 0.12 C	5.55 ± 0.25 AB
	MVC	7.49 ± 0.24 B	3.22 ± 0.05 C
	Mean	6.68 ± 1.49 a	3.97 ± 0.97 b
NERICA 8	Control	2.31 ± 0.15 F	3.96 ± 0.07 C
	DVC	4.52 ± 0.17 D	5.09 ± 0.03 B
	LVC	3.54 ± 0.17 E	6.86 ± 0.84 A
	MVC	3.68 ± 0.03 F	6.23 ± 0.31 A
	Mean	3.52 ± 0.84 b	5.53 ± 2.38 a
Cultivation system		***	***
Variety		***	***
Cultivation system × variety		***	***