Evaluation of Different Types of Fertilization on the Productivity of A Cereal (Zéa Mays) in the Sudano-Sahelian Zone of Cameroon

Valentin Yvan Emmanuel Mvondo ¹ , Pa Aï Vivien Nenwala ¹ , Claudine Vounba ¹ , DaïrouSaïfoullah ² , Elisabeth Yaboki ³ , Alain Loabe Pahimi ² , Sobda Gonne ² , Sali Bourou⁴ , Didier Begoude⁴ , Tata PrecilliaIjang⁴

¹Institute of Agricultural Research for Development, Maroua Agricultural Research Center, PO Box: 33, Maroua, Cameroon

²Institute of Agricultural Research for Development, Garoua Multipurpose Research Station, PO Box: 415, Garoua, Cameroon

³Institute of Agricultural Research for Development, Wakwa Agricultural Research Center, PO Box: 65, Ngaoundéré, Cameroon

⁴Institute of Agricultural Research for Development, Head Of ice, PO Box: 2123, Nkolbisson, Yaoundé, Cameroon

Corresponding Author Email: mvey2000@yahoo.fr

DOI : https://doi.org/10.51470/ABP.2025.04.01.18

Abstract

Keywords

Download this article as:

1-      INTRODUCTION

In sub-Saharan Africa, the consequences of climate change are increasingly being felt, particularly in the agricultural sector, where yields are falling. This, combined with rapid population growth at a stable rate of 2.7%[1], is contributing to the failure to achieve food security and an increase in malnutrition [2], [3]. The effects of climate change, particularly the dry spells during the rainy season, are leading to a slowdown in crop growth and a proliferation of insects. These effects are leading to increased use of fertilizers and pesticides. However, given the precarious conditions in which producers in sub-Saharan Africa live (over the period 2005-2015, average annual agricultural productivity per worker in sub-Saharan Africa was US$1,109.30, [4]), it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to have access to sufficient quantities. This results in huge losses, exacerbating food insecurity. To date, approximately 218 million people are undernourished [1]. Consequently, a substantial increase in food production is required to remedy this situation [5], [6], [7].

To increase food production, the availability and use of agricultural technologies such as improved varieties and fertilizer remain a central focus of agricultural policy in these countries [8].The promotion of fertilizer especially has become a resounding theme across SSA in the past decades [9], [10], particularly following the first African Fertilizer Summit in Abuja, Nigeria in 2006[11].

Producers, therefore, resort to the use of large quantities of chemical inputs (herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides) which have a negative impact not only on the environment[12],[13], [14], [15]but also on human health[16], [17], [18], [19].

Maize, Zea mays L. (corn), is the most abundantly produced cereal in the worldafter wheat [20], [21], [22]. It is grown in every continent except Antarctica. About 50 species exist and consist of different colors, textures, and grain shapes and sizes. White, yellow, and red are the most common cultivated maize types. The white and yellow varieties are preferred by most people depending on the region[21].

Maize is the most important cereal crop in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [23], [24], [21], [25]and an important staple food for more than 1.2 billion people in SSA and Latin America[21]. More than 300 million Africans depend on maize as the main staple food crop. All parts of the crop can be used for food and non-food products. Maize accounts for 30−50% of low-income household expenditures in Africa. Over 30% of the caloric intake of people in Sub‐Saharan Africa comes from maize[23], [26].For these reasons, many African producers who depend on maize as a staple food crop have adopted the increased use of fertilizers to maintain a steady supply, to the detriment of the effects they have on the environment and human health.

This is the background to the present study, which aims to compare chemical and/or organic amendments on cereal growth and yield.

2-      STUDY AREA

The study area is located in the North region of Cameroon, Guider’s district, specifically in the locality of Bang (Figure 1). The coordinates of the plot center are N 09° 52′ 18.7”, E 13° 58′ 55.69”.The North region is characterized by a Sudano-Sahelian climate with a long dry season from October to April and a short rainy season from May to September. Rainfall averages 1000 mm/year.Average temperatures are around 28°C, with maximums (45°C) reached in March-April.In Bang, the soils encountered are lithic soils developed on embrechites. These lithic soils are generally very sandy, with a fairly high percentage of gravel. Numerous boulders and rock outcrops are often visible on the surface, highlighting the intensity of the erosion. These soils are characterized by a fairly high proportion of gravel (20 to 40%). With very little clay (8-10%), coarse sand dominates (50-60%). The pH of these soils varies greatly from one place to another, ranging from 5.5 to 6.8. It is generally relatively homogeneous throughout the profile. The organic matter content is around 1%, with a C/N of 10 to 12. The exchange capacity is very low – 4 to 5 meq/100g and the saturation rate is around 70% [27].

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted during the 2023 cropping seasons in the locality of Bang. To carry out the work, materials, and equipment had to be assembled and a test protocol established.

3.1- Vegetal material

The plant material used is an improved variety of maize appreciated by the local population which is the CMS 9015 (POOL 16 DR-SR) maize variety. This is a composite variety developed in Cameroon by the Institute of Agricultural Research for Development in 1990. It has a cycle of between 90 and 95 days, and the height of the adult plant varies between 140 and 170 cm. The seed is white with a toothed texture. The yield is 4 to 5 t/ha and the plant is tolerant to drought and diseases (smut, curvilaria, and stripe) but highly susceptible to striga[28].

3.2- Fertilizer and agro-ecological practices

Three main products were used to fertilize the experimental plots: NPK chemical fertilizer formulated as 14 N-24 P₂O₅-14 K₂O-3.5 MgO, urea (46 N-0 P₂O₅-0 K₂O), and completely decomposed cow dung. An agroecological practice was also used, namely the system under plant cover with dried straw.Chemical fertilizer and urea were obtained on the market from approved distributors and the cow dung from farmers in the study area.

3.3- Experimental device

The experimental set-up was the randomized Fischer block type with 3 repetitions and 5 treatments (0 amendments, NPK, Organic Matter, 50% (NPK + Organic Matter), and straw).Each experimental unit (EU) had a surface area of 4m x 4m, i.e. 16 m². There were 5EUs per block, with a2 m spacing between EU(Figure 2). Each block therefore had an area of 112 m². As a result, 616 m² were requisitioned. The distance between the blocks was 5m.

The seedlings were sown on 08July 2024 with 2 to 3 seeds per plot and a sowing density of 0.80m x 0.25m.

3.4- Treatment application

In all four treatments were administered as follows:The first treatment was T1 in which fertilizer (NPK) and urea were applied in accordance with the technical itinerary for maize production provided by the Institute of Agricultural Research for Development. This protocol stipulated that, 10 days after germination, 0.32 kg of NPK mixed with 0.08 kg of urea were applied (base fertilizer). Then 30 days after germination, 0.32 kg of urea was applied (cover fertilizer).

The second treatment was T2. Here, according to the Cameroonian Cotton Development Company (SODECOTON), you need 5 tons of organic matter to fertilize 1 hectare. Estimating from this assertion, each microplate of 4m x 4m, meaning 16 m² received 8 kg of fully decomposed cow dungfertilizer after sowing.

In the third trailT3, and as with treatment T1, the NPKand urea fertilizerswere applied in accordance with the technical itinerary for maize production provided by the Institute of Agricultural Research for Development. Cow dung was added to these chemical inputs. Each input was applied at 50% of the required quantity. So, 10 days after emergence, 0.16 kg of NPK mixed with 0.04 kg of urea and 4 kg of cow dung were applied. 30 days after emergence, 0.16 kg of urea was applied.

Finally, the fourth treatment was T4. The straw was put in place 10 days after emergence to allow the plants to emerge fully from the soil.

3.5- Data collection and analysis

The various data collected during this study concern : (1) final germination percentage (FGP), (2) Germination Rate Index (GRI), (3) stem length (flowering), (4) root length (flowering), (5) number of secondary roots (flowering), (6) stem length (fruiting), (7) root length (fruiting), (8) number of secondary roots (fruiting), and (9) grain yield.

The data collected was processed using Microsoft Excel and then analyzed by ANOVA using XLSTAT software version 2023.3.1.(1416).

3-      RESULTS

The various results obtained are shown in Table 1. The averages obtained for each treatment were compared.

4.1- Final germination percentage and Germination Rate Index

The values for the final germination percentage per block ranged from 45.42% to 91.67%, with an average of 76% ± 13.06. The best percentage was obtained in Block 2, followed by block 3 and finally block 1 (Figure 3a).The same observation was made for the germination rate index, where the minimum and maximum values were 18.16% and 36.67% respectively, for an average of 30% ± 5.18. The best percentage was obtained in block 2, followed by block 3 and finally block 1 (Figure 3b). A comparison of the averages obtained per block (tables 2 and 3) shows that there is no significant difference in the values obtained in the different blocks, which demonstrates that the surface area used for the study is homogeneous and therefore has no impact on the parameters measured.

4.2- Stem length, root length and number of secondary roots (flowering)

The various parameters mentioned above were measured at the flowering stage precisely 60 days after sowing.

Stem length ranged from 190 to 200 cm, with an average value of 196.47 ± 2.23 cm. Treatments T1, T3, and T4 had the highest values (197.33 cm), followed by treatment T0 (195.67 cm) and treatment T2 (194.67 cm, figure 4a). By comparing the averages obtained for each treatment (Table 4). The stem length variable did not show any significant difference between the different treatments applied.

The length of the main root varies between 20 and 24 cm. The average is 22.4 ± 1.18 cm. The highest value was observed with treatment T2 (23.33 cm), followed by treatment T3 (22.67 cm) and treatments T0, T1, and T4 (22 cm, Figure 4b). The analysis of variance for this variable (Table 5) shows that there was no significant difference between the different treatments.

The number of secondary roots ranged from 26 to 30, with an average of 27.87 ± 1.25. Treatment T3 (28.67) had the highest number of secondary roots, followed by T2 (28.33), T1 and T4 (27.67) and T0 (27.00, Figure 4c). However, a comparison of the averages for each treatment (Table 6) shows that there is no significant difference between them.

4.3- Stem length, root length and number of secondary roots (fruiting)

These different parameters were measured 90 days after sowing.

Stem length ranged from 200 to 220 cm, with an average of 204 ± 7.37 cm. Treatment T4 recorded the longest stems (210 cm), followed by T0 (206.67 cm), T3 (203.33 cm), and T1 and T2 (200 cm, Figure 5a). The analysis of variance (Table 7) shows that there is no significant difference between the values obtained for the different treatments.

The length of the main root ranged from 24 to 27 cm, with an average of 25.33 ± 0.82 cm. The highest values were observed with treatments T1 and T2 (25.67 cm), followed by T3 and T4 (25.33 cm) and finally T4 (24.67 cm, Figure 5b). The analysis of variance (Table 8) shows that there was no significant difference between the values obtained for the different treatments.

The number of secondary roots varied between 36 and 40, with an average of 37.87 ± 1.06. The highest number of secondary roots was obtained with treatment T1 (38.67), followed by T0 (38.00), T2 and T3 (37.67) and finally T4 (37.33, Figure 5c). The analysis of variance (Table 9) shows that there is no significant difference between the values obtained for the different treatments.

4-      DISCUSSION

5.1-Final Germination Percentage and Germination Rate Index

The final germination percentage and the germination rate index depend mainly on the germination capacity of the seeds but also on the physicochemical properties of the soil. These parameters were measured when no treatment had been applied, so the absence of any significant difference between the different blocks highlights the homogeneity of the experimental plot. Similar results were reported by[29].

5.2- Maize growth components and yields

The plant height, root length and number of secondary roots can serve as important indices that directly reflect the growth of the maize plants[30].Plant height is one of the maize growth parameters that is affected by N availability[31], [32] and is essential in determining yield grains [33], [34].

In general, plants treated with mineral fertilizer and/or organic matter have higher growth parameter values than the control (T0). This implies that fertilization improves the chemical properties of the soil [35], [36] and therefore can impact crop growth parameters such as plant height[37].In addition, soil fertility inputs with mineral fertilizer consistently led to greater plant height which was attributed to the readily available N. Various studies have reported a significant increase in maize plant height with mineral fertilizer application [38], [31]. Several authors have also reported an increase in plant height of various crops as a result of fertilizer application, for instance,[39] and[40].[41] and[36] also reported thatcombination of organic inputs and mineral fertilizer showed an increase in plant height.[42] also reported increased plant height in treatments using organic resources.

Similarly, the same observations made for plants whose soil is covered with straw (T4) show that yields are higher than those of the control. This shows that straw also plays a role in improving the soil’s physico-chemical properties, particularly its water content and structure, as it adds more C sources and other nutrients to the soil[43].

In this study, fertilizer (organic and mineral) applications also increased the yield grain of maize over the control.The differences in the yield may be as a result of soiland the field management practices. The increase in grain yield recorded in the organic and mineral treated soil compared to the unamended plot might be attributed to improvement in the maize water use and nutrient availability as a result of fertilizeraddition. Our results are in agreement with numerous studies which have shown that the addition of organic manures exerts multiple benefits on crop productivity and soil fertility including improvement of soil structure [44], [45], [43] and stimulation of nutrient availability and microbial activity resulting in high yields [46], [47] and carbon sequestration [48], [49].

Although there was no significant difference between the yields obtained by the different treatments, treatment T3 obtained the best yield. This is consistent with the work of[50] who showed thatmanure and P application are the most important factors for maize yields.

5-      CONCLUSION

The main objective of this study is to compare chemical and/or organic amendments on the growth and yield of a cereal based on data obtained within the defined experimental set-up. A comparison of the results obtained for both growth and yield showed that there were no significant differences between the different treatments. However, as far as growth parameters are concerned, the best results were obtained with the mineral and/or organic fertilizertreatments. With regard to yield, the treatment consisting of a mixture of mineral fertilizer (50%) and manure (50%) obtained the best yield. It is therefore important to raise people’s awareness of the benefits of using this mixture. The aim is to ensure sustainable management of natural resources, particularly soil and water.

DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to the Innovation for Adaptation to Climate Change project (INNOVACC) for the funding that made this work possible, to the Agricultural Research Institute for Development (IRAD) for the logistics and equipment made available to us, and to the people of Bang for their warm welcome and help with the work.

REFERENCES

[1] OCDE/FAO (2016). L’agriculture en Afrique subsaharienne : Perspectives et enjeux de la décennie à venir.In Perspectives agricoles de l’OCDE et de la FAO 2016-2025, Éditions OCDE, Paris, pp : 63-104.https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2016-5-fr

[2] FAO (2009). The state of food insecurity in the world 2009. Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and World Food Program, Rome.

[3]FAO (2014). The state of food insecurity in the world 2014. Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and World Food Program, Rome.

[4]Odusola A. (2016). Agriculture, pauvreté rurale et inégalités de revenus en Afrique subsaharienne. Pp : 85-109 In UNDP/RBA : Income inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa. Chapter 4.

[5] Tilman D., Cassman K. G., Matson P. A., Naylor R., Polasky S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671–677.

[6] Godfray H. C. J., Beddington J. R., Crute I. R., Haddad L., Lawrence D., Muir J. F., Pretty J., Robinson S., Thomas S. M., Toulmin C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812–818.

[7] Gregory P. J., George T. S. (2011). Feeding nine billion: the challenge to sustainable crop production. Journal of Experimental Botany, 62(15), 5233–5239. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err232

[8] Jena P R., Odendo M. (2014). Assessment of the maize situation, outlook and investment opportunities in Eastern and Southern Africa (Regional Synthesis -Regional Assessment Eastern and Southern Africa). Nairobi : International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.

[9] Ariga J., Jayne T. S. (2011). Fertiliser in Kenya: Factors Driving the Increase in Usage by Smallholder Farmers. In P. Chuhan-Pole & M. Angwafo (Eds.), Yes Africa Can: Success Stories from a Dynamic Continent (pp. 269–288). Washington, DC : World Bank.

[10] Takeshima H., Lee H, L. (2012). Agricultural Inputs Subsidy and Their Developmental Impact: Conventional Wisdom. MozSSP Policy Note 1. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI Policy Note 1, October. Washington DC, IFPRI.

[11] Jena P.R., De Groote H., Nayak B.P., Hittmeyer A. (2020). Evolution of Fertiliser Use and its Impact on Maize Productivity in Kenya: Evidence from Multiple Surveys. Food security, 17p. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01105-z

[12] Kattwinkel M., Liess M., Arena M., Bopp S., Streissl F., Rombke J. (2015). Recovery of aquatic and terrestrial populations in the context of European pesticide risk assessment. Environmental Reviews 23, 382–394

[13] Santás-Miguel V., Arias-Estévez M., Díaz-Raviña M., Fernández-Sanjurjo M.J., Álvarez-Rodríguez E., Núñez-Delgado A., Fernández-Calviño D. (2020). Interactions between soil properties and tetracycline toxicity affecting to bacterial community growth in agricultural soil. Applied Soil Ecology 147, 103437.

[14] Thomas M.C., Flores F., Kaserzon S., Fisher R., Negri A.P. (2020). Toxicity of ten herbicides to the tropical marine microalgae Rhodomonas salina. Scientific Reports 10, 7612.

[15] Fernández-CalviñoD.,Rousk J., Bååth E., Bollmann U.E., Bester K.,Brandt K.K. (2021). Short-term toxicity assessment of a triazine herbicide (terbutryn) underestimates the sensitivity of soil microorganisms. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 154, 108130https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108130

[16] Hoppin J, Umbach D, Long S, London S, Henneberger P, Blair A, Alavanja M, Freeman L, Sandler D. (2017). Pesticides are associated with allergic and non-allergic wheeze among male farmers. Environmental Health Perspectives 125(4) : 535–543.

[17] Andreotti G, Koutros S, Hofmann JN, Sandler DP, Lubin JH, Lynch CF, Lerro CC, De Roos AJ, Parks CG, Alavanja MC, et al. (2018). Glyphosate use and cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 110(5) : 509–516.

[18] Woźniak E, Sicińska P, Michałowicz J, Woźniak K, Reszka E, Huras B, Zakrzewski J, Bukowska B. (2018). The mechanism of DNA damage induced by Roundup 360 PLUS, glyphosate and AMPA in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells – genotoxic risk assessment. Food and Chemical Toxicology120 : 510–522

[19] Peillex C., Pelletier M. (2020) The impact and toxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides on health and immunity. Journal of Immunotoxicology, 17:1, 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547691X.2020.180449

[20] García-Lara S., Serna-Saldivar S. O. (2019). Corn History and Culture. In: Serna-Saldivar, S.O. (Ed.), Corn (Third Edition). AACC International Press, Oxford, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10. 1016/B978-0-12-811971-6.00001-2

[21] IITA (2021). Maize. www.iita.org/cropsnew/maize/ consulted on 04/03/2024

[22] Erenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prasanna BM (2022). Global maize production, consumption and trade: Trends and R&D implications. Food Security 14:1295-1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7

[23] McCann JC (2007). Maize and Grace: Africa’s Encounter with a New World Crop. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, p. 289

[24] FAO (2021). FAOStat. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

[25] Woomer P L., Roobroeck D and Mulei W (2024). Agricultural Transformation in Maize Producing Areas of Africa. Agricultural Sciences. IntechOpen. https://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112861

[26] Shiferaw B., Prasanna B., Hellin J., Banziger M. (2011). Crops that feed the world 6. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food Security, 3, 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-011-0140-5

[27] Vallerie M. (1964). Carte pédologique du Nord Cameroun au 1/50.000, Notice sur les feuilles Bidzar-Guider. ORSTOM, 119p.

[28] FAO (2012). Catalogue des espèces et variétés de cultures vivrières d’intérêt communautaire dans l’espace CEMAC. ISBN 978-92-5-207193-8

[29] Waga Mana P.B, Wang-Bara B., Mvondo V.Y.E, BourouS.,Palaï O. (2023). Evaluation of the Agronomic and Technological Performance of Three New Cotton Varieties in the Cotton Zone of Cameroon. Acta Botanica Plantae. V02i01, 28-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7715249

[30] Faloye O.T., Alatise M.O., Ajayi A.E., Ewulo B.S. (2019). Effects of biochar and inorganic fertiliser applications on growth, yield and water use efficiency of maize under deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 217 : 165 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.02.044

[31] Yin X., McClure M.A., Jaja N., Tyler D.D., Hayes R.M. (2011). In-season prediction of corn yield using plant height under major production systems. Agronomy Journal 103, 923–929. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2010.0450

[32] Mokhtassi-Bidgoli, A., AghaAlikhani, M., Nassiri-Mahallati, M., Zand, E., Gonzalez Andujar, J.L., Azari, A. (2013). Agronomic performance, seed quality and nitrogen uptake of Descurainia Sophia in response to different nitrogen rates and water regimes. Industrial Crops and Products 44, 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.09.018

[33] Machado S., Bynum E.D.J., Archer T.L., Lascano R.J., Wilson L.T., Bordovsky J., Segarra E., Bronson K., Nesmith D.M., Xu W. (2002). Spatial and temporal variability of corn growth and grain yield: implications for site specific farming. Crop Science 42, 1564–1576.

[34] Freeman K.W., Girma K., Arnall D.B., Mullen R.W., Marin K.L., Teal R.K., Raun W.R. (2007). By-plant prediction of corn forage biomass and nitrogen uptake at various growth stages using remote sensing and plant height. Agronomy Journal 99, 530–536. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2006.0135

[35] Faloye O.T., Alatise M.O., Ajayi A.E., Ewulo B.S. (2017). Synergistic effects of biochar and inorganic fertiliser on maize yield in an alfisol under drip irrigation. Soil &Tillage Research 174, 214–220.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.07.013

[36] Kiboi M.N., Ngetich K.F., Fliessbach A., Muriuki A., Mugendi D.N. (2019). Soil fertility inputs and tillage influence on maize crop performance and soil water content in the Central Highlands of Kenya. Agricultural Water Management 217: 316-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.014

[37] Boomsma C.R., Santini J.B., West T.D., Brewer J.C., Mcintyre L.M., Vyn T.J. (2010). Maize grain yield responses to plant height variability resulting from crop rotation and tillage system in a long-term experiment. Soil& Tillage Research 106, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.12.006

[38] Makinde E.A. (2007). Effects of an organo-mineral fertilizer application on the growth and yield of maize. Journal of Applied Sciences Research 3(10), 1152–1155. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.1378

[39] Ehsanipour A., Razmjoo J., Zeinali H. (2012). Effect of nitrogen rates on yield and quality of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) accessions. Industrial Crops and Products 35, 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.06.018

[40] Wu-jun, Z., Gang-hua, L., Yi-ming, Y., Quan, L., Jun, Z., Jin-you, L., Shaohua, W., She, T., Yan-feng, D. (2014). Effects of nitrogen application rate and ratio on lodging resistance of super rice with different genotypes. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 13, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60388-3

[41] Tabu I.M., Bationo A., Obura R.K., Masinde J. (2007). Effect of rock phosphate, lime and green manure on growth and yield of maize in a non-productive niche of a rhodic ferralsol in farmer’s fields. In Bationo A., Wasma B., Kihara J., Kimetu J. (eds) Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges Opportunities. Springer, Dordrecht, pp: 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5760-1_42

[42] Drakopoulos D., Scholberg J.M.S., Lantinga E.A., Tittonell P.A. (2016). Influence of reduced tillage and fertilization regime on crop performance and nitrogen utilization of organic potato. Organic Agriculture 6, 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-015-0110-x

[43] Zhang Y., Li C., Wang Y., Hu Y., Christie P., Zhang J., Li X. (2016). Maize yield and soil fertility with combined use of compost and inorganic fertilizers on a calcareous soil on the North China Plain. Soil & Tillage Research. 155, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.08.006

[44] Six J., Elliott E.T., Paustian K. (1999). Aggregate and soil organic matter dynamics under conventional and no-tillage systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63, 1350–1358.

[45] Rasool R., Kukal S.S., Hira G.S. (2008). Soil organic carbon and physical properties as affected by long-term application of FYM and inorganic fertilizers in maize– wheat system. Soil & Tillage Research 101, 31–36.

[46] Liang B., Yang X.Y., He X.H., Zhou J.B. (2011). Effects of 17 years fertilization on soil microbial biomass C and N and soluble organic C and N in loessial soil during maize growth. Biology and Fertility Soils 47, 121–128.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-010-0511-7

[47] Mohamed S., Sawsan A., Dalia M. (2008). Improving maize grain yield and its quality grown on a newly reclaimed sandy soil by applying micronutrient, organic manure and biological inoculation. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 4(5): 537-544

[48] Fan J.L., Ding W.X., Xiang J., Qin S.W., Zhang J.B., Ziadi N. (2014). Carbon sequestration in an intensively cultivated sandy loam soil in the North China Plain as affected by compost and inorganic fertilizer application. Geoderma 230, 22–28.

[49] Cai Z.C., Qin S.W. (2006). Dynamics of crop yields and soil organic carbon in a long-term fertilization experiment in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China. Geoderma 136, 708–715.

[50] Duan Y.H., Xu M.G., Gao S.D., Yang X.Y., Huang S.M., Liu H.B., Wang B.R. (2014). Nitrogen use efficiency in a wheat–corn cropping system from 15 years of manure and fertilizer applications. Field Crops Research 157, 47–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.12.012