Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T02:07:15.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Agronomic and economic benefits of integrated nutrient management options for cowpea production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2020

Bachir Bounou Issoufa
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana Science and Technology Research Centre (STRECE), BP: 436, Niamey8000, Niger
Ali Ibrahim*
Affiliation:
Africa Rice Centre (AfricaRice), Sahel Station, BP: 96, Saint Louis, Senegal
Robert Clement Abaidoo
Affiliation:
Department of Theoretical and Applied Biology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, PMB 5320, Ibadan, Nigeria
*
*Corresponding author. Emails: ibabaye@gmail.com; i.ali@cgiar.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The limitation of soil amendments and insufficient and irregular rainfall are the main factors accounting for the decline in crop yields in the Sahelian low-input cropping systems. This study explored the agronomic and economic responses of integrated use of millet glume-derived compost with synthetic fertilizer in cowpea-based cropping system. A two-year field experiment was laid out as factorial design arranged in randomized complete blocks with three rates of compost (0, 4000, and 8000 kg ha−1) and three rates of recommended synthetic fertilizer (0, 50, and 100%). Cowpea grain yield increased markedly with combined application of compost and synthetic fertilizer. The combined use of compost applied at 8000 kg ha−1 and 50% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer increased cowpea grain yield by 51% compared to the application of 100% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer. The rainwater use efficiency (RaUE) increased by 52 and 49% with the combined application of compost at 8000 kg ha−1 along with 50% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer when compared to the application of 100% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer in 2013 and 2014, respectively. All treatments induced a positive net income, and the highest value/cost ratio was achieved with combined application of compost and synthetic fertilizer. This study highlights the possibility of improving cowpea productivity through combined use of composted locally available organic input with half of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer. This combination would reduce the investment in mineral fertilizer currently made by smallholder farmers in the Sahelian low-input cowpea cropping system and reduce environmental pollution resulting from the current practice of burning the millet glume.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] is a major legume grain crop cultivated in the Sahel and contributes to improved nutrition of millions of people living in this region. Cowpea is well adapted to the Sahelian ecosystems as it is relatively tolerant to drought and can be grown in poor sandy soils (Belko et al., Reference Belko, Cisse, Diop, Zombre, Thiaw, Muranaka and Ehlers2014). As a legume, cowpea contributes to soil nitrogen (N) enrichment through natural biological N fixation with compatible rhizobia (Adjei-Nsiah, Reference Adjei-Nsiah2006; Giller, Reference Giller, Vanlauwe, Diels, Sanginga and Merckx2002), thereby improving soil fertility status in cereal-dominated cropping systems. Rusinamhodzi et al. (Reference Rusinamhodzi, Murwira and Nyamangara2006) reported that cowpea can supply up to 48 kg N ha−1 to the subsequent crop.

In Niger, up to 90% of the area cultivated with legumes is occupied by cowpea usually intercropped with cereals such as millet or sorghum (Bationo et al., Reference Bationo, Traore, Kimetu, Bagayoko, Kihara, Bado, Lompo, Tabo, Koala, Bationo, Waswa, Kihara, Adolwa, Vanlauwe and Saidou2003). Generally, cowpea yields are very low under smallholder cropping systems. The grain yield in farmers’ fields is frequently less than 500 kg ha−1 (Sambo, Reference Sambo2013), while cowpea grain yields ranging from 1500 to 2500 kg ha−1 were obtained in Research Stations (Kamara et al., Reference Kamara, Omoigui, Kamai, Ewansiha, Ajeigbe, Sivasankar, Bergvinson, Gaur, Kumar, Beebe and Tomo2018). Low yields in farmers’ fields have been ascribed to a multitude of factors including inappropriate agronomic practices, drought conditions, inherent low soil fertility, and continual decline in soil fertility due to poor soil management (Voortman, Reference Voortman2010).

Several studies have indicated that the yield of legumes including cowpea could be enhanced with the use of good agronomic practices such as improved varieties, phosphate-based fertilizers, and rhizobia inoculation (Buruchara et al., Reference Buruchara, Chirwa, Sperling, Mukankusi, Rubyogo, Mutonhi and Abang2011; Kolawole, Reference Kolawole2012; Saidou et al., Reference Saidou, Omae and Tobita2010; Thuita et al., Reference Thuita, Pypers, Herrmann, Okalebo, Othieno, Muema and Lesueur2012). However, the use of inputs particularly synthetic fertilizer on cowpea remains generally limited and unattractive because of their high cost (Abdoulaye and Sanders, Reference Abdoulaye and Sanders2005; Chianu et al., Reference Chianu, Nkonya, Mairura, Chianu and Akinnifesi2011). On the other hand, the effectiveness of combined use of synthetic and organic amendments for improving crop yields and maintaining soil fertility has been well documented (Bationo and Waswa, Reference Bationo, Waswa, Bationo, Waswa, Okeyo, Maina and Kihara2011; Ibrahim et al., Reference Ibrahim, Abaidoo, Fatondji and Opoku2015; Yamoah et al., Reference Yamoah, Bationo, Shapiro and Koala2002). The availability of the resources for achieving these positive effects remains a major challenge, especially in the Sahelian countries. The sources of organic amendments such as crop residue and animal manure are not available in adequate quantities (Valbuena et al., Reference Valbuena, Tui, Erenstein, Teufel, Duncan, Abdoulaye, Swain, Mekonnen, Germaine and Gérard2015). There is, therefore, a need of exploring alternative options to address organic amendments constraint for efficient use of resources.

Millet glume (residues left after threshing of millet) is a potential source of organic amendment in Niger, the second world’s largest producer of millet (Obilana, Reference Obilana2003). It contains reasonable amounts of major and minor plant nutrients (Tarfo et al., Reference Tarfo, Chude, Iwuafor and Yaro2001). However, the main challenge associated with the direct use of this organic material is its low nutrient release – particularly nitrogen – due to its high lignin content, which limits nutrient availability for increased crop production (Bachir, Reference Bachir2015). Currently, millet glume is gathered and burned in most of the areas in Niger. The burning of crop residues has contributed to environmental pollution with the increase in air pollutants such as CO2, CO, NH3, and NOx (Bhattacharyya et al., Reference Bhattacharyya, Ghosh, Mishra, Mandal, Rao and Sarkar2019). There is, therefore, a need to improve the fertilizer value of millet glume for enhancing nutrient release and increasing crop yields in the Sahel. Composting is a biological decomposition process of organic materials and considered as a good way of recycling organic materials into a stabilized end product for agriculture use (Bernal et al., Reference Bernal, Alburquerque and Moral2009). Generally, compost application to soils stimulates microbial biomass which acts as a source sink in nutrient cycling and as a driving force in nutrient availability (Barthod et al., Reference Barthod, Rumpel and Dignac2018; Moreno et al., Reference Moreno, Moreno, Lacasta and Meco2012; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Li and Klassen2007).

There is limited information on the potential effects of integrated use of millet glume-derived compost (MGD-compost) and mineral fertilizer for increasing cowpea productivity in the Sahel. The novelty of the present study is addressing this knowledge gap, which has an important implication for diversifying the source of nutrients and enhancing crop productivity in the Sahel while safeguarding the environment. We hypothesized that the combined use of MGD-compost and synthetic fertilizer enhances cowpea yield and increases economic return. The objective of this study was to explore the agronomic and economic responses of combined use of MGD-compost and synthetic fertilizer in cowpea-based cropping system.

Materials and Methods

Description of experimental site

The experiment was carried out in 2013 and 2014 cropping season at N’dounga Research Station of Institut National des Recherches Agronomiques du Niger (INRAN, 13°21′N, 2°14′54″E, 186 m above sea level). The average annual rainfall over the last 14 years at the experimental site is 510 mm (INRAN climate Database). The total rainfall recorded during the experimental periods was 537 and 479 mm in 2013 and 2014, respectively (Figure 1). The soil is classified as Psammentic Paleustalf, following the USDA Soil Taxonomy. This soil is moderately acid (pH-H2O 5.8) and characterized by low organic matter (organic carbon (OC) 0.08%) and low water holding capacity due to its coarse-textured feature (Table 1).

Figure 1. Rainfall distribution during the cropping season 2013 and 2014.

Table 1. Initial soil chemical and physical properties of the experimental site

Compost preparation

The compost was prepared as a combination (2:1) of millet glume and manure. The compost pile was watered with 0.1 m3 once every 10 days to soften the substrate and thus facilitate degradation by microorganisms. The compost materials were then buried in a pit of 2 m × 2 m × 1 m and covered with polyethylene sheet to minimize moisture losses. The polyethylene was slightly perforated to allow aeration. The temperature was taken daily for the first 14 days and at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 weeks after incubation. The ambient temperature was also measured by leaving the thermometer in the air for 5 minutes at each sampling time. Also, the pile was turned after every 10 days (during pile watering) with a shovel to ensure a homogenous mixture of the components of the pile, water, and air. Watering of pile was stopped after 60 days of composting. After 85 days, the compost was then air-dried and stored in bags until its application in the field.

Treatments and experimental design

The experiment was a 3 × 3 factorial arranged in a randomized complete block design replicated four times. The treatments consisted of three levels of synthetic fertilizer: 100, 50, and 0% of the recommended rate synthetic fertilizer (by INRAN) corresponding to 30, 15, and 0 kg N ha−1 and 45, 22.5, and 0 kg P ha−1, respectively. Synthetic fertilizer treatments were combined with three rates of MGD-compost (0, 4000, and 8000 kg ha−1). In plots receiving synthetic fertilizer, superphosphate was applied before planting and urea was broadcasted in two splits (50% of the applied rate for each treatment at 2 weeks after sowing and the remaining at 50% flowering). The compost was applied in the planting holes at sowing. The planting holes consisted of the small planting hills of 15 cm diameter and 15 cm depth dug in the experimental plots. For each planting hole, compost was applied at 0, 150, and 300 g hill−1, corresponding to 0, 4000,and 8000 kg ha−1, respectively.

Crop management and measurements

Seeds of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] variety (IT98K205-8, 65–70 maturity days) were sown at the start of the rainy season on 15th July 2013 and 9th July 2014. Each treatment plot (3 m × 6 m) was separated by a 2 m alley. The planting hill spacing was 0.75 m × 0.50 m, resulting in 26 667 hills ha−1 as recommended by INRAN. Seedlings were thinned to 2 plants hill−1 3 weeks after planting and then three weeding events occurred during each cropping season. Grain harvest was done at physiological maturity from 10th to 25th September 2013 and 1st to 15th September 2014. To determine cowpea grain and dry matter yield, samples of pod and fodder were harvested from the central 2.25 m × 5.5 m of each plot. All the samples were oven-dried at 65 °C for 3 days, and the pods were manually threshed. The cowpea grain and fodder were weighed and expressed as kg ha−1. The harvest indices were calculated as the ratio of grain yield to total biomass yield.

Agronomic efficiency (AE, kg kg−1) is defined as the change in grain yield per unit of nutrient applied (fertilizer and organic amendment) and estimated as follows (Vanlauwe et al. (Reference Vanlauwe, Kihara, Chivenge, Pypers, Coe and Six2011):

(1)$${\rm{A}}{{\rm{E}}_{{\rm{N}}{\kern 1pt} {\rm{or}}{\kern 1pt} {\rm{P}}}} = {\rm{ }}{{Yf - Ycont} \over {Fn}}$$

where Yf is the grain yield of a fertilized plot, Ycont is the yield of control plot (without any amendment), F n is the amount of nutrient (N or P) applied through synthetic fertilizer, compost in each plot.

Rainwater use efficiency (RaUE) was used as a proxy for water use efficiency and calculated as shown below:

(2)$${\rm{Rainwater}}{\mkern 1mu} \,{\rm{use}}\,{\mkern 1mu} {\rm{efficiency}} = {\rm{ }}{Y \over R}$$

where Y is grain yield (kg ha−1) and R is the total seasonal rainfall recorded from sowing to harvest (mm).

Economic analysis

Economic profitability of treatments was performed based on gross income, net income, and value/cost ratio. Gross income was calculated based on grain and fodder yields and their actual price at the local market (Jarial et al., Reference Jarial, Blümmel, Soumana, Ravi, Issa, Whitbread and Tabo2016). Total variable cost was estimated from labor and other input costs. Labor cost was estimated from labor for field preparation, sowing, fertilizer and compost application, weeding, harvesting, and threshing. Labor cost for one-time working was estimated at US$ 17.5 person−1 day−1. Input cost was determined from the cost of fertilizers (SSP and urea fertilizer) and seeds. Fertilizer cost was taken as 13 500 FCFA (US$ 23.6) per 50 kg bag irrespective of the type of fertilizer as fixed by the Nigerien government. However, since the compost had yet no direct market prices, only labor cost incurred in compost preparation and transportation was considered. The gross revenue, net income, and the value/cost ratio (VCR) were calculated as described by Khaliq et al. (Reference Khaliq, Abbasi and Hussain2006):

(3)$${\rm{Gross\, income }}\ \left( {{\rm{US\$ }}} \right) = {\rm{Grain/fodder\, yield }}\ \left( {{\rm{kg}}} \right) \times {\rm{ cost\, of\, a\, kg\, of\, grain/fodder }}\ \left( {{\rm{US\$ }}} \right)$$
(4)$${\rm{Net\, income }}\ \left( {{\rm{US\$ }}} \right) = {\rm{Gross\, income }}\ \left( {{\rm{US\$ }}} \right) - {\rm{variable\, cost }}\ \left( {{\rm{US\$ }}} \right)$$
(5)$${\rm{Value/cost\, ratio }}\ \left( {{\rm{VCR}}} \right) = {\rm{Value\, of\, increased\, yield\, obtained/Variable\, cost}}$$

Compost and soil properties determination

Representative samples of MGD-compost were taken and ground to pass through a 1-mm mesh sieve after which OC, total nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and calcium were determined as described by Motsara and Roy (Reference Motsara and Roy2008). Polyphenol and lignin contents of the samples were also determined following Anderson and Ingram (Reference Anderson and Ingram1993). The chemical composition of MGD-compost is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Chemical characteristics of MGD-compost

Average (n = 3) ± s.e.

To assess the initial soil physico-chemical properties of the experimental soil, a composite sample consisting of 12 cores was collected at a depth of 0–15 cm in each plot using an auger on May 2013 before the amendment application and sowing. The samples were subjected to chemical and textural analyses after air-drying and sieving through a 2-mm mesh sieve. Each soil sample was analyzed for pH (H2O) using a pH meter (with a 1:2.5 soil:water ratio), OC by Walkley and Black (Reference Walkley and Black1934), and total nitrogen was determined using Kjeldahl method (Houba et al., Reference Houba, Van der Lee and Novozamsky1995). Available phosphorus was determined using the Bray-1 method as described by van Reeuwijk (Reference van Reeuwijk1993). Exchangeable bases (Na+, K+, Ca2+, and Mg2+) were determined by the ammonium acetate (NH4OAc) solution at pH 7, using the extraction method by van Reeuwijk (Reference van Reeuwijk1993). The exchangeable acidity (H+ and Al3+) was determined (van Reeuwijk, Reference van Reeuwijk1993) as well as the particle size distribution using the hydrometer method (Gee and Or, Reference Gee and Or2002).

Statistical analyses

Before the analyses, the graphical analysis of residuals was used to test for normality and constant variance in GenStat. Thereafter, the data were analyzed by analysis of variance with generalized mixed model procedures in Genstat 9th edition (GenStat, 2007). Compost, synthetic fertilizer and cropping season were included in the model as fixed effects and tested for their interactions. Replications were considered a random effect. Least significant difference (LSD) test at error probability <0.05 was used to separate means exhibiting significant differences.

Results

Cowpea yields and harvest index

Cowpea grain yield increased markedly with the application of synthetic fertilizer or compost compared to control plots (Figures 2a, b). Combined application of compost and synthetic fertilizer improved significantly (p < 0.001) cowpea grain yields (Table 3). In general, application of 8000 kg ha−1 of compost along with 100% of recommended synthetic fertilizer produced significantly higher cowpea grain yields in both cropping seasons. In 2013, the increases in grain yields were 88% and 77% when 100% of recommended synthetic fertilizer was applied in combination with 8000 or 4000 kg ha−1, respectively, compared to the application of 100% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer (Figure 2a). Similarly, the grain yield recorded for plots that received a combined application of 8000 kg ha−1 of compost and 50% of recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer was 52% higher than that of application of 100% of recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer alone (Figure 2a). In 2014, cowpea grain yields were consistently higher with integrated use of compost and synthetic fertilizer (Figure 2b).

Figure 2. Cowpea grain (a, b) and fodder (c, d) yields in 2013 (a, c) and 2014 (b, d). Each histogram is the mean value ± s.e. Different letters in each histogram indicate significant difference as determined by LSD test.

Table 3. Probabilities values of observed variables

d.f., degree of freedom; HI, harvest index; RaUE, rainwater use efficiency; AEN, agronomic use efficiency of nitrogen; AEP, agronomic use efficiency of phosphorus.

Combined application of compost and synthetic fertilizer application did not reveal any significant increase in cowpea fodder yield (Table 3). Yet, significant interaction (p < 0.001) of compost and cropping season was observed on cowpea fodder yields. Fodder yields were markedly higher in 2014 (Figure 2c) compared to those of the 2013 cropping season (Figure 2d). Significant (p < 0.001) effect of combined application of compost and synthetic fertilizer was observed on cowpea harvest index (Table 3). In both cropping seasons, harvest indexes were generally higher in the plots that received compost or synthetic fertilizer alone (Table 4). In 2013, application of 8000 kg ha−1 of compost had the highest cowpea harvest index followed by the treatment with combined application of 4000 kg ha−1 of compost. In 2014, the highest HI was recorded in plots with the application of 100% of recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer alone (Table 4).

Table 4. Rainwater use efficiency (RaUE) and harvest index (HI)

± Standard error. Means followed by the same letter in the column are not significantly different.

Rainwater use efficiency

A significant effect (p < 0.001) of the combined application of compost and mineral fertilizer was found in cowpea RaUE (Table 3). The RaUE increased by 52 and 49% with the combined application of compost at 8000 kg ha−1 along with 50% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer compared to the application of 100% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer alone in 2013 and 2014, respectively (Table 4). In both cropping seasons, the RaUE increased by more than 80% when 8000 kg ha−1 of compost were applied in combination with 100% recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer compared to the synthetic fertilizer applied at 100% alone (Table 4).

Agronomic use efficiency of N and P

There were significant interaction effects (p < 0.001) of compost and synthetic fertilizer on agronomic efficiency of applied nitrogen (AEN) and phosphorus (AEP) in both 2013 and 2014 cropping seasons (Table 3). In general, the AEN and AEP decreased with increasing rates of the nutrient applied and this was particularly apparent in plots with combined application of compost and synthetic fertilizer (Table 5). The highest values of AE of applied N and P were generally recorded in plots with the application of compost or synthetic fertilizer alone.

Table 5. Agronomic use efficiency of nitrogen (AEN) and phosphorus (AEP)

± Standard error. Means followed by the same letter in the column are not significantly different.

Economic performance of the treatments

The highest net income (US$ 1284) was obtained from the combined application of 8000 kg ha−1 and with 100% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer treatments (Table 6). Application of compost alone at 4000 kg ha−1 or 8000 kg ha−1 achieved an increase in net income of US$ 185 or 201 when compared with that of the application of synthetic fertilizer alone at 100% of the recommended rate. The value/cost ratios (VCR) were higher than 1 for all the treatments except in the control plots (Table 6). The highest VCR (2.9) was achieved with combined application of compost at 8000 kg ha−1 and with 50% of recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer (Table 6).

Table 6. Comparative analysis of various treatments for their potential economic viability

CV, coefficient of variation.

Discussion

Cowpea yields and harvest indexes

Cowpea productivity increased markedly with combined application of compost and synthetic fertilizer. The positive effect of combined application of synthetic fertilizer and organic amendment on crop yields has been extensively reported across sub-Saharan Africa (Abdou et al., Reference Abdou, Koala, Bationo, Bationo, Waswa, Kihara, Adolwa, Vanlauwe and Saidou2012; Akponikpé et al., Reference Akponikpé, Michels and Bielders2008; Dunjana et al., Reference Dunjana, Nyamugafata, Nyamangara and Mango2014; Kiboi et al., Reference Kiboi, Ngetich, Fliessbach, Muriuki and Mugendi2019). The beneficial effect of this combination could not only be attributed to the readily available N, P, and K from the mineral fertilizer sources but also to the supply of additional nutrients such as Ca and Mg by compost (Bayu et al., Reference Bayu, Rethman and Hammes2005; Zingore et al., Reference Zingore, Delve, Nyamangara and Giller2008) which are generally limited in sandy soil (Table 1). Furthermore, the increment in cowpea yields with combined application of compost and synthetic fertilizer could also be ascribed to an improved soil water and nutrient retention particularly in the coarse-textured soil such as the current experimental site, which has low soil organic matter content. Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Li, Zhou, Zhang, Lin, Wang, Siddique and Li2013) showed that application of mineral fertilizer and organic amendment not only accelerated soil fertility improvement but also maintained soil water balance and significantly increased crop yields.

Even though the 2013 cropping season was relatively wet (Figure 1), the highest cowpea grain and fodder yields were obtained in 2014. Poor rainfall distribution during the 2013 cropping season with more than 70% of rains recorded between 27 and 58 days after sowing has led to nutrient leaching, particularly N. Furthermore, earlier study by Minchin et al. (Reference Minchin, Summerfield, Eaglesham and Stewart1978) indicated that intense rainfall led to a reduction in cowpea grain yield. Water excess during the cowpea reproductive stage induced several physiological disturbances, including growth inhibition of leaves and reduction of pod formation, resulting in a significant grain yield reduction. On the other hand, the increase in cowpea yields in 2014 could be attributed to the residual effect of compost applied, which probably supplied more nutrients and improved the soil water-holding capacity. Amlinger et al. (Reference Amlinger, Götz, Dreher, Geszti and Weissteiner2003) showed that nutrient release from compost was modest (<15%) in the first year of application with expected enhancement of nutrient supply in the subsequent years. Importantly, integrated use of 8000 kg ha−1 of compost and 50% of recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer provided higher grain yield than the application of 100% of recommended synthetic fertilizer alone. This finding conforms with previous studies which reported the possibility of reducing 50% the amount of inorganic fertilizer required through integrated use of mineral fertilizer and organic material (Issoufa et al., Reference Issoufa, Ibrahim, Abaidoo and Ewusi-Mensah2018; Palm et al., Reference Palm, Myers and Nandwa1997).

Cowpea harvest index was relatively higher in the plots receiving the application of compost alone (Table 4). Generally, the harvest index is affected by crop management (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Rao and Merchant2018; Yang and Zhang, Reference Yang and Zhang2010), and increases in harvest indices obtained with compost application could be related to the increase in grain yield resulting from better nutrient availability. This would improve the translocation and accumulation of photosynthates from biomass to grains thereby leading to a higher harvest index. This finding is in agreement with the results obtained by Yang and Zhang (Reference Yang and Zhang2010), which showed that soil management options increase growth rate during pod filling and enhance the remobilization of assimilates from the source (biomass) to the sink (grains), increasing the harvest index.

Agronomic nutrient use efficiency and water use efficiency

Agronomic use efficiency of N and P was reduced when increasing nutrient rate application (Table 5). Plants supplied with compost or synthetic fertilizer alone were markedly more efficient in using N and P when compared to ones receiving combined application of compost and synthetic fertilizers. Earlier studies have reported the increase of nutrient agronomic efficiency with reducing nutrient application rates (Argaw et al., Reference Argaw, Mekonnen and Muleta2015; Issoufa et al., Reference Issoufa, Ibrahim, Abaidoo and Ewusi-Mensah2018; Srivastava et al., Reference Srivastava, Panda, Chakraborty and Halder2018). Yet, higher AEN and AEP values recorded from the application of mineral fertilizer alone could not sustain cowpea productivity in the long-term since it would lead to a reduction in soil productive capacity through an exacerbation of soil acidification particularly in acidic-prone soil and a decline in soil organic matter content. On the other hand, combined application of organic amendment and synthetic fertilizer could contribute to the soil organic matter build-up leading to a greater nutrient supply for maintaining crop yield and thereby increasing agronomic efficiency of the applied nutrient. Furthermore, decomposition of organic amendment leads to a release and synthesis of organic compounds. Those compounds combine with aluminum to form solid organic material phase, reducing aluminum solubility and favoring the soil microbiota and plant development (Luo et al., Reference Luo, Li, Friman, Guo, Guo, Shen and Ling2018).

Cowpea RaUE was markedly increased with combined application of compost and synthetic fertilizer (Table 4), which could be attributed to the increase in cowpea yield resulting from improved plant nutrient availability. Several studies have reported an increase in water use efficiency in response to combining application organic resource with synthetic fertilizer in the Sahelian zone resulting in improved crop yield (Akponikpé et al., Reference Akponikpé, Michels and Bielders2008; Ibrahim et al., Reference Ibrahim, Abaidoo, Fatondji and Opoku2015).

Economic performance of the treatments

The economic results indicate that all treatments induced a positive net income, and the VCRs when combining compost and synthetic fertilizer were constantly higher than 2 (Table 6), which is frequently considered a minimum condition for technology to be adopted in uncertain environments (Kihara et al., Reference Kihara, Huising, Nziguheba, Waswa, Njoroge, Kabambe, Iwuafor, Kibunja, Esilaba and Coulibaly2016). However, the application of synthetic fertilizer alone appeared to be less economically viable compared to compost application alone. This indicates that farmers should be encouraged to use synthetic fertilizer combined with organic sources for improving profitability of the cowpea cropping system. The use of 50% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer along with 8000 kg ha−1 of compost appeared to be an optimal choice for obtaining high net income and value/cost ratio. This finding is in agreement with Tovihoudji et al. (Reference Tovihoudji, Akponikpè, Agbossou and Bielders2019), who showed application of 50% of the recommended rate of synthetic fertilizer together with manure significantly increased smallholder profitability. Although an earlier study by Jama et al. (Reference Jama, Swinkels and Buresh1997) indicated that the use of organic materials generally induced high labor costs, the economic results obtained herein indicate that at least the costs for compost preparation and its application were covered by higher yields with the combined use of NP fertilizers and compost. Therefore, given that most smallholder farmers cannot afford the recommended amount of mineral fertilizer to achieve acceptable yields, farmers should be encouraged to use compost in combination with half of the recommended rate of mineral fertilizer. This would make savings on fertilizer investment by smallholder farmers and government subsidy programs.

Conclusion

This study highlights the possibility of improving cowpea productivity using compost of locally available organic input. MGD-compost showed an evident positive effect on improving cowpea yield and RaUE in water scarcity-prone environment. Combined application of MGD-compost and 50% of recommended NP fertilizer is an effective fertilization option for enhancing cowpea production and reduce the investment in mineral fertilizer currently made by smallholder farmers in the Sahelian low-input cowpea cropping system. However, the long-term agronomic effects and changes in soil properties induced by millet glume-based compost application should be further explored.

Acknowledgements

The first author wishes to thank the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) for funding the study under the Soil Health Programme at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.

Financial support

The study was funded by Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) under the Soil Health Programme.

References

Abdou, A., Koala, S. and Bationo, A. (2012). Long-term soil fertility trials in Niger, West Africa. In Bationo, A., Waswa, B., Kihara, J., Adolwa, I., Vanlauwe, B. and Saidou, K. (eds), Lessons Learned from Long-term Soil Fertility Management Experiments in Africa. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 105120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdoulaye, T. and Sanders, J.H. (2005). Stages and determinants of fertilizer use in semiarid African agriculture: The Niger experience. Agricultural Economics 32, 167179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adjei-Nsiah, S. (2006). Cropping systems, land tenure and social diversity in Wenchi, Ghana implications for soil fertility management. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, 224 p.Google Scholar
Akponikpé, P.B.I., Michels, K. and Bielders, C.L. (2008). Integrated nutrient management of pearl millet in the Sahel combining cattle manure, crop residues and mineral fertilizer. Experimental Agriculture 44, 453472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amlinger, F., Götz, B., Dreher, P., Geszti, J. and Weissteiner, C. (2003). Nitrogen in biowaste and yard waste compost: Dynamics of mobilisation and availability-a review. European Journal of Soil Biology 39, 107116.10.1016/S1164-5563(03)00026-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. and Ingram, J. (1993). A Handbook of Methods: Tropical Soil Biological and Fertility, 2nd Edn.Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 8889.Google Scholar
Argaw, A., Mekonnen, E. and Muleta, D. (2015). Agronomic efficiency of N of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in some representative soils of Eastern Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture 1, 1074790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachir, B.I. (2015). Composting millet glume for soil fertility imporvement and millet/cowpea productivity in semi-qrid zone of Niger. PhD Thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, 193 p.Google Scholar
Barthod, J., Rumpel, C. and Dignac, M.-F. (2018). Composting with additives to improve organic amendments. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bationo, A., Traore, Z., Kimetu, J., Bagayoko, M., Kihara, J., Bado, V., Lompo, M., Tabo, R. and Koala, S. (2003). Cropping systems in the Sudano-sahelian zone: Implications on soil fertility management. In Bationo, A., Waswa, B., Kihara, J., Adolwa, I., Vanlauwe, B. and Saidou, K. (eds), Lessons learned from Long-term Soil Fertility Management Experiments in Africa. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 105120.Google Scholar
Bationo, A. and Waswa, B. (2011). New challenges and opportunities for integrated soil fertility management in Africa. In Bationo, A., Waswa, B., Okeyo, J. M., Maina, F. and Kihara, J. (eds), Innovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayu, W., Rethman, N.F.G. and Hammes, P.S. (2005). The role of animal manure in sustainable soil fertility management in Sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 25, 113136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belko, N., Cisse, N., Diop, N.N., Zombre, G., Thiaw, S., Muranaka, S. and Ehlers, J. (2014). Selection for postflowering drought resistance in short-and medium-duration cowpeas using stress tolerance indices. Crop Science 54, 2533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernal, M.P., Alburquerque, J. and Moral, R. (2009). Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment. A review. Bioresource Technology 100, 54445453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhattacharyya, R., Ghosh, B., Mishra, P., Mandal, B., Rao, C. and Sarkar, D. (2019). Soil degradation in India: Challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability 7, 35283570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buruchara, R., Chirwa, R., Sperling, L., Mukankusi, C., Rubyogo, J.C., Mutonhi, R. and Abang, M. (2011). Development and delivery of bean varieties in Africa: The Pan-Africa Bean Research Alliance (PABRA) model. African Crop Science Journal 19, 227245.Google Scholar
Chianu, J.N., Nkonya, E.M., Mairura, F., Chianu, J.N. and Akinnifesi, F. (2011). Biological nitrogen fixation and socioeconomic factors for legume production in sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 31, 139154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunjana, N., Nyamugafata, P., Nyamangara, J. and Mango, N. (2014). Cattle manure and inorganic nitrogen fertilizer application effects on soil hydraulic properties and maize yield of two soils of Murewa district, Zimbabwe. Soil Use and Management 30, 579587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, G.W. and Or, D. (2002). Particle-size analysis. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4, 255293.Google Scholar
GenStat (2007). Genstat. Rothamsted, UK: Lawes Agricultural Trust (Rothamsted Experimental Station).Google Scholar
Giller, K. (2002). Targeting management of organic resources and mineral fertilizers: Can we match scientists’ fantasies with farmers’ realities? In Vanlauwe, B., Diels, K., Sanginga, N. and Merckx, R. (eds), Integrated Plant Nutrient Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: From Concept to Practice. Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 155171.Google Scholar
Houba, V., Van der Lee, J. and Novozamsky, I. (1995). Soil analysis procedures; other procedures (soil and plant analysis, part 5B). Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Wageningen Agricultural University, 217 p.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, A., Abaidoo, R., Fatondji, D. and Opoku, A. (2015). Integrated use of fertilizer micro-dosing and Acacia tumida mulching increases millet yield and water use efficiency in Sahelian semi-arid environment. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 103, 375388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Issoufa, B.B., Ibrahim, A., Abaidoo, R.C. and Ewusi-Mensah, N. (2018). Combined use of millet glume-derived compost and mineral fertilizer enhances soil microbial biomass and pearl millet yields in a low-input millet cropping system in Niger. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 65, 11071119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jama, B., Swinkels, R.A. and Buresh, R.J. (1997). Agronomic and economic evaluation of organic and inorganic sources of phosphorus in western Kenya. Agronomy Journal 89, 597604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarial, S., Blümmel, M., Soumana, I., Ravi, D., Issa, S., Whitbread, A. and Tabo, R. (2016). Comparison of cowpea and groundnut haulm trading in urban and rural fodder markets in Niger. In Proceedings of the Joint Pan-African Grain Legume Research Conference and World Cowpea Conference, Livingstone.Google Scholar
Kamara, A., Omoigui, L., Kamai, N., Ewansiha, S. and Ajeigbe, H. (2018). Improving cultivation of cowpea in West Africa. In Sivasankar, S., Bergvinson, D., Gaur, P., Kumar, S., Beebe, S. and Tomo, M. (eds) Achieving Sustainable Cultivation of Grain Legumes Volume 2: Improving Cultivation of Particular Grain Legumes. Cambridge, UK: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing.Google Scholar
Khaliq, A., Abbasi, M.K. and Hussain, T. (2006). Effects of integrated use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources with effective microorganisms (EM) on seed cotton yield in Pakistan. Bioresource Technology 97, 967972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiboi, M., Ngetich, K., Fliessbach, A., Muriuki, A. and Mugendi, D. (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, 316331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kihara, J., Huising, J., Nziguheba, G., Waswa, B.S., Njoroge, S., Kabambe, V., Iwuafor, E., Kibunja, C., Esilaba, A.O. and Coulibaly, A. (2016). Maize response to macronutrients and potential for profitability in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 105, 171181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolawole, G.O. (2012). Effect of phosphorus fertilizer application on the performance of maize/soybean intercrop in the southern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 58, 189198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C.A., Li, F.R., Zhou, L.M., Zhang, R.H., Lin, S.L., Wang, L.J., Siddique, K.H. and Li, F.-M. (2013). Effect of organic manure and fertilizer on soil water and crop yields in newly-built terraces with loess soils in a semi-arid environment. Agricultural Water Management 117, 123132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, G., Li, L., Friman, V.P., Guo, J., Guo, S., Shen, Q. and Ling, N. (2018). Organic amendments increase crop yields by improving microbe-mediated soil functioning of agroecosystems: A meta-analysis. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 124, 105115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minchin, F., Summerfield, R., Eaglesham, A.R.J. and Stewart, K.A. (1978). Effects of short-term waterlogging on growth and yield of cowpea (Vigna Unguiculata). Journal of Agriculture Science 90, 355366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, M.M., Moreno, C., Lacasta, C. and Meco, R. (2012). Evolution of soil biochemcal parameters in rainfed crops: Effect of organic and mineral fertilization. Applied and Envronmental Soil Science 2012, 9.Google Scholar
Motsara, M.R. and Roy, R.N. (2008). Guide to Laboratory Establishment for Plant Nutrient Analysis. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, p. 203.Google Scholar
Obilana, A. (2003). Overview: Importance of millets in Africa. World (All Cultivated Millet Species) 38, 28.Google Scholar
Palm, C.A., Myers, R.J. and Nandwa, S.M. (1997). Combined use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources for soil fertility maintenance and replenishment. Replenishing soil fertility in Africa (replenishingsoi), 193217.Google Scholar
Rusinamhodzi, L., Murwira, H. and Nyamangara, J. (2006). Cotton–cowpea intercropping and its N 2 fixation capacity improves yield of a subsequent maize crop under Zimbabwean rain-fed conditions. Plant and Soil 287, 327336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saidou, A.K., Omae, H. and Tobita, S. (2010). Combination effect of intercropping, application of chemical fertilizer and transported manure on millet/cowpea growth and nitrogen, phosphorus balances in the Sahel. Am Eurasian J Agron 3, 3035.Google Scholar
Sambo, B. (2013). Cowpea (Vigna Unguiculata (L.) Walp) clipping management technology 2: A potential for sustain yield and food security in the savannah of Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural and Crop Research 1, 6168.Google Scholar
Smith, M.R., Rao, I.M. and Merchant, A. (2018). Source-sink relationships in crop plants and their influence on yield development and nutritional quality. Frontiers in Plant Science 9, 1889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srivastava, R., Panda, R., Chakraborty, A. and Halder, D. (2018). Enhancing grain yield, biomass and nitrogen use efficiency of maize by varying sowing dates and nitrogen rate under rainfed and irrigated conditions. Field Crops Research 221, 339349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarfo, B., Chude, V., Iwuafor, E. and Yaro, D. (2001). Effects of the combined application of millet thresh waste, cow dung and fertilizer on maize nutrient concentrations and uptake. Chemclass Journal 32, 144151.Google Scholar
Thuita, M., Pypers, P., Herrmann, L., Okalebo, R.J., Othieno, C., Muema, E. and Lesueur, D. (2012). Commercial rhizobial inoculants significantly enhance growth and nitrogen fixation of a promiscuous soybean variety in Kenyan soils. Biology and Fertility of Soils 48, 8796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tovihoudji, P.G., Akponikpè, P.I., Agbossou, E.K. and Bielders, C.L. (2019). Variability in maize yield and profitability following hill-placement of reduced mineral fertilizer and manure rates under smallholder farm conditions in northern Benin. Field Crops Research 230, 139150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valbuena, D., Tui, S.H.-K., Erenstein, O., Teufel, N., Duncan, A., Abdoulaye, T., Swain, B., Mekonnen, K., Germaine, I. and Gérard, B. (2015). Identifying determinants, pressures and trade-offs of crop residue use in mixed smallholder farms in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Agricultural Systems 134, 107118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Reeuwijk, L.P. (1993). Procedures for soil analysis. Technical paper No 9, Fourth Edition edited by the International Soil Reference and Information Center (ISRIC).Google Scholar
Vanlauwe, B., Kihara, J., Chivenge, P., Pypers, P., Coe, R. and Six, J. (2011). Agronomic use efficiency of N fertilizer in maize-based systems in sub-Saharan Africa within the context of integrated soil fertility management. Plant and Soil 339, 3550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voortman, R.L. (2010). Exploration into African land ecoloy on the chemistry between soils, plants and fertilizers, PhD dissertation. Wageningen Unversity.Google Scholar
Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37, 2938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Q., Li, Y. and Klassen, W. (2007). Changes of soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen with cover crops and irrigation in a tomato field. Journal of Plant Nutrition 30, 623639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamoah, C.F., Bationo, A., Shapiro, B. and Koala, S. (2002). Trend and stability analyses of millet yields treated with fertilizer and crop residues in the Sahel. Field Crops Research 75, 5362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J. and Zhang, J. (2010). Crop management techniques to enhance harvest index in rice. Journal of Experimental Botany 61, 31773189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zingore, S., Delve, R.J., Nyamangara, J. and Giller, K.E. (2008). Multiple benefits of manure: The key to maintenance of soil fertility and restoration of depleted sandy soils on African smallholder farms. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 80, 267282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Rainfall distribution during the cropping season 2013 and 2014.

Figure 1

Table 1. Initial soil chemical and physical properties of the experimental site

Figure 2

Table 2. Chemical characteristics of MGD-compost

Figure 3

Figure 2. Cowpea grain (a, b) and fodder (c, d) yields in 2013 (a, c) and 2014 (b, d). Each histogram is the mean value ± s.e. Different letters in each histogram indicate significant difference as determined by LSD test.

Figure 4

Table 3. Probabilities values of observed variables

Figure 5

Table 4. Rainwater use efficiency (RaUE) and harvest index (HI)

Figure 6

Table 5. Agronomic use efficiency of nitrogen (AEN) and phosphorus (AEP)

Figure 7

Table 6. Comparative analysis of various treatments for their potential economic viability