Influence of various intercropping systems on soil quality characteristics and their potential for climate change adaptation in Dedza, Malawi

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4135735/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Influence of various intercropping systems on soil quality characteristics and their potential for climate change adaptation in Dedza, Malawi

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4135735/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Malawi’s food security, mainly dependent on subsistence crop production by poor smallholder farmers, is seriously affected by the negative impacts of land degradation due to climate change and poor production practices. The effects of climate change and the increasing population also exacerbate the situation. As opportunities for land-extensive agricultural growth are reduced, modern production technologies such as intercropping have become essential for producing sufficient food for the country. The study aims to describe the effects of different cereal-to-legume intercropping systems on soil quality characteristics and crop yield for climate change adaptation in Dedza District, a case of Lobi Extension Planning Area (E.P.A.). Data on soil characteristics and crop yields were collected. The methodology involved soil sampling from 0–5 cm and 5–20 cm on the ridge, then 0–5 cm and 5–20 cm on the fallow from each plot, and later laboratory analyses for soil physical and chemical analyses. Results of one-way ANOVA showed that cereal-legume intercropping combinations in this study affected the soil chemical properties such as soil nitrogen, organic matter, particulate organic matter, and exchange capacity, which were higher in intercropping systems than monocropping (p < 0.05). However, the system did not affect the soil pH, K, P contents, soil moisture, and water infiltration characteristics (p > 0.05). Overall, the cereal and legume combination intercropping system had a significant and positive linear regression effect on crop yield (p < 0.001; R² = 0.6325) with an average grain yield of about 357066.15 (kg/ha). These results indicate that the cereal and legume intercropping system positively influenced crop yield, encouraging smallholder farmers to consider cereal and legume crop combinations intercropping to improve soil chemical properties and boost crop productivity.

intercropping

cereal-legume

soil moisture

soil organic matter (S.O.M.)

Particulate Organic matter (P.O.M.)

Sustainable food production is affected by many things, such as the adverse effects of climate change, population growth, and the degradation of natural resources [1]. The adverse effects of climate change significantly and negatively affect the agriculture sector, which is the source of food for most countries around the world [2]. To mitigate the effect of climate change and promote food security, adopting and using climate-smart techniques have been promoted among sustainable approaches worldwide [1]. For instance, agroecology is a smart technique promoted to rebuild, protect, and enhance soil fertility. According to Lanka et al. [3], and Duchene et al. [4], intercropping is an agro-ecological cropping system that increases land productivity by increasing crop diversification. It also improves soil quality by improving the capacity to absorb and retain water; aeration, aggregate stability, and soil organic matter restore degraded soils, reduce soil erosion, reduce nutrient runoff, and increase crop yields.

Intercropping is a sustainable farming practice involving two or more crops growing in the same field in the same or overlapping growing seasons. According to Lithourgidis et al. [5] and Rezig et al. [6], these multiple cropping systems have existed for decades in advanced and developing nations and have played a tremendous and vital role in subsistence food production. Monocropping differs from intercropping in that only one crop is cultivated in pure stands, while in intercropping, a diversity of crops is grown in the same stand.

Intercropping is a climate-smart technique of great potential to improve soil properties such as soil fertility for sustainable productivity and adaptation to climate change effects [7]. Thus, this technique enables farmers to produce various crops concurrently, reducing the risk of total crop failure [2, 8, 9]. This approach also improves food production due to the use of low-cost inputs [10].

Food security in Malawi mostly depends on producing enough maize, the country’s staple food and a crop susceptible to climate change effects and land degradation [11, 12]. Maize is Malawi’s most important cereal crop since it is the crucial ingredient for the main staple food, nsima [12]. According to Sanusi [13], maize is not just an important food crop to Malawi but also a crop of great socio-economic importance in Sub-Saharan Africa, of which Malawi is arguably the most significant consumer.

Intercropping (particularly with legume crops) is an alternative to improving soil fertility for improved production. Studies have reported that agronomic practices, including intercropping cereal and legume crops, can improve soil water retention, decrease erosion and runoff, and improve soil structure and quality [14]. According to Steward et al. [14], intercropping can enhance soil fertility, heat and dry spell resilience, and crop productivity. However, such studies have only focused on soil changes based on different tillage techniques without considering the cereal and legume intercropping aspects. Other studies on cereal and legume intercropping impacts have focused on comparing the soil characteristics between sole cropping systems against intercropped systems [15].

Therefore, it can be noted that intercropping is a crucial agronomic practice for the country. Noteworthy, a particular need exists to establish its contribution to soil characteristics. Thus, this proposed research study aims to evaluate how different intercropping systems may influence soil characteristics while using crop yield as a yardstick.

2.1 Geographical location and climatic characteristics of the study area

Dedza district is located in the central region of Malawi. This district is on a plain that forms part of the East African Rift Valley at 14°40’ South latitude and 33°00’ East longitude (Fig. 1). Located at an altitude of 1590 m, Dedza district experiences sub-tropical climate, with mean annual minimum and maximum temperature ranging from 14 ^oC to 28 ^oC [16]. The low-temperature season begins in May through August; the dry season starts from September to October, and the rainy season usually begins from November to mid-April [16]. The district weather is greatly influenced by topographic effects regarding windward slopes, receiving more than the leeward sides of hills or mountains. Areas with high elevations receive more precipitation than low-lying areas. The passage of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), experienced between December and June, greatly influences rainfall in the district [17]. The annual rainfall ranges between 800 mm to 1200 mm per annum [16]. However, with climate change, the city has been experiencing considerable variations in weather parameters.

2.2 The conceptual framework

The conceptual framework depicts the interrelationships among variables that aid the description of the impacts of intercropping on soil quality characteristics.

The conceptual framework (Fig. 2) assumes that intercropping cereals and legumes provides better conditions that enhance Nitrogen fixing, provide better soil coverage, ensure lower competition of component crops, and ensure efficient use of available natural resources. Thus, firstly, soil quality characteristics (improved soil nutrients, increased infiltration, aeration, macropores, aggregate stability, soil organic matter, and decreased erosion) should be improved to ensure crop diversification and increase productivity.

2.3 Study Design

The study followed a Completely Randomized Design (C.R.D.) where different cereal + legume intercropping combinations were done in plots (n = 60) that were replicated five times. The study was based on experiments under another project called Innovations in Technology, Extension and Institutional Approaches towards Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems to promote Food and Nutrition Security (INNOVAFRICA) in Dedza district, Malawi. This project aimed to improve smallholder farmers’ food security and adaptive capacity to climate change. These experiments were conducted with a particular focus on farmer-led experimentation on sustainable agriculture intensification technologies for improved food and nutrition security. These experiments used cereal and legume intercropping innovations within six villages: Fifteen, Fosa 1, Kamenya, Maya, Kumfunda, and Thambo lagwa. Secondly, cereal and legume intercropping combinations were done in the (25 × 25 m) plots.

2.4 Set up of the field experiments

The field experiments were set up in 12 plots per farmer with 10 × 10 m per plot. The total trial area was 12 plots × 10 × 10 m = 1200 m². The trials used randomized block design with 12 cropping system combinations involving sole cereals and intercrops. The plots per farmer were set up as reported in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1

Field experimental plots set up
maize sole	sorghum sole	millet sole
maize/groundnuts	sorghum/groundnuts	millet/groundnuts
maize/soya beans	sorghum/soya beans	millet soya beans
maize/common beans	sorghum/common beans	millet common beans

Table 2

Treatments per experiment
1. maize sole:	Maize was planted continuously after year on its own (local orange maize).
2. maize/common beans	Local orange maize was planted using normal spacing and intercropped with common beans in the same maize rows. The common beans were planted on the same ridge, two rows on one side of the maize along the ridge at 10 cm in-row spacing between planting stations and rows. The legumes on the next adjacent ridge were also planted on the same side as in the previous one. This enabled the legumes to have a wider space for light entry.
3. maize/groundnuts	Maize was inter-planted with groundnuts on the same ridge, maintaining normal maize spacing. Groundnuts were planted at the same time, and on the next adjacent ridge, the legumes should also be on the same side as in the previous one. This enables the legumes to have a wider space for light entry.
4. maize/soya beans	Maize was planted using normal spacing, 75 cm between rows and 25 cm between plants, and intercropped with soybeans. The legumes on the next adjacent ridge should also be on the same side as in the previous one. This enables the legumes to have a wider space for light entry.
5. sorghum sole	Sorghum was planted in 75 cm between rows and 25 cm in-row.
6. sorghum/common beans	Sorghum was planted in ridges at the same spacing as in the sole sorghum (25 cm), except this time sorghum was on the side. Common beans were planted on the same ridge, two rows on one side of the sorghum along the ridge at 10 cm in-row spacing between planting stations and rows. The next ridge started with beans in two rows (at 10 cm spacing between planting stations and rows), and then, in the last rows, there was sorghum (25 cm), which continued this pattern on the next ridges alternately. This allowed for proper growth, adequate exposure to sun, and aeration for the crops. Common beans were planted at the same time as sorghum.
7. sorghum/groundnuts	Sorghum was planted in ridges at the same spacing as the sole sorghum (25 cm). Groundnuts were planted on the center of the ridge at 15 cm in-row spacing and sorghum at 10 cm from the ridge at every 25 cm along the ridge. Groundnuts were planted at the same time as sorghum.
8. sorghum/soya bean	Sorghum was planted in ridges at the same spacing as the sole sorghum (25 cm). Two rows of soybeans were planted on the same ridge, but with the soya sitting, two rows on one side of the ridge sorghum along the ridge were planted at 10 cm in-row spacing between planting stations and rows. Soybeans are planted at the same time as sorghum.
9. finger millet sole	Finger millet was planted in 75 cm between rows and two rows on top of each ridge with 10 cm in-row.
10. finger millet /groundnuts	Finger millet was planted in 75 cm between rows and two rows on top of each ridge with 10 cm in-row. Groundnuts were planted at the same time as finger millet every 25 cm in 1 row at the middle of the ridge. Groundnuts were planted at the same time as finger millet.
11. finger millet/soybeans	Finger millet was planted 75 cm between rows, with 1 row on top of each ridge and 10 cm in-row. Soybeans were planted on the same ridges on two rows on either side of the finger millet rows every 10 cm along the ridge at 10 cm in-row spacing. Soybeans were planted at the same time as finger millet.

The treatments were replicated five times, with control fields containing mono-crops of maize, millet, and sorghum as represented in Fig. 3.

2.5 Soil sampling procedures

Soil samples were collected from 0–5 cm and 5–20 cm on the ridge, then 0–5 cm and 5–20 cm on the fallow from each plot. The samples were then combined to take their average 0.5 cm soil from the ridge with the 0.5 cm soil from the furrow. The same was done with the 5–20 cm soil from the ridge and furrow. The soil sampling was done in farms sampled in the six villages: Fifteen, Fosa 1, Kamenya, Maya, Kumfunda, and Thambo Lagwa in Lobi E.P.A. Dedza district. The study sites were selected based on the existing experiments under the INNOVAFRICA project in 6 villages, and in each village, farmers were set.

Soil samples were collected from the top 20 cm of each plot of the sampled fields for each sampled farmer soon after harvesting in June 2020. The topsoil of 0–5 cm was separated from 5–20 cm of each sampled soil on each plot. Samples from each plot were randomly collected with a drill but evenly distributed positions on each field. Collected samples were air-dried and sieved using a 2 mm sieve. The sieved 100 grams of the topsoil from 0–5 were mixed with 100 grams of 5–20 cm soil to make one composite sample, and then the soil was stored for analysis in Ziplock bags. The composite sample was analyzed at the University of Malawi (UNIMA) laboratory. The soil was oven-dried at 105°C for 24 h and was analyzed for soil organic carbon, N.P.K. The remaining 0–5 cm topsoil was used to determine particulate organic matter.

2.6 Laboratory Analysis

Laboratory analyses of the soil samples were performed to come up with the data that was used in the analyses of the variations in the chemical properties of the soil under the different cropping systems (mono-cropping and cereal + legume intercropping). Composite samples made from the mixture of 0–5 cm and 5–20 cm were used for the soil carbon, particulate organic matter, and N.P.K. analyses.

2.7 Statistical data analysis

Variations in soil chemical characteristics between the farms under the various intercropping systems (Local Orange Maize and Beans, Local Orange Maize and Groundnuts, Local Orange Maize and Soya, Local Orange Maize Sole, Millet and Beans, Millet and Groundnuts, Millet and Soya, Millet Sole, Sorghum and Beans, Sorghum and Groundnuts, Sorghum and Soya, and Sorghum Sole) were done through a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) without blocking. The ANOVA was done using the model as expressed by [18] in the following equation:

3.1 Levels of soil organic matter in different cereal-legume intercropping combinations

The results obtained from the levels of soil organic matter in different cereal-legume intercropping combinations are represented in Table 3.

Table 3

Levels of soil organic matter in different cereal-legume intercropping combinations.
Cereal and Legume Combination	Mean soil organic matter (%)
millet and beans	7.07
sorghum and groundnuts	6.27
local orange maize and beans	6.25
sorghum and soya	5.93
local orange maize and soya	5.87
millet and groundnuts	5.28
sorghum and beans	5.06
millet and soya	5.03
local orange maize and groundnuts	4.78
sorghum sole	3.85
millet sole	3.49
local orange maize sole	2.95
Grand mean	5.15
Prob > F	0.0035
Std. error	0.65

Regarding the mean soil O.M. (Table 3), it was revealed in this study that the means of soil organic matter in all cereal-legume intercropping combinations differed. The values included millet and beans, which had the highest om level (7.07%). Sorghum and groundnuts had (6.27%), local orange maize and beans (6.25%), sorghum and soya (5.93), local orange maize and soya (5.87%), millet and groundnuts (5.28%), sorghum and beans (5.06%), millet and soya (5.03%), local orange maize and groundnuts (4.78%), sorghum sole (3.85%), millet sole (3.49%) and local orange maize sole had the lowest O.M. content 2.95% (Fig. 4)

According to these results, all monocropping systems showed low O.M. content compared to cereal-legume intercropping combinations, which is in line with the findings of a study by Beshir and Abdulkerim [19], who observed an increase in O.M. content in the soil after cereal-legume intercropping system as compared to the mono-cropping system. Schmidt et al. [20] also observed that cereal-legume intercrops add organic matter in such intercropping systems and support large earthworm populations by providing large quantity, quality, and continuity of food supply throughout the year.

3.2 Soil Particulate organic matter (%) under the maize-legume intercropping combinations

The percentage of soil particulate organic matter under the maize-legume intercropping combinations is shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Levels of soil Particulate Organic Matter (%) under the maize-legume intercropping combinations
Cereal and Legume Combination	Mean (%)
millet and beans	8.92
millet and soya	8.85
millet sole	7.66
millet and groundnuts	6.57
local orange maize and soya	6.20
sorghum and groundnuts	6.05
sorghum sole	5.74
local orange maize sole	5.54
sorghum and beans	5.22
local orange maize and beans	4.65
sorghum and soya	4.36
local orange maize and groundnuts	4.23
Grand mean	6.16
Prob > F	< 0.001
Std. error	1.728

Regarding the mean soil P.O.M. contents (Table 4), it was revealed in this study that the means of P.O.M. contents varied in all cereal-legume intercropping combinations. The results concur with Cordeiro et al. [21], who reported increased soil particulate organic content due to intercropping. The Results of this study included the following, from the largest to the lowest: millet and beans (8.92%), millet and soya (8.85%), millet and groundnuts (6.57%), millet sole (7.66%), local orange maize and soya (6.20%), sorghum and groundnuts (6.05%), sorghum sole (5.74%), local orange maize sole (5.54%), sorghum and beans (5.22%), local orange maize and beans (4.65%), sorghum and soya (4.36%), and local orange maize and groundnuts (4.23%) (Fig. 5). These results demonstrate that the particulate organic matter in monocropping systems and the intercropping systems that involved maize was low compared to P.O.M. of millet and sorghum intercropping systems, indicating that maize stands do not add vast amounts of particulate organic matter in the soils compared to millet sorghum crops [21, 22]. Thus, this demonstrates the need to change the types of crops with high particulate organic matter addition potential, such as millet and sorghum, to be intercropped in a field for higher gains in organic matter.

Disaggregating by the fractions, the overall fractions (both light and heavy fractions of P.O.M.) varied (p < 0.05) across the cereal + legume combinations (Fig. 6). The mean fractions for millet and legume combinations were higher, followed by sorghum and legumes, and finally for the local maize and groundnuts.

Cereal legume intercropping has proved to be more efficient in accumulating P.O.M., especially in millet, than sole cereals. Cereal and legume intercropping helps increase soil nutrients through leguminous green manure, which increases the N in intercropped soils of P.O.M. fractions (fPOM and cPOM) more efficiently than that of sole cropping.

3.3 Soil nitrogen (%) under the cereal-legume intercropping combinations.

The percentage of soil nitrogen under the cereal-legume intercropping combinations is shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Soil nitrogen (%) under the cereal-legume intercropping combinations.
Cereal and Legume Combination	Mean nitrogen (%)
sorghum and groundnuts	1.66
local orange maize and beans	1.39
local orange maize and groundnuts	0.90
sorghum and soya	0.88
local orange maize and soya	0.82
millet and beans	0.80
millet and soya	0.71
sorghum sole	0.69
millet and groundnuts	0.62
sorghum and beans	0.51
millet sole	0.39
local orange maize sole	0.32
Grand mean	0.808
Prob > F	0.006
Std. error.	0.2253

Regarding the mean soil nitrogen contents (Table 5), the study found that the means of nitrogen contents in all cereal-legume intercropping combinations differed. The values included Sorghum and groundnuts (1.66%), local orange maize and beans (1.39%), local orange maize and groundnuts (0.90%), sorghum and soya (0.88%), local orange maize and soya (0.82%), millet and beans (0.80%), millet and soya (0.71%), sorghum sole (0.69%), millet and groundnuts (0.62%), sorghum and beans (0.51%), millet sole (0.39%) and local orange maize sole (0.32%) (Fig. 7). The results also show that all monocropping systems contained low nitrogen content compared to cereal-legume intercropping combinations, which is in line with the findings of a study by Ngwira et al. [23], Beshir and Abdulkerim [24]; and Fu et al. [25], who reported enhanced soil fertility by intercropping through nitrogen-fixation. Therefore, the cereal-legume combinations in the intercropping systems provided favorable conditions for biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) [26].

3.4 Phosphorous (mg/kg) in the soils under the maize-legume intercropping combinations.

The phosphorus content in soil (mg/kg) under the maize-legume intercropping combinations is shown in Table 6.

Table 6

Phosphorous (mg/kg) in the soils under the maize-legume intercropping combinations.
cereal and legume combination	mean phosphorous (mg/kg)
sorghum sole	6262.10
sorghum and soya	4610.90
sorghum and groundnuts	6342.75
sorghum and beans	5593.20
millet sole	6258.70
millet and soya	5454.25
millet and groundnuts	6499.70
millet and beans	4963.50
local orange maize sole	5306.75
local orange maize and soya	6681.50
local orange maize and groundnuts	7164.80
local orange maize and beans	6221.40
grand mean	5947
prob > f	0.074
std. err.	1242.3

The mean phosphorous (mg/Kg) results (Table 6) revealed that the means of phosphorous of all cereal-legume intercropping combinations were similar. The values included sorghum sole (6262.10), sorghum and soya (4610.90), sorghum and groundnuts (6342.75), sorghum and beans (5593.20), millet sole (6258.70), millet and soya (5454.25) millet and groundnuts (6499.70) millet and beans (4963.50) local orange maize sole (5306.75) local orange maize and soya (6681.50) local orange maize and groundnuts (7164.80) and local orange maize and beans (6221.40).

These results indicate no effect of the cereal + legume intercropping system on phosphorous. However, the system improved the effectiveness of available soil phosphorous use by the maize crop since studies have proven that intercropping legumes and cereals increase phosphorus use efficiency [5, 27].

3.5 Potassium (%) in the soils under the maize-legume intercropping combinations.

The percentage of potassium in soil under the maize-legume intercropping combinations is shown in Table 7.

Table 7

Potassium (%) in the soils under the maize-legume intercropping combinations.
cereal and legume combination	mean
sorghum sole	2.33
sorghum and soya	2.53
sorghum and groundnuts	2.09
sorghum and beans	2.39
millet sole	2.50
millet and soya	2.38
millet and groundnuts	2.85
millet and beans	2.31
local orange maize sole	2.71
local orange maize and soya	2.44
local orange maize and groundnuts	2.63
local orange maize and beans	1.91
grand mean	2.42
prob > f	0.992
std. err.	1.166

The means of potassium (K) contents (Table 7) of all cereal-legume intercropping combinations were similar. The values included: sorghum sole (2.33), sorghum and soya (2.53) sorghum and groundnuts (2.09), sorghum and beans (2.39), millet sole (2.50) millet and soya (2.38) millet and groundnuts (2.85) millet and beans (2.31) local orange maize sole (2.71) local orange maize and soya (2.44) local orange maize and groundnuts (2.63) and local orange maize and beans (1.91) (Fig. 8). Contrary to Romaneckas et al. [28], who reported that intercropping increases the average content of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in the soil, this study observed the contrary. Therefore, it can be assumed that the K availability in the soil was affected by other factors, such as soil moisture, soil aeration and oxygen level, soil temperature and tillage system, and time factor.

3.6 Soil electrical conductivity (E.C.) under different cereal-legume intercropping combinations.

Table 8 shows the Soil electrical conductivity (E.C.) under different cereal-legume intercropping combinations.

Table 8

Soil E.C. under different cereal-legume intercropping combinations.
cereal and legume combination	mean
sorghum sole	44.52
local orange maize and groundnuts	40.44
local orange maize and beans	40.28
local orange maize and soya	38.50
sorghum and beans	38.03
millet and groundnuts	35.03
local orange maize sole	31.94
sorghum and groundnuts	29.27
sorghum and soya	28.98
millet and beans	24.51
millet and soya	23.35
millet sole	20.67
grand mean	33.0
prob > f	0.012
std. err.	10.62

Results in Table 8 revealed that all cereal-legume intercropping combinations’ means of soil E.C. were different. The values included: sorghum sole (6.06), sorghum and soya (5.76) sorghum and groundnuts (5.64), sorghum and beans (5.83), millet sole (5.99) millet and soya (5.82) millet and groundnuts (5.80) millet and beans (5.80) local orange maize sole (5.84) local orange maize and soya (5.73) local orange maize and groundnuts (5.79) and local orange maize and beans (5.91) (Fig. 9). The result of this study indicates that the cereal-legume intercropping system improved the soil E.C. significantly. These results concur with those of Dugassa [29] and Belel et al. [30], who reported that intercropping boosts cat-ion exchange capacity.

3.7 Soil pH under different cereal-legume intercropping combinations.

Table 9 shows the Soil pH under different cereal-legume intercropping combinations.

Table 9

Soil pH under different cereal-legume intercropping combinations.
cereal and legume combination	mean
sorghum sole	6.06
sorghum and soya	5.76
sorghum and groundnuts	5.64
sorghum and beans	5.83
millet sole	5.99
millet and soya	5.82
millet and groundnuts	5.80
millet and beans	5.80
local orange maize sole	5.84
local orange maize and soya	5.73
local orange maize and groundnuts	5.79
local orange maize and beans	5.91
grand mean	5.831
prob > f	0.888
std. error	0.354

Results for the soil pH under different cereal-legume intercropping combinations are shown in Table 9. The results show no significant effects of the intercropping system on the soil pH. This result contradicts Dugassa [29], who reported that intercropping reduces soil pH. The following were the pH readings for all the combinations, sorghum sole (6.06), sorghum and soya (5.76), sorghum and groundnuts (5.64) sorghum and beans (5.83), millet sole (5.99), millet and soya (5.82), millet and groundnuts (5.80), millet and beans (5.80), local orange maize sole (5.84), local orange maize and soya (5.73), local orange maize and groundnuts (5.79), local orange maize and beans (5.91). The results indicate that the intercropping systems did not affect the soil pH.

Different cereal-legume intercropping combinations in this study affected the soil chemical properties such as soil nitrogen, organic matter, and exchange capacity but did not affect the soil pH, potassium, and phosphorus contents. The study has shown the importance of improving soil properties for increased crop productivity and ensuring food security for rural farmers. The study recognized that smallholder farmers should be advised to consider cereal and legume crop combinations intercropping to improve soil chemical properties and boost crop productivity. The study showed relatively high crop productivity and economic benefits from the different cereal-legume intercropping combinations that could be attractive to smallholder farmers in different African settings. Our study raises awareness of the potential of intercropping to address food security problems, especially in Malawi and beyond. This research significantly contributes to the fields of agricultural science, environmental studies, and strategies for adapting to climate change. Malawi, like numerous other regions, encounters the dual challenges of sustaining soil fertility for viable crop production while adjusting to the impacts of climate change, including unpredictable rainfall patterns and soil degradation. By studying the influence of various intercropping systems on soil quality characteristics, the work offers invaluable insights for farmers, policymakers, and researchers alike. These insights serve as a foundation for developing more resilient agricultural practices aimed at bolstering soil health, mitigating climate-related risks, and enhancing food security for local communities. Thus, the research work holds significant importance in addressing urgent issues concerning sustainable agriculture, soil conservation, and adaptation to climate change in Dedza, Malawi. Future research can be done on the effect of cereal and legume intercropping on soil infiltration and time in a pond.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the support provided by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) under the Sustainable Agri-food Systems (S.A.S.) program, Zimbabwe, for the use of their research equipment in Bvumbwe and Chitedze agricultural research stations in Malawi.

Authors contributions: A.K.: Investigation and writing-original draft preparation, E.V.: Conceptualization, methodology, and supervision, P.M: Methodology, Data curation, and supervision, R.M: Review and editing final Draft.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from public, commercial, or not-for-profit funding agencies.

Data availability: The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Singh H, Sharma A (2016) Short communication response of lucerne to sulphur application in alluvial soil. Annals of Plant and Soil Research 18: 298-299.
Dube T, Moyo P, Mpofu M, Nyathi, D (2016)The impact of climate change on agro-ecological based livelihoods in Africa: A review, Journal of Sustainable Development 9: 256-267.
Li M, Zhang J, Liu S, Ashraf U, Zhao B, Qiu S (2019) Mixed‐cropping systems of different rice cultivars have grain yield and quality advantages over mono‐cropping systems. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 99: 3326-3334
Duchene O, Vian J, Celette F (2017) Intercropping with legume for agro-ecological cropping systems: Complementarity and facilitation processes and the importance of soil microorganisms. A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 240: 148-161. https://doi.org/10.10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.019
Liu J, Li Y, Han C, Yang D, Yang J, Cade-Menun B (2022) Maize-soybean intercropping facilitates chemical and microbial transformations of phosphorus fractions in a calcareous soil. Frontiers in Microbiology 13:1028969
Romaneckas, K, Adamavičienė A, Šarauskis E, Balandaitė J (2020) The impact of intercropping on soil fertility and sugar beet productivity. Agronomy 10:1406
Fung K, Tai A, Yong T, Liu X, Lam H (2019) Co-benefits of intercropping as a sustainable farming method for safeguarding both food security and air quality. Environmental Research Letters, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aafc8b
Thompson PB (2011) Book Review: Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., & Amp; Wright, A (2009). Nature’s Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Conservation and Food Sovereignty. London, England: Earthscan. Organization & Environment, 24(2): 215-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026611412936
Pelzer E, Hombert N, Jeuffroy MH, Makowski D (2014}) Meta‐analysis of the effect of nitrogen fertilization on annual cereal–legume intercrop production. Agronomy Journal, 106: 1775-1786
Maitra S, Hossain A, Brestic M, Skalicky M, Ondrisik P, Gitari H (2021) Intercropping—A Low Input Agricultural Strategy for Food and Environmental Security Agronomy 11 https://doi.org/10.10.3390/agronomy11020343
Lal, R (2005) Climate change, soil carbon dynamics, and global food security: Climate change and global food security Boca Raton (F.L.): C.R.C. Press
Nyirenda H, Mwangomba W, Nyirenda EM (2021) Delving into possible missing links for attainment of food security in Central Malawi: Farmers perceptions and long term dynamics in maize (Zea mays L.) production. Heliyon 7: e07130
Sanusi S.M. (2014) Profitability of small-scale maize production in Niger state of Nigeria. Indian Journal of Economics and Development 10(3): 205-210
Steward PR, Dougill AJ, Thierfelder C, Pittelkow CM, Stringer LC, Kudzala M, Shackelford GE (2018) The adaptive capacity of maize-based conservation agriculture systems to climate stress in tropical and subtropical environments: a metaregression of yields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 251: 194–202
Raseduzzaman M, Jensen ES (2017). Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis. European Journal of Agronomy 91:25-33
Malawi Meteorological Services. “Climate of Malawi.” Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Environment. https://www.metmalawi.com/climate/climate.php
F.A.O. 2005) Malawi; geography, climate, and population. Food and Agriculture Organization.http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/MWI/MWI-CP_eng.pdf.
Anderson M, Braak CT (2003) Permutation tests for multi-factorial analysis of variance. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 73: 85-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949650215733
Beshir S, Abdulkerim J (2017) Effect of maize/haricot bean intercropping on soil fertility improvement under different tied ridges and planting methods, Southeast Ethiopia. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection 5: 63-70
Schmidt O, Clements R, Donaldson G (2003) Why do cereal–legume intercrops support large earthworm populations? Applied Soil Ecology 22:181-190.
Cordeiro CF, Rodrigues DR., Silva G, Echer FR, Calonego JC (2022) Soil organic carbon stock is improved by cover crops in a tropical sandy soil. Agronomy Journal 114: 1546-1556
Gisele de Fátima Esteves, Kamila Rezende Dázio de Souza, Leticia Aparecida Bressanin, Paula Cristina Castro Andrade,Valdir Veroneze Júnior, Pedro Ernesto dos Reis, Adriano Bortolotti da Silva, José Ricardo Mantovani, Paulo César Magalhães, Moacir Pasqual, Thiago Corrêa de Souza. Vermicompost improves maize, millet and sorghum growth in iron mine tailings. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 264, 15 June 2020, 110468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110468.
Amos R. Ngwiraa, Jens B. Aunea, Symon Mkwinda, On-farm evaluation of yield and economic benefit of short term maize legume intercropping systems under conservation agriculture in Malawi. Field Crops Research, Volume 132, 14 June 2012, Pages 149-157.
Beshir S, Abdulkerim J (2017) Effect of maize/haricot bean intercropping on soil fertility improvement under different tied ridges and planting methods, Southeast Ethiopia. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection 5: 63-70.
Fu Zd, Li Z, Ping C, Qing D, Ting P, Chun S (2019) Effects of maize-soybean relay intercropping on crop nutrient uptake and soil bacterial community. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 18: 2006-2018
Adu-Gyamfi JJ, Myaka FA, Sakala WD, Odgaard R, Vesterager JM, Høgh-Jensen H (2007) Biological nitrogen fixation and nitrogen and phosphorus budgets in farmer-managed intercrops of maize–pigeonpea in semi-arid southern and eastern Africa. Plant and Soil 295: 127-136
Tang X, Zhang C, Yu Y, Shen J, van der Werf W, Zhang F (2021) Intercropping legumes and cereals increases phosphorus use efficiency; a meta-analysis. Plant and Soil, 460(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-020-04768-x.
Kęstutis Romaneckas , Aida Adamavičienė, Egidijus Šarauskis and Jovita Balandaitė. The Impact of Intercropping on Soil Fertility and Sugar Beet Productivity, Agronomy 2020, 10, 1406; doi:10.3390/agronomy10091406
Dugassa M (2023) The Role of Cereal legume Intercropping in Soil Fertility Management: Review. Journal of Agriculture and Aquaculture
Belel M, Halim R, Rafii M, Saud H (2014) Intercropping of corn with some selected legumes for improved forage production: A review. Journal of Agricultural Science 6: 48

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Influence of various intercropping systems on soil quality characteristics and their potential for climate change adaptation in Dedza, Malawi

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Geographical location and climatic characteristics of the study area

2.2 The conceptual framework

2.3 Study Design

2.4 Set up of the field experiments

2.5 Soil sampling procedures

2.6 Laboratory Analysis

2.7 Statistical data analysis

3 Results and Discussions

3.1 Levels of soil organic matter in different cereal-legume intercropping combinations

3.2 Soil Particulate organic matter (%) under the maize-legume intercropping combinations

3.3 Soil nitrogen (%) under the cereal-legume intercropping combinations.

3.4 Phosphorous (mg/kg) in the soils under the maize-legume intercropping combinations.

3.5 Potassium (%) in the soils under the maize-legume intercropping combinations.

3.6 Soil electrical conductivity (E.C.) under different cereal-legume intercropping combinations.

3.7 Soil pH under different cereal-legume intercropping combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1