Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Review

Narrowing the rice yield gap in East and Southern Africa: Using and
adapting existing technologies
Nhamo Nhamo ⇑, Jonne Rodenburg, Negussie Zenna, Godswill Makombe 1, Ashura Luzi-Kihupi 2
Africa Rice Center, East and Southern Africa, P O Box 33581, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The importance of rice production in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has significantly increased over the past
Received 8 March 2012 decades. Currently, rice plays a pivotal role in improving household food security and national economies
Received in revised form 4 August 2014 in SSA. However, current rice productivity of smallholder farms is low due to a myriad of production con-
Accepted 5 August 2014
straints and suboptimal production methods, while future productivity is threatened by climate change,
Available online 29 August 2014
water shortage and soil degradation. Improved rice cultivars and agronomic management techniques, to
enhance nutrient and water availability and use efficiencies and to control weeds, have the potential to
Keywords:
increase yields. The aim of this study was to assess the relative contribution of such technologies to
Good Agricultural Practice (GAP)
Soil degradation
enhanced rice productivity. Relative yield gains emanating from nutrient, water and weed management
Cultivars were surveyed and calculated from literature. Partial budgeting was used to evaluate viability of fertilizer
Systems technology under GAP. Substantial yield gains ranging from 0.5 t ha1 to 2.9 t ha1 are projected follow-
Innovations ing the use of improved technologies. Relative yield gains decreased in the following order: weed man-
Africa agement (91.6%) > organic fertilizer application (90.4%) > bunding (86.7%) > mineral fertilizer application
(51.9%) > tied ridges (42.6%). Combining fertilizer with unimproved rice cultivars led to negative returns.
The lack of integration of improved technologies, to increase synergies and alleviate socio-economic con-
straints, largely explained the existing yield gaps. The gains obtained through improved rice cultivars can
be further enhanced through application of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), improving nutrient, water
and weed management technologies, based on the local resource availabilities of small farms. We there-
fore propose adapting technologies to local conditions and developing and using rice production decision
tools based on GAP to enable rice farmers in SSA to improve resource-use efficiencies and crop produc-
tivity at the farm level.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2. Yield gain and economic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3. Rice yield responses to improved technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.1. Soil fertility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2. Water management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.3. Weed management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.4. Improved varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4. Narrowing yield gaps through integrated management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.1. Crop management systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2. Local adaptations and holistic approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.3. Management tools for improved resource use in rice systems in ESA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5. Implications for research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

⇑ Corresponding author. Present address: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), P O Box 310142, Chelston Lusaka, Zambia. Tel.: +260 211 840365.
E-mail addresses: nnhamo@gmail.com, n.nhamo@cgiar.org (N. Nhamo), j.rodenburg@cgiar.org (J. Rodenburg), n.zenna@cgiar.org (N. Zenna), g.makombe@cgiar.org,
godswill.makombe@ul.ac.za (G. Makombe), aluzi@suanet.ac.tz (A. Luzi-Kihupi).
1
Present address: University of Limpopo, Turfloop Graduate School of Leadership, Box 756, Fauna Park 0787, South Africa.
2
Present address: Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), P O Box 77, Morogoro, Tanzania.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.003
0308-521X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
46 N. Nhamo et al. / Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55

6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

1. Introduction and inuta or amaxhaphozi in Southern Africa according to Acres

The importance of rice as a commodity has significantly
increased over the past decades in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
(Seck et al., 2010). Rice plays a pivotal role in African rural house-
hold food security and national economies. Since the 1990s urban-
ization and increased income associated with rural–urban
migration (Kennedy and Reardon, 1994) has led to an increase in
per capita rice consumption. In SSA rice grain yield per unit area
and the total area under production have stagnated (Otsuka and
Kalirajan, 2005). There are however still possibilities to expand
area under rice and improve productivity given the positive land
balance (FAO, 2010) and the relatively low level of adoption of
modern technologies (Balasubramanian et al., 2007). Clearly, there
is a need to study important yield reducing factors closely in order
to determine strategies to help increase and maintain rice produc-
tivity on farmers’ fields and, through that, overall regional rice
production.
In East and Southern Africa (ESA), Madagascar and Tanzania are
the major rice producing countries (Table 1), while Rwanda is the
smallest producer (FAO, 2010; Kanyeka et al., 1996; Rodenburg
and Demont, 2009). In terms of area under rice, the rain-fed low-
lands are the dominant ecosystems in ESA, comprising 55% of the
total area. Irrigated rice ecology (both highland and lowland) com-
prises 27% while rain-fed uplands comprise 18% of the area under
rice. Though there are disparities across countries in the region, the
biophysical conditions in ESA (topography, water reservoirs, rain-
fall distributions and soils), suggests that there is untapped poten-
tial for improving rice production.
Ferralsols, Acrisols, Arenosols, Nitosols and Lixisols are the
dominant soil types found in the ESA region (Bationo et al., 2006;
Bekunda et al., 2002; Hartemink, 1997; Nandwa and Bekunda,
1998). Due to erosion and degradation, soils on uplands are rela-
tively less fertile and more acidic than those on lower positions
on the catena, with the latter being accumulation zones for soil
mineral sediments, nutrients, organic matter and (rain or run-off)
water (e.g. Andriesse et al., 1994; van der Heyden and New,
2003). It is for this reason that there exist a relatively large agricul-
tural potential in rain-fed lowland systems (inland valleys, also
known as mbuga in East Africa and vleis, dambos, mapani or matoro,
et al. (1985)) in particular for rice production (e.g., Rodenburg
et al., 2014). However, the lowland ecosystems should not be
developed indiscriminately for the sole purpose of agricultural
production, as they are often fragile or harbour a range of natural
resources (e.g. biodiversity) linked to important ecosystems func-
tions worthy of conservation (e.g., McCartney and Houghton-
Carr, 2009; Sakane et al., 2011; Verhoeven and Setter, 2010).
There is a growing realization that rice production is important
for advancing the agricultural contribution to the national GDP
(e.g., Seck et al., 2012). In Madagascar for instance, rice is the main
staple food crop and an important export commodity (Garenne,
2002), while Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda are net importers
of rice (NPA, 2007). Improving domestic production can reduce
imports. If production increases alongside quality, for instance
through investments in post-harvest grain-quality infrastructure,
it will augment the market share of locally produced rice (e.g.,
Demont and Rizzotto, 2012). However, major constraints to rice
production are of biophysical (i.e. soil nutrient depletion, weed
infestation, variable rainfall patterns, low and under-developed
irrigation infrastructure), socio-economic, institutional and politi-
cal (i.e. lack of financial resources, labour shortages, low levels of
education, weak infrastructure, lack of conducive policies)nature.
Solving these constraints could bridge the existing large gap
between current farm level production and the potential
production.
The term ‘yield gap’ is used to indicate the difference between
the biological and climatic potential yield and the average actual
crop yield produced by farmers (Lobell et al., 2009). Factors affect-
ing crop growth and development are radiation and temperature
(yield determining), water and nutrition (yield limiting); the
attainable yield is the potential yield limited by these two factors
in a given environment (Rabbinge, 1993). An additional factor
affecting crop growth is pest and diseases (yield reducing). In addi-
tion, productivity is also determined by factors such as cultivar
choice and crop management. The interaction between the above
factors determines the actual yield level at a particular location.
In irrigated areas productivity is primarily determined by radiation
and temperature whereas in rain-fed areas, precipitation and soil
moisture storage capacity are important factors (De Wit, 1992).

Table 1
Harvested area under cultivation (ha) and mean yields (kg ha1) for rice under rainfed upland (RU), rainfed lowland (RL) and irrigated ecosystems from 8 countries in East and
Southern Africa.

Country RU RL IR Total Area (ha)  1000 Rice yield (kg ha1)

Burundi 4 74 21 21 3310
Kenya 0 0 100 19 3570
Madagascar 29 18 52 1300 2770
Malawi 0 72 28 53 1740
Mozambique 39 59 2 204 960
Rwanda 0 92 8 10 4400
Tanzania 23 73 4 665 1860
Uganda 45 53 2 119 1360
Regional share (%) 17.5 55.3 27.2 – –
Total area under rice 2391
Average yield (kg ha1) 2496
Standard deviation of the mean 1204
Difference in yields (kg ha1) 3440

FAO (2010).
 N. Nhamo et al. / Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55 47

The main objectives of this paper are to determine rice yield
gains resulting from use of improved technologies and to analyse
how technical interventions should be adapted to narrow the gap
between potential and actual rice yields. We hypothesize that
agronomic practices and socio-economic conditions are highly
interdependent and should therefore be handled in a holistic man-
ner in order to attain increased yields, and that attention should be
given to synergies resulting from applying technologies that have
the potential of addressing two or more yield reducing or limiting
factors.
2. Yield gain and economic analysis
Published data from over 105 relevant journal articles and
FAOSTAT were analysed for yield differences. To determine the
effects of improved cultivars and management practices on yield,
yield gains were calculated using Eq. (1).
1
YG ðkg ha Þ ¼ Y T  Y 0
where YG is yield gain; YT is the yield following a treatment effect
(e.g. fertilizer application, weed management) and Y0 is yield with-
out any treatment (from negative control plots).
In order to compare the effects of technologies on yields across
different sites we calculated a relative yield gain (RYG) from each
experiment expressed as a percentage using Eq. (2).
RYG ð%Þ ¼ 100  YG=Y 0
Partial budgeting was used to evaluate the economic viability of
component technologies.
3. Rice yield responses to improved technologies
3.1. Soil fertility management
Nutrient depletion through crop and residue removal and soil
degradation (erosion)is a major threat to rice production in ESA
(Hartemink, 1997; Hartemink et al., 2005). Calculations showed that
as high as 70% N, 80% P and 63% K can be lost by soil erosion espe-
cially on fields with more than 5 % slope (Hartemink et al., 2005).
Rice production without soil fertility amendments, a common prac-
tice on smallholder farms in ESA, is consummate to high rates of soil
nutrient depletion (Mghase et al., 2010). Low application rates of
poor quality soil fertility inputs cannot halt nutrient mining leading
to reduced returns from land, water, labour (e.g., for weed manage-
ment) or any other necessary resources and inputs. While mineral
and organic fertilizers are important nutrients sources, little is
known about the effectiveness of combinations and formulations
used by smallholder famers on rice yields. Blanket application of
variable combinations of N, P and K are widely acknowledged in
ESA (Nandwa and Bekunda, 1998) but smallholder rice farmers
hardly use these recommendations. Due to financial constraints,
farmers often apply reduced amounts of fertilizer (Mwaseba et al.,
2006). Inappropriate application of fertilizers can become an ineffi-
cient and unprofitable practice (Poulton et al., 2006). There is a need
for locally adaptable, and balanced recommendations suitable for a
range of crop environments. This would require a thorough
understanding of the specific system (Bekunda et al., 2002;
Meertens et al., 1999). In addition, farmers need access to credits
and markets in order to be able to follow-up on recommendations.
Based on our analyses of on-farm studies carried out by Kaihura
et al. (1999), Kajiru et al. (1998), Kayeke et al. (2007) and Meertens
et al. (2003), a relative yield gain of 52%, equivalent to 948 kg ha1
of rice grain can be obtained from the use of mineral fertilizer
(Table 2). A closer analysis showed that the initial linear yield gains
resulting from N application start to gradually decrease above
ð1Þ 60 kg N ha1 (Kaihura et al., 1999; Kajiru et al., 1998; Kayeke
et al., 2007; Meertens et al., 2003). This result suggests increased
losses occur under higher fertilizer application rates probably
because of poor nutrient recovery by the crop and traditional fer-
tilizer management practices. Improved fertilizer management
practices have been used successfully to increase fertilizer use effi-
ciency however, arriving at the right quantities and timing of appli-
cation in relation to the crop phenology remains a challenge to
most subsistence farmers in ESA (Esilaba et al., 2005).
ð2Þ
In ESA average fertilizer application rates on cereals in general
range from 5 to 20 kg N ha1 (Nandwa and Bekunda, 1998;
Nhamo et al., 2002; Okalebo et al., 2006) and similar rates are com-
monly observed in rice in particular (Kajisa and Payongayong, 2011;
Nakano and Kajisa, 2012). Subsidies, improved agro-dealer net-
works and re-packaging of fertilizers into smaller portions are mea-
sures used to improve fertilizer use by resource poor farmers
(Poulton et al., 2006). The success of such interventions has however
been low. Meertens and Roling (2000) reported low adoption of fer-
tilizer by rice farmers due to suboptimal availability of urea at the
local markets and a lack of incentives due to high fertilizer prices.
Farmers are least likely to embrace fertilizer use if they lack infor-
mation on yield benefits, ease of implementation, profitability and
compatibility to their farming systems (Meertens and Roling, 2000).
Contrary to locally adapted advices, general fertilizer recom-
mendations fail to capture the within-plot and within-farm vari-
ability which are often larger than between-farm differences
(Mafongoya et al., 2006). Piha (1993)suggested that within-season
management of fertility input can raise the economics of fertil-
izer use and reduce the risk of its application in areas prone to
mid-season droughts. By applying P, K and S fertilizer as basal

Table 2
Yield gains (kg) characteristics from experimental data (YT–Y0) from published journal article on nutrient, water, weed management trials on rice cultivars calculated as the
difference between each treatment mean and the control.

Technology Mean Yield Maximum Source(s)

gain (kg) gain (kg)
Nutrient management
Mineral 948 (51.9) 2931 (329) Kaihura et al. (1999), Kajiru et al. (1998), Kayeke et al. (2007), Meertens et al. (2003)
Organic 1424 (90.4) 2830 (196) Kaihura et al. (1999), Kajiru et al. (1998), Kayeke et al. (2007), Kijima et al. (2006), Makoye and Winge (1996),
Meertens et al. (2003), Menete et al. (2008), Otsyina et al. (1995)
Water management
Bunds 500 (86.7) 700 (180) Raes et al. (2007)
Tied ridges 1162 (42.6) 2931 (149) Kaihura et al. (1999)
Weed management
Cultural and 1241 (91.6) 2600 (182) Kayeke et al. (2007), Kijima et al. (2006)
mechanical
methods

Relative yield gain (%) in parenthesis.

48 N. Nhamo et al. / Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55
applications while varying N applications depending on rainfall pat-
terns yields increased by 25–42% and profits by 20–40%. Combining
such an approach together with simple but effective field assess-
ment techniques for farmers, such as the leaf colour charts, can sub-
stantially improve the N fertilizer efficiency on rice.
Organic fertilizers address the biological, chemical and physical
fertility of soil leading to long-term increased availability of nutri-
ent and water to the crop (Okalebo et al., 2006). The successful use
of compost in the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) leading to
yields of around 9 t ha1 shows the potential of organic fertilizers
in lowland rice (Moser and Barrett, 2003;Stoop et al., 2009). How-
ever, to obtain such high yields with this system, compost or man-
ure application of 13 (Styger et al., 2011), 20 (Abo et al., 1998;
Kaihura et al., 1999) and even 35 t ha1 (Tsujimoto et al., 2009)
were reportedly used or recommended. Such application rates
are often far more than what an average livestock farmer produces
annually. The challenge of using organic amendments on small
farms is often the supply of such large required to supply balanced
nutrition to crops (Mafongoya et al., 2006). Our analyses showed
that organic fertilizer application result in higher rice yield gains
than the application of mineral fertilizer (Table 2), and this practice
also has a residual effect. The organic inputs used in the analysed
studies include animal manure, banana residues, spear grass, ele-
phant grass, kitchen waste, maize stover, potato peels, cassava
peels, coffee husks, household refuse after composting, bean trash,
and biomass of Tithonia diversifolia, Calliandra calothyrsus and Leu-
caena leucocephala (e.g., Bekunda and Woomer, 1996; Meertens
et al., 1999; Nhamo et al., 2002; Okalebo et al., 2006; Sseguya
et al., 1999). Besides sole application of organic materials the com-
bined application of organic and mineral fertilizers have resulted in
higher yields (Alemu and Bayu, 2005). Sistani et al. (1998) demon-
strated an increase in rice yield when both rice straw and rice hull
ash were combined with mineral N and P fertilizers. The potential
of building and maintaining soil nutrient stocks using organic fer-
tilizers (e.g., residues, compost and manure) remains however elu-
sive as often farmers prefer to apply them to higher value crops
(Krupnik et al., 2012a–c) or the material is needed to meet other
needs (e.g., building materials and fodder). Further, the decompo-
sition rates associated with tropical soils are generally high
(Mafongoya et al., 2006; Nkonya et al., 2005).
Fallowing used to be a predominant practice of replenishing soil
fertility on cultivated soils under traditional rain-fed farming sys-
tems (Bationo et al., 2006; Okalebo et al., 2006). Given limited
access to land due to population growth, fallowing to improve soil
nutrient stocks is currently less frequently used (e.g., Demont et al.,
2007). However, there is potential for improved fallows where mul-
tipurpose legumes are used to enhance soil fertility, in particular
through biological nitrogen fixation (Giller, 2001). In upland rice
production systems the use of improved fallows and relay inter-
cropping with legumes has been investigated in West Africa (e.g.,
Becker and Johnson, 1999). The use of Cajanus cajan as relay inter-
crop and improved fallow species showed to have a positive effect
on yields of the following rice crop (Akanvou et al., 2002). Legume
fallows have the potential to play an important role in intensified
upland rice systems, but effective implementation of this technol-
ogy requires more research on the most effective short-duration
multipurpose legume species and the most appropriate manage-
ment (Becker and Johnson, 1999). Loevinsohn et al. (1994) reported
variable success when farmer groups, in cooperatives and associa-
tions experimented on the use of Sesbania spp. to improve the fer-
tility status of the soils in inland valley rice systems in Rwanda.
3.2. Water management
Demand for water is driven by competing uses including
domestic consumption, crop, livestock and industrial production,
as well as fisheries and maintenance of wetland ecosystems. Cli-
mate projections suggest that rainfall variability will increase,
higher rainfall amounts are expected in East Africa whereas
drought incidences will be more frequent in the Southern and
Western parts of Africa (Giannin et al., 2008). In ESA irrigation sys-
tems are often underdeveloped or sub-optimally used (Mulwafu
and Nkhoma, 2002) while rain-fed rice production is more vulner-
able to rainfall irregularities and uncertainties.
To reduce water stress in crops, rainwater harvesting tech-
niques need to be promoted. Using data from our synthesis, the rel-
ative yield gain (RYG) emanating from the use of bunding (86.7%)
was double that from tied ridges (42.6%) (Table 2), though higher
maximum gains were obtained in the latter. Bunds and tied ridges
can alleviate moisture stress during drought in rain-fed rice sys-
tems (Raes et al., 2007). However, lack of awareness and the labour
involved in bund construction could explain the low adoption of
such practices as observed in Tanzania (Raes et al., 2007). Obvi-
ously, the positive effects of temporary and permanent bunds,
ridges and furrows on yields are more pronounced during years
with moderate droughts (Singh, 2006). Luzi-Kihupi et al. (2004)
highlighted the importance of bunding, on-farm reservoirs, irriga-
tion and drainage systems in controlling water. Where water
management structures are poor the risk of yield loss due to
drought, weeds and nutrient losses increases. The risk of soil ero-
sion followed by soil degradation and reductions in water holding
capacities, as observed by Kaihura et al. (1996), highlights the
importance of controlling surface water movement on crop fields.
Socio-economic and agronomic limitations on many smallholder
farms are often reflected in poor water management
(Dobermann, 2004).
Combining water management and nutrient management in
rain-fed lowlands, through bunding, proved to increase yields
(e.g., Becker and Johnson, 2001; Toure et al., 2009). While manual
bund construction allows for timely planting, it requires a lot of
manual labour, a scarce resource in subsistence farms in Africa,
in particular during the planting period (Meertens and Roling,
2000).
3.3. Weed management
Rodenburg and Johnson (2009) conservatively estimated the
cost of weed-inflicted yield losses in rice, despite control and
exclusive of the costs for weeding operations, to be $ 1.5 billion
for sub-Saharan Africa. The high labour demand for weed control
has been generally acknowledged as a major problem in rice pro-
duction in SSA (Balasubramanian et al., 2007; Lawrence et al.,
1997). However, according to our analyses labour inputs focussing
on weed management resulted in high yield gains in East Africa
(Table 2). Although based on few studies, our analysis shows that
weed management technologies account for the highest yield gains
in rice production in ESA (Table 2). Improved weed control prac-
tices in rice resulted in a RYG of 91.6% (equivalent to 1.241 kg ha1
of paddy) compared to farmers’ practices (Table 2). However,
where weed management is not adequate, yield losses as high as
250 kg ha1 of paddy occur and in extreme cases a total crop fail-
ure. This result indirectly corroborates reports that weeds together
with birds are major problems faced by rice farmers (Seck et al.,
2012). Common weeds in rice in ESA are: Echinochloa colona, Sphe-
noclea zeylanica, Monochoria vaginalis, Hygrophila spinosa, Commeli-
na benghalensis, Corchorus olitorius, Ludwigia hyssopifolia, wild rice
(Oryza longistaminata and Oryza punctata) and different species of
the Cyperaceae family (Meertens et al., 1999). Rodenburg et al.
(2010) has highlighted the increasing importance of parasitic
weeds (e.g. Striga spp. and Rhamphicarpa fistulosa) in rice in sub-
Saharan Africa, reporting Striga asiatica problems in Tanzania and
Madagascar and Striga hermonthica in Kenya and Uganda.
 N. Nhamo et al. / Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55
Labour intensive and time consuming manual methods of con-
trolling weeds (i.e. hand pulling or the use of the short-handled
hand hoe) are often used to clean rice fields of weeds
(Rodenburg and Johnson, 2009). Furthermore, cultural measures
that are frequently observed in subsistence rice production sys-
tems in SSA and that contribute to weed control include land prep-
aration (e.g. dry tillage, deep tillage, levelling), transplanting,
flooding and crop rotations with non-cereal crops (Ampong-
Nyarko and De Datta, 1991; Zimdhal, 2007).
On smallholder farms serious labour shortages occur making
manual weeding highly inappropriate for improved rice produc-
tion. The labour situation has been exacerbated by rural–urban
or rural–rural migration for non-agricultural employment and
the effects of the HIV–AIDS pandemic on rural communities. Data
from Southern Africa showing low adoption of labour intensive
agricultural technologies corroborate this position (Perret and
Stevens, 2006). In order to reduce labour demands, interventions
such as (small scale) mechanization and use of chemical weed con-
trol methods, where possible, are needed. No single weed control
methods provide an effective solution to all weed species at all
times, suggesting that it is important to develop an integrated
approach to weed control (Rodenburg and Johnson, 2009). Further,
cultural weed control methods promoted in such an integrated
approach (e.g. levelling, flooding, transplanting, use of clean rice
seed, high and uniform plant densities) also benefit the crop pro-
ductivity in general and therefore support a sustainable rice pro-
duction system. Improving soil fertility technologies can lead to
Striga control. Examples from Tanzania, for instance, show that
combinations of green manures and mineral fertilizers can reduce
S. asiatica infestation while at the same time increasing N supply to
rice (Kayeke et al., 2007; Riches et al., 2005). Crop rotations, green
manures or improved fallows and intercropping are widely known
for controlling weeds in general and parasitic weeds in particular
through (light) competition or suicidal germination (Rodenburg
et al., 2010). Such crop combinations also increase resource use
efficiency, break disease cycles thereby reducing risk of crop fail-
ure. Reasons for low adoption of this type of cropping systems
technologies are high labour requirements for clearing and incor-
porating into the soil and the general lack of legumes that fit in
existing farming systems (Becker et al., 1995). Legumes that com-
bine an economic or food value with weed control and soil
improvement capabilities stand a better chance of adoption
(Becker and Johnson, 1999).
The control of weeds through the use of high yielding and
weed-competitive cultivars is another potential technology. A
range of newly developed lowland NERICA cultivars were identi-
fied to be weed competitive and high yielding in studies done in
West Africa (Rodenburg et al., 2009), while among the NERICA cul-
tivars adapted to uplands, effective mechanisms of resistance
against S. hermonthica (Cissoko et al., 2011; Jamil et al., 2011)
and S. asiatica (Cissoko et al., 2011) have been identified. Such
improved cultivars could also play a key role in integrated weed
management in rice in ESA. The challenge in using this approach
is how to deal with wild rice species such as O. longistaminata
and O. punctata. These widely distributed wild rice species are
highly competitive and cannot be easily controlled through herbi-
cides (Munene et al., 2008) or using mechanical weed control, and
such species are also predicted to become a more persistent prob-
lem given projected increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
(Rodenburg et al., 2011).
3.4. Improved varieties
There is no doubt that the use of improved rice varieties
account for a large proportion of the yield gains obtained in the
past decade in Africa (Renkow and Byerlee, 2010). Improved mod-
49
ern varieties (IMV) generally have higher yield potential than tra-
ditional varieties and a higher yield response to fertilizer
application. The yield gains reported in Table 2 show the effect of
plant nutrient use, water and weed management practices on
modern improved cultivars in ESA. However, in Mozambique, Tan-
zania and Uganda there has been slow progress in the adoption of
IMVs as farmers still grow traditional landraces with low respon-
siveness to inputs (Kijima et al., 2011; Meertens et al., 1999;
Menete et al., 2008). Indeed, there are major constraints in the dis-
semination and adoption of IMVs as they do often not possess
some farmers’ and consumers’ preferred qualities that traditional
cultivars have. Farmers in ESA, often growing for their own con-
sumption, value cooking quality and taste, adaptability to the local
environment and the ability to yield under minimum manage-
ment. For cultivars combining such highly valued traits, farmers
could accept some of the negative associated characteristics such
as lower yield potential, later maturity, lodging and poor milling
quality (Meertens et al., 1999). Aroma and softness after cooking
were found to be important parameters for farmer adoption
(Luzi-Kihupi et al., 2007). These two characteristics are found in
Supa India (locally known as ‘Kilombero’) in Tanzania, Faya from
Malawi, Sindano from Kenya and Sokotera from Zanzibar
(Meertens et al., 1999). Indeed, Mwaseba et al. (2006) noted the
importance of including cooking quality preferences of farmers in
breeding IMVs and its potential positive implications on adoption.
On the other hand, traditional varieties often have long crop cycles,
increasing the risk of crop failure in the event of a shortened sea-
son. Work of Mwaseba et al. (2006) described the economic advan-
tage of IMVs especially when they are harvested for sale during the
period when the long duration traditional cultivars are not yet
mature. An effort to improve the popular traditional variety Supa
India in Tanzania, resulted in varieties that indeed combine the
desired grain qualities with early maturing, high(er) disease resis-
tance and high(er) responsiveness to water and fertilizer inputs
(Kanyeka et al., 1996; Luzi-Kihupi et al., 2009). The two popular
Supa India derivatives are SARO 5 (TXD 306) and Mwangaza. SARO
5 has high potential under irrigated conditions whereas the short-
duration Mwangaza is suitable for (rain-fed) lowland as well as
upland conditions. The major bottle neck that may hamper the
wide adoption of SARO5 is its lack of resistance and tolerance to
rice yellow mottle virus (RYMV) according to (Msomba et al.,
2004). RYMV has been found to be highly infectious and destruc-
tive and threatens rice production throughout Africa (Abo et al.,
1998). The application of cultivar characteristic (of landraces) to
solve local challenges of water scarcity and bird attack has been
reported by Meertens et al. (1999). They observed that Supa India
Table 3
The economic benefit of fertilizer use on rice: an example of yield gains (the
difference between fertilizer treatment and non-fertilized control), cost of fertilizer
application and the net benefits of this technology from studies carried out in
Tanzania.
Item Amount
Yield gain following fertilizer application (kg ha1) 730a
Price of paddy (TS kg1) 600b
Gross benefit (TS) 438,000
Fertilizer price (TS kg1) 1957c
Total cost of fertilizer (TS ha1) 58,696
Net benefit (TS ha1) 379,304d
M.R.R (%) 646
a
Source of paddy yield data: Meertens et al. (2003).
b
Post harvest price of paddy based on key informants from Mvomero district,
Tanzania.
c
Price of 50 kg bag of Urea (46% N) was 45,000 Tanzanian Shilling (around 25–30
USD).
d
Exchange rate: 1 USD = Tsh 1560.
50 N. Nhamo et al. / Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55
(Kilombero) was grown in water limited conditions, while high
water demanding Tondogoso and Lugata were popular in the valley
bottoms and Kahogo and Sindano with awns on the spikelets (con-
sidered less susceptible to bird attack) were used to mitigate losses
from bird attack.
While breeding for higher yields has been a noble and worth-
while objective for many years, current challenges faced by farm-
ers require breeding programs to include many other attributes
such as weed competitiveness, disease and parasitic weed resis-
tance and grain quality including aroma, milling and cooking qual-
ity. Resource use efficiency of both rain-fed and irrigated rice
cultivars is becoming increasingly important given the level of deg-
radation on productive soils (Bationo et al., 2006; Nandwa and
Bekunda, 1998), and the cost of inputs required to produce rice.
NERICA cultivars that combine good adaptation with short cycles,
weed competitiveness and resistance to important diseases
(except RYMV) are examples of cultivars that are capable of
producing under a range of yield reducing factors (e.g.,
Balasubramanian et al., 2007; Seck et al., 2012; Wopereis et al.,
2008). One additional next challenge is for IMV to be able to cope
with climate irregularities, following climate changes (e.g.,
Jagadish et al., 2012).
To combat stresses attributed to climate change cultivars are
being developed that maintain productive capacities under (tem-
porary) temperature or water stress (Brar and Virk, 2010). This
development is worth consideration as an investment that can
benefit ESA.
A good response to external inputs and management is one of
the valuable characteristic of IMVs. Table 3 shows high marginal
rates of return following the application of 30 kg ha1 on respon-
sive rice cultivars. In this example, even after considering the
downside risk (e.g. one standard deviation) the practice is still
profitable. However, a more complete fertilizer response function
would be required to estimate the economically optimum fertilizer
application rate. Furthermore this example (Table 3) also high-
lights the importance of combining soil fertility technologies with
improved rice cultivars as illustrated in Fig. 1.
The local demand for rice has been on an increase due to
improved incomes, organized markets (local level) and urbaniza-
tion. Work of Luzi-Kihupi et al., 2007; Meertens et al., 1999; have
highlighted the importance of the preference to local rice which
Mineral + organic fertilizer,
soil reserves
NUE/AUE – timing , recovery
Indigenous fertility status
Topography/Catenal position
Site-specific
nutrient
management
• Water-saving systems
• Improved WUE
• Moisture conservation
techniques
• Timing of flooding
Fig. 1. A schematic presentation illustrating linkages and attributes of four component technologies (nutrient, water, weed and varietal management), which can be used as a
basis for formulating Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for rice systems in East and Southern Africa. HYV – high yielding varieties; NUE – nutrient use efficiency; AUE –
agronomic nutrient use efficiency; WUE – water use efficiency; WC – weed competitive varieties; WS – weed suppressing varieties.
has attributes such as aroma, grain shape, size and structure. Such
preference has created a nitch in the local market and hence pro-
tects local producers from competing directly with external rice
sources where subsidies could be available for farmers. Work of
Msomba et al., 2004; Mwaseba et al., 2006; Kanyeka et al., 1996;
Luzi-Kihupi et al., 2009; Shayo et al., 2006; Tsujimoto et al.,
2009) in Madagascar, Tanzania, Uganda and Zanzibar highlighted
the consumer preference to locally produced rice in ESA. However,
the development of these market and the response to global
dynamics of trade in crop commodities e.g., rice needs to be stud-
ied in order to identify changes in trends over time. As noted by
Rugumamu (2014), future exploitation of both domestic and inter-
national markets may result from increased support on rice pro-
duction in the smallholder farming sector.
4. Narrowing yield gaps through integrated management
Tran (2004) and Lobell et al. (2009) clearly differentiate
between yield gap components. Large yield gaps exist in irrigated
rice systems; in Madagascar for instance, a gap of 2.1 t ha1 (a dif-
ference between 6.1 and 4.0 t ha1) was determined in irrigated
rice (Tran, 2004). The real challenge is to narrow the gap between
farm level yield and the potential yield and to identify the main
drivers of yield gains. We propose a focus on nutrient, water and
weed management as the main biophysical factors and labour
shortages, lack of knowledge and weak financial position of the
farmers as the socio-economic factors, and analyse this in the con-
text of rice farming in ESA. The figures on production potential
using components of Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) from pub-
lished experimental data are known (this publication) however
the farm level yield from improved varieties are not readily avail-
able limiting our discussion of the yield gap.
Previous sections have focused on identifying yield gains that
can be obtained by addressing single constraints, while many con-
straints co-exist (e.g. poor soil fertility and parasitic weeds, poor
water control and weed infestation) and many of the technological
solutions target multiple constraints (e.g. bunding improved water,
weed and nutrient management). The next step is to examine inte-
grated and locally-adapted approaches as our hypothesis is that
using such an approach will result in yield benefits beyond those
that can be expected from single-target approaches. Here we will
HYV
Drought tolerant
Improved Disease, pests
adapted resistant/tolerant
Weed competitive
varieties
Nutrient efficient
Aromatic
Locally adapted
integrated weed
GAP management
Crop sequences
Rotating control
Optimized practices
water WC/WS cultivars
management Timing of interventions
Improved crop
establishment
 N. Nhamo et al. / Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55
give a short overview of integrated management practices used
previously in rice in ESA and guidelines on how to build on these
previous experiences, coming to local adaptations of these
practices.
4.1. Crop management systems
Different crop management systems are developed for rice.
Here we will discuss three prominent ones, as much as possible
in the context of rice-based systems in East and Southern Africa,
to illustrate the diversity in objectives and approaches and to show
how such systems put the aforementioned yield gain hypotheses
into practice.
For rain-fed and irrigated lowlands, Integrated Crop Manage-
ment (ICM), for rice systems also referred to as Integrated Rice
Management (IRM), is developed (Donovan et al., 1999; Haefele
et al., 2000, 2001, 2003; Kebbeh and Miezan, 2003; Wopereis
et al., 1999). IRM comprises recommendations ranging from land
preparation to post-harvest management and uses a cropping cal-
endar with 5 main crop stages (Table 4). Transplanting of seedlings
in the 3–4 leaf stage and at optimal spacing (20  20 cm) is applied
together with improved water, nutrient and (timing of) weed
management.
In irrigated lowlands, with full control over water, the System of
Rice Intensification (SRI) can be applied (Stoop et al., 2002). It is
composed of a set of management components; transplanting of
single and young (14-day old) seedlings at a wide plant spacing
(at least 25  25 cm), alternate wetting and drying (AWD) water
management, mechanical weeding (using a rotary weeder) and
the use of large amounts of (preferably organic)soil fertility
amendments. Outside Madagascar, SRI has been tested in some
part of ESA (e.g., Menete et al., 2008) and in West Africa (e.g.,
Krupnik et al., 2012a–c; Styger et al., 2011) with mixed results.
The emphasis on seedling age and its relationship with overall
yield has been a point of debate concerning the effectiveness and
applicability across cultivars grown under different conditions.
Other debatable components are the use of large amounts of
organic soil amendments as outlined above, and the feasibility of
alternate wetting and drying for smallholder farmers. Recent work
by Krupnik et al. (2012a) has shown that adaptations of SRI, for
instance replacing unavailable compost by available rice straw,
and the involvement of farmers in developing such adaptations,
hold a promise to improving such production practices.
In rain-fed upland systems, Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a
crop management system applied on vulnerable soils (Scopel
et al., 2012). Here tillage is minimized, and the soil is protected
by mulch derived from rotation or intercrops (crop residues). Some
successes of CA in rice in Africa are reported from work in the vul-
nerable highlands of Madagascar (e.g., Scopel et al., 2012) but the
applicability as well as the adoption potential are rather localised.
The knowledge and labour requirements of all these systems
can be a serious hindrance to adoption by farmers (Kebbeh and
Miezan, 2003; Krupnik et al., 2012a; Moser and Barrett, 2003;
Scopel et al., 2012). However, despite the differences and limita-
tions of each of the three cropping systems (Table 4) they are all
in principle built on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). Local adap-
tations of such systems or the adoption of one or a few of their
components at a specific location might provide farmers with some
advantages in terms of yield or resource-use efficiency.
4.2. Local adaptations and holistic approaches
Narrowing yield gaps suggests refinement of available technol-
ogies, making them more efficient and suitable under the prevail-
ing local socio-economic and biophysical circumstances thus
reducing environmental damage and negative returns to invest-
51
ments on inputs. The development and use of site-specific recom-
mendations is imminent in order for smallholder farmers to obtain
yield levels that optimize labour, land and applied inputs.
Developing Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) requires knowl-
edge of the available technologies, farmers and farm characteris-
tics, and access to markets. Fig. 1 illustrates the linkages between
technologies and how they can contribute to GAP. The GAP
approach recognizes the importance of addressing research ques-
tions within each component technology and emphasizes the
resultant synergies between component technologies within GAP.
Local adaptation of technologies is of key importance in GAP. Fol-
lowing this approach, technology packages, such as the System of
Rice Intensification (SRI) or Conservation Agriculture (CA) should
only be introduced where they are likely to be value-adding, and
they should be adapted to the local conditions, rather than treated
as fixed packages (e.g., Krupnik et al., 2012a). Conservation agricul-
ture, has gained popularity in ESA on many cereals because it
addresses firstly the soil degradation (long-term) and water losses
(short-term) that occur on vulnerable rain-fed uplands. Secondly,
conservation agriculture has the potential to improve soil quality
(soil health). However, the application of conservation agriculture
requires careful consideration of the farm and farmer circum-
stances to ensure its relevance and feasibility (Giller et al., 2009)
and the suitability of conservation agriculture for (upland) rice
has not been thoroughly examined.
Most agricultural technologies are only sporadically adopted by
farmers (e.g., Balasubramanian et al., 2007). Therefore we concur
with Ducrot and Capillon (2004) who propose, in order to increase
adoption rates, that introductions of new, or adapted, technologies
need to be combined with promotion or training of the associated
organizational and management skills.
4.3. Management tools for improved resource use in rice systems in
ESA
We observe roughly two groups of farmers in ESA: (1) the tra-
ditional rice growers that often grown rice for their own consump-
tion (subsistence farming) and (2) the new farmers who grow rice
as a cash crop (i.e., for profit). Traditional rice growers face chal-
lenges in changing their production practices to those required
for improved cultivars while the new rice farmers have little to
no experience with rice production, e.g. the case of farmers in
Uganda (Meertens et al., 1999). Both groups require capacity build-
ing and practical information on modern rice production practices.
Based on the currently available data we propose the develop-
ment of interactive decision guides for effective implementation
of improved nutrient, water, weed management and varieties as
illustrated in Fig. 1. The objective of such decision guides can be
twofold (1) to assist farmers in their management decisions using
a set of logical steps that take into account the prevailing circum-
stances at their farm and (2) for researchers, extensionists and
farmer to evaluate the interaction of factors important to improve
rice production through GAP. IRRI and AfricaRice are in the process
of developing such interactive guides, to be used on mobile devices
e.g. smart-phones and electronic tablets. Soils, broadly described
by colour and texture as light sandy or heavy clays and positions
on the catena, synonymous to upland, hydromorphic and lowland
are considered to require distinctly different management. For
clayey soils colour and texture classes include red clays and black
clays. Haefele et al. (2006) simplified categorization of soils into (1)
inherently poor soils, (2) soils with abnormally poor fertilizer
response, (3) soils productive only when fertilizer is applied and
(4) soils with normal to high fertilizer response, an approach which
is very useful in developing a decision guide for soil fertility man-
agement. A soil fertility management decision tool, called Nutrient
Manager, is currently in an advanced stage of development for use
52 N. Nhamo et al. / Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55

Table 4
Summary principles of the two main rice systems applicable to ESA described in literature (a) Integrated Crop Management (ICM) and (b) the System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
and Conservation Agriculture (CA), and suggested areas of improvements.

Rice system Principles Areas of improvement Sources

Integrated Crop Management (ICM)
System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
Conservation Agriculture (CA)
(1) Rice cultivation is a production a. Developing effective Donovan et al. (1999); Haefele et al., 2000,
systems involving several components communication means for 2001, 2003; Kebbeh and Miezan, 2003,
from land preparation to harvest and post- farmers Wopereis et al., 1999
harvest management
(2) ICM takes into consideration all factors b. Incorporating local
that impact crop growth, yield, quality adaptations through farmer
and profitability experimentation. Improving
links to markets by using a
value chain approach
(3) Technologies are delivered as a basket
of integrated management options
(4) Farmers are heterogeneous and
different in terms of access to resources
(5) Components of ICM include improved
varieties, good quality planting materials,
improved fertilizers, weed and water
management, and efficient and cost
effective harvest and post-harvest
technologies
(6) The cropping calendar is made up of 5
different periods (a) land preparation,
basal fertilizer application and sowing (b)
first urea application and chemical or
manual weeding (c) second urea
application and additional weeding (d)
final urea application and additional
weeding and (e) harvest and post-harvest
operations. In addition, N fertilizer is
applied at 250–350 kg ha1, water level
for each fertilizer application is 3 cm high
and weeding methods can be chemical
manual or mechanical, but need proper
timing
(1) Shallow transplanting (1–2 cm) of a. Reducing labour Deb et al. (2012), Krupnik et al. (2012a–c),
young seedlings (<16 day-old) into moist requirements on weeding Menete et al. (2008), Moser and
but not flooded seed bed Barret (2003), Noltze et al. (2012),
Stoop et al. (2002), Styger et al. (2011),
Tsujimoto et al. (2009)
(2) transplanting of single seedlings per b. Develop local adaptations
hill to recommendations of
organic matter inputs
(3) wide plant spacing (25 cm  25 cm to
30 cm  30 cm)
(4) alternate wetting-and-drying water c. Include responses of
regimes during vegetative growth improved cultivars and
synergies from other factors
(5) early and regular weeding using a d. Improving links to
rotary weeder markets (using value chain
approach)
(6) high nutrient inputs in organic form e. Adapting water
e.g. compost management to local
irrigation infrastructure or
organization
(1) Use of minimum tillage a. Finding suitable cover Dobermann (2004), Erenstein (2011),
crops and grain legumes. Giller et al. (2009), Oicha et al. (2010),
Scopel et al. (2012)
(2) Soil protection through mulching, dead b. Reducing labour and/or
or living organic materials costs of weed and organic
matter management
(3) Use of crop rotation or intercropping c. Developing suitable
(crop combinations) tillage equipment
(4) Biomass production whenever possible d. Creating better links to
throughout the whole year markets (using value chain
approach)
(5) Use of multifunctional cover crops e. Improving suitability for
crop-livestock farming
systems

in SSA. Attributes on soil fertility, depth, structure and colour and options (Habarurema and Steiner, 1997). However, lack of correla-
use of indicator plants, texture, consistence and parent material tion between local knowledge of soils and scientifically determined
have successfully been combined by farmers and researchers in values challenges farmer participatory soil suitability evalua-
arriving at different soil types and associated best management tions (Birmingham, 2013). For effective weed management,
 N. Nhamo et al. / Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55
identification of dominant or persistent weed species or groups is
an important first step. A proper diagnosis of the weed problem
forms the basis for effective weed management recommendations.
A decision support tool (Weed Manager) is currently in an early
stage of development and will include a recently finalized weed
identification tool and data base for weeds of rice in Africa, called
AFROweeds, freely accessible online and offline as application on
tablets, smartphones and computers (CIRAD-AfricaRice, 2012).
There is a high probability of developing effective decision
guides with rice farmers especially because of the high market
value of rice and the current drive in improving productivity. How-
ever, it is important to involve farmers in the development of such
tools as this gives ownership to users, ensures thorough testing
and understanding on how they lead to efficient resource use
management.
5. Implications for research
Yield targets that incorporate farmers’ socio-economic status,
field soil conditions, available improved technologies and rice cul-
tivars need to be worked out together with farmers in order to
reduce yield gaps in rice production systems. Banwo and
Makundi (2002) identified promotion of integrated crop manage-
ment practices, deployment of new technologies, reduction of
post-harvest losses and characterization of the nature of gaps for
different farm conditions (location specific) as key requirements
in narrowing yield gaps. Yield gains from improved weed control
and N management have been reported by Becker et al. (2003).
When combined with effective water management targeting
weeds and soil fertility can lead to significant rice yield increases.
Similarly, exploring linkages between biophysical and socio-eco-
nomic factors can unlock production potential at minimal costs
to the farmers (Stoop et al., 2002). Combining a strategic with an
adaptive approach (on-farm with full farmer participation) has also
been emphasized (Giller et al., 2011). Using a similar approach, the
gains derived from use of improved fertilizer, water and weed
management on improved cultivars (e.g., Table 3) can be further
characterized taking into consideration the impacts of socio-eco-
nomic and climate variations.
Based on our analysis, the following issues are (not exclusively)
considered important for near-future research and development
efforts:
(1) Flexible fertilizer application strategies – that take into
account the target yields (short term) and minimization of
environmental damage from over application – need to be
worked out together with farmers and other stakeholders.
Site-specific nutrient management practices need to replace
the blanket fertilizer recommendations approach.
(2) How to tailor technologies to specific farm conditions need
to be investigated in order to increase the implementation
of locally adapted Good Agricultural Practices. The cost of
conducting these studies can be reduced by delineating
areas with similar ecological characteristics, i.e. farm typol-
ogies according to Giller et al. (2011), and by integrating
technical, farmer management and advisory services. This
should lead to best-fit technologies for smallholder farmers,
i.e. improved technologies tailored to farmers’ production
conditions (e.g., Giller et al., 2011; Le Gal et al., 2011).
(3) Locally adapted Good Agricultural Practices need to be
developed aimed at intensification and diversification of
rice-based production systems, with (a large number of)
farmers and integrated in rice value chains, improving the
link between (market) demand and supply as well as quality
of the produce.
53
(4) Impact of climate variability (extremes) on rice systems
need to be investigated through a combination of experi-
ments, farmer recall surveys and crop modelling. Suitable,
affordable and effective technologies that contribute to mit-
igating, or coping with, climate irregularities or other envi-
ronmental stresses imposed by climate change, need to be
developed or adapted with farmers.
(5) Crop combinations and sequences that effectively utilize
temporal and spatial opportunities for improving rice sys-
tems need to be developed and promoted. Introduction of
effective legumes and high value crops in rice systems to
generate incomes for farmers and effectively utilize water
and nutrient resources need to be considered for increase
production, productivity and profitability.
(6) Locally improved rice systems using relevant elements of
potential crop production systems (e.g. SRI, IRM, CA) need
to be developed with farmers and other relevant
stakeholders.
(7) In order to provide incentives associated with adoption of
Good Agricultural Practices there is need to evaluate the
effectiveness of the value chain approach on crop such as
rice in ESA. More importantly, the knowledge gaps in the
mechanism associated with adoption of integrated technol-
ogies by farmers need to be addressed.
6. Conclusions
In East and Southern Africa, rice yield gains following use of
improved cultivars and component technologies improving nutri-
ent, water and weed management are evident. Although based
on few data, we found that improving weed management could
result in the highest relative yield gains (91.6%). There is scope to
obtain higher yield gains if technologies are integrated as Good
Agricultural Practices for rice however, such gains emanating from
locally adapted technology combinations are yet to be thoroughly
studied. Yield gaps explained by the socio-economic circumstances
of farmers remain a major challenge because rice farmers in East
and Southern Africa are often resource constrained and do not have
the organizational skills and know-how required for timely and
proper implementation of improved technologies. Fertilizer use
on rice can be profitable to farmers but the price of such inputs
is the most critical factor. Further, there is a paucity of data at pres-
ent to fully characterize the technical yield gaps in a step by step
manner in rice systems. There is however evidence that locally
adapting rice systems i.e., with elements of ICM, SRI or CA, can pro-
vide farmers with adequate solutions to stagnant rice yields. We
propose the further development and implementation of interac-
tive decision support guides for smallholder farmers, focussing
on Good Agricultural Practices and based on farm typologies,
determining the local availability of resources, for rice-based pro-
duction systems.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to two reviewers who provided useful
comments for improvement of this paper.
References
Abo, M.E., Sy, A.A., Alegbego, M.D., 1998. Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (RYMV) in Africa:
Evolution, distribution, economic significance on sustainable rice production
and management strategies. J. Sustain. Agr. 11, 85–111.
Acres, B.D., Rains, A.B., King, R.B., Lawton, R.M., Mitchell, A.J.B., Rackham, L.J., 1985.
African dambos: their distribution, characteristics and use. Zeitschrift Fur
Geomorphologie, 63–86.
Akanvou, R., Kropff, M.J., Bastiaans, L., Becker, M., 2002. Evaluating the use of two
contrasting legume species as relay intercrop in upland rice cropping systems.
Field Crops Res. 74, 23–36.
54 N. Nhamo et al. / Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55
Alemu, G., Bayu, W., 2005. Effects if farmyard manure and combined N and P
fertilizer on sorghum and soil characteristics in Northeastern Ethiopia. J.
Sustain. Agr. 26, 23–41.
Ampong-Nyarko, K., De Datta, S.K., 1991. A Handbook for Weed Control in Rice
International Rice Research Institute, Manila.
Andriesse, W., Fresco, L.O., Duivenbooden, N., Windmeijer, P.N., 1994. Multi-scale
characterization of inland valley agro-ecosystems in West Africa. Neth. J. Agr.
Sci. 42, 159–179.
Balasubramanian, V., Sié, M., Hijmans, R.J., Otsuka, K., 2007. Increasing rice
production in Sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and opportunities. Adv. Agron.
94, 55–133.
Banwo, O.O., Makundi, R.H., 2002. Bionomics and importance of two species of
Chaetocnema in Rice Yellow Mottle Virus Transmission in lowland rice in
Tanzania. Phytoparasitica 30, 96–104.
Bationo, A., Hartemink, A., Lungu, O., Nai, M., Oko, P., Smali, E., Thiombiano, L., 2006
African Soils: Their Productivity and Profitability of Fertilizer Use. Africa
Fertilizer Summit: Nourish the Soil, Feed the Continent, Abuja.
Becker, M., Johnson, D.E., 1999. The role of legume fallows in intensified upland
rice-based systems of West Africa. Nut. Cyc. Agroecosys. 53, 71–81.
Becker, M., Johnson, D.E., 2001. Improved water control and crop management
effects on lowland rice productivity in West Africa. Nut. Cyc. Agroecosys. 59,
119–127.
Becker, M., Ladha, J.K., Ali, M., 1995. Gren manure technology: potential, usage and
limitations. A case study for lowland rice. Plant Soil. 174, 181–195.
Becker, M., Johnson, D.E., Wopereis, M.C.S., Sow, A., 2003. Rice yield gaps in irrigated
systems along an agro-ecological gradient in West Africa. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.
166, 61–67.
Bekunda, M.A., Woomer, P.L., 1996. Organic resource management in banana based
cropping systems of the Lake Victoria basin, Uganda. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 59,
171–180.
Bekunda, M.A., Nkonya, E., Mugendi, D.N., Msaky, J.J., 2002. Soil fertility status,
management and research in east Africa. East African J. Rural Dev., 1–24.
Birmingham, D.M., 2013. Local knowledge of soils: the case of contrast in Cote
d’Ivoire. Geoderma 111, 481–502.
Brar, D., Virk, P., 2010. How a modern rice variety is bred. Rice Today 1, 11–12.
CIRAD-AfricaRice, 2012. AFROweeds. Montpellier, France-Cotonou, Benin.
Cissoko, M., Boisnard, A., Rodenburg, J., Press, M.C., Scholes, J.D., 2011. New Rice for
Africa (NERICA) cultivars exhibit different levels of post-attachment resistance
against the parasitic weeds Striga hermonthica and Striga asiatica. New Phytol.
192, 952–963.
De Wit, C.T., 1992. Resource use efficiency in agriculture. Agri. Syst. 40, 125–151.
Deb, D., Lässig, J., Kloft, M., 2012. A critical assessment of the importance of seedling
age in the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in eastern India. Expl. Agric. 48
(3), 326–346.
Demont, M., Rizzotto, A., 2012. Policy sequencing and the development of rice value
chains in Senegal. Dev. Policy Rev. 30, 451–472.
Demont, M., Jouve, P., Stessens, J., Tollens, E., 2007. Boserup versus Malthus
revisited: evolution of farming systems in northern Cote d’Ivoire. Agri. Syst. 93,
215–228.
Dobermann, A., 2004. A critical assessment of the System Of Rice Intensification
(SRI). Agri. Syst. 79, 261–281.
Donovan, C., Wopereis, M.C.S., Guindo, D., Nebie, B., 1999. Soil fertility management
in irrigated rice systems in the Sahel and Savanna regions of West Africa. Part II.
Profitability and risk analysis. Field Crops Res. 61, 147–162.
Ducrot, R., Capillon, A., 2004. A practice analysis to account for adoption of
innovations in irrigated rice cropping system in Lake Alaotra (Madagascar). J.
Sustain. Agr. 24, 71–96.
Erenstein, O., 2011. Cropping systems and crop residue management in the Trans-
Gangetic Plains: issues and challenges for conservation agriculture from village
surveys. Agri. Syst. 104, 54–62.
Esilaba, A.E., Nyende, P., Nalukenge, G., Byalebeka, J.B., Delve, R.J., Ssali, H., 2005.
Resource flows and nutrient balances for crop and animal production in
smallholder farming systems in eastern Uganda. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 109,
192–201.
FAO, 2010. FAO Statistical Databases – Agriculture. <http://www.faostat.fao.org>.
Garenne, M., 2002. The political economy of an urban famine. IDS Bullet. 33, 55–62.
Giannin, A., Biasutti, M., Held, I.M., Sobel, A.H., 2008. A global perspective of African
climate. Clim. Change 90, 359–383.
Giller, K.E., 2001. Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems, second ed. CABI
International, Wallingford.
Giller, K.E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., Tittonell, P., 2009. Conservation agriculture and
smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Res. 114, 23–
34.
Giller, K.E., Tittonell, P., Rufino, M.C., van Wijk, M.T., Zingore, S., Mapfumo, P., Adjei-
Nsiah, S., Herrero, M., Chikowo, R., Corbeels, M., Rowe, E.C., Baijukya, F.,
Mwijage, A., Smith, J., Yeboah, E., van der Burg, W.J., Sanogo, O.M., Misiko, M., de
Ridder, N., Karanja, S., Kaizzi, C., K’ungu, J., Mwale, M., Nwaga, D., Pacini, C.,
Vanlauwe, B., 2011. Communicating complexity: Integrated assessment of
trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems
to support innovation and development. Agri. Syst. 104, 191–203.
Habarurema, E., Steiner, K.G., 1997. Soil suitability classification by farmers in
southern Rwanda. Geoderma 75, 75–87.
Haefele, S.M., Johnson, D.E., Diallo, S., Wopereis, M.C.S., Janin, I., 2000. Improved soil
fertility and weed management is profitable for irrigated rice farmers in
Sahelian West Africa. Field Crops Res. 66, 101–113.
Haefele, S.M., Wopereis, M.C.S., Donovan, C., Maubuisson, J., 2001. Improving the
productivity and profitability of irrigated rice production in Mauritania. Eur. J.
Agron. 14, 181–196.
Haefele, S.M., Wopereis, M.C.S., Ndiaye, M.K., Kropff, M.J., 2003. A framework to
improve fertilizer recommendations for irrigated rice in West Africa. Agri. Syst.
76 (1), 313–335.
Haefele, S.M., Naklang, K., Harnpichitvitaya, D., Jearakongman, S., Skulkhu, E.,
Romyen, P., Tabtim, S., Suriya-arunroj, D., Khunthasuvon, S., Kraisorakul, D.,
Youngsuk, P., Amarate, S.T., Wale, L.J., 2006. Factors affecting rice yield and
fertilizer response in rainfed lowlands of northeast Thailand. Field Crops Res.
98, 39–51.
Hartemink, A.E., 1997. Soil fertility decline in some major soil groupings under
permanent cropping in Tanga region, Tanzania. Geoderma 75, 215–229.
Hartemink, A.E., Priess, J., Veldkamp, E., Teketay, D., Lesschen, J.P., 2005. Assessment
of soil nutrient depletion and its spacial variability on smallholders’ mixed
farming systems in Ethiopia using partial versus full nutrient balances. Agr.
Ecosyst. Environ. 108, 1–16.
Jagadish, S.V.K., Septiningsih, E.M., Kohli, A., Homson, M.J., Ye, C., Redona, E., Kumar,
A., Gregorio, G.B., Assmann, R., Ismail, A.M., Singh, R.K., 2012. Genetic advances
in adapting rice to a rapidly changing climate. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 198, 360–373.
Jamil, M., Rodenburg, J., Charnikhova, T., Bouwmeester, H.J., 2011. Pre-attachment
Striga hermonthica resistance of NERICA cultivars based on low strigolactone
production. New Phytol. 192, 964–975.
Kaihura, F.B., Kullaya, I., Kilasara, M., Lal, R., Singh, B.R., Aune, J.B., 1996. Topsoil
thickness effects on soil properties and maize (Zea mays) yield in three
ecoregions of Tanzania. J. Sustain. Agr 9, 11–30.
Kaihura, F.B.S., Kullaya, I.K., Kilasara, M., Aune, J.B., Singh, B.R., Lal, R., Arshad, M.A.,
1999. Soil quality effects of accelerated erosion and management systems in
three eco-regions of Tanzania. Soil Till. Res. 53, 59–70.
Kajiru, G.J., Kileo, R.O., Stroud, A., Budelman, A., 1998. Validating a fertilizer
recommendation across a diverse cropping environment. Nut. Cyc. Agroecosys.
51, 163–173.
Kajisa, K., Payongayong, E., 2011. Potential of and constraints to the rice Green
Revolution in Mozambique: a case study of the Chokwe irrigation scheme. Food
Policy 36, 615–626.
Kanyeka, Z.K., Msomba, S.W., Kihupi, A.N., Penza, M.S.F., 1996. Rice ecosystems in
Tanzania: characterization and classification. Res. Train. Newsl. 9, 13–15.
Kayeke, J., Siguba, P.K., Msaky, J.J., Mbwaga, A., 2007. Green manure and inorganic
fertilizer as management strategies for witchweed and upland rice. Afr. Crop
Sci. J. 15, 161–171.
Kebbeh, M., Miezan, K.M., 2003. Ex-ante evaluation of integrated crop management
options for irrigated rice production in the Senegal River Valley. Field Crops Res.
81, 87–94.
Kennedy, E., Reardon, T., 1994. Shift to non-traditional grain in the diets of east and
west Africa: role of women’s opportunity cost of time. Food Policy 19, 45–56.
Kijima, Y., Otsuka, K., Sserunkuuma, D., 2011. An inquiry into constraints on a Green
Revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: the case of NERICA rice in Uganda. World
Dev. 39, 77–86.
Kijima, Y., Sserunkuuma, D., Otsuka, K., 2006. How revolutionary is the ‘‘NERICA
Revolution’’? Evidence from Uganda. The Developing Economies XLIV (2), 252–
267.
Krupnik, T.J., Shennan, C., Settle, W.H., Demont, M., Ndiaye, A.B., Rodenburg, J.,
2012a. Improving irrigated rice production in the Senegal River Valley through
experimental learning and innovation. Agri. Syst. 109, 101–112.
Krupnik, T.J., Rodenburg, J., Haden, V.R., Mbaye, D., Shennan, C., 2012b. Genotypic
trade-offs between water productivity and weed competition under the System
of Rice Intensification in the Sahel. Agric. Water Manage. 115, 156–166.
Krupnik, T.J., Shennan, C., Rodenburg, J., 2012c. Yield, water productivity and
nutrient balances under the System of Rice Intensification and recommended
management practices in the sahel. Field Crops Res. 130, 155–167.
Lawrence, P.R., Dijkman, J.T., Jansen, H.G.P., 1997. The introduction of animal
traction into inland valley regions. 1. Manual labour and animal traction in the
cultivation of rice and maize: a comparison. J. Agric. Sci. 129, 65–70.
Le Gal, P.-Y., Dugue, P., Faure, G., Novak, S., 2011. How does research address the
design of innovative agricultural production systems at farm level? A review.
Agri. Syst. 104, 714–728.
Lobell, D.B., Cassman, K.G., Field, C.B., 2009. Crop yield gaps: their importance,
magnitudes and causes. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 34, 179–204.
Loevinsohn, M.E., Mugarura, J., Nkusi, A., 1994. Cooperation and innovation by
farmer groups: scale in the development of Rwandan Valley farming systems.
Agri. Syst. 46, 141–155.
Luzi-Kihupi, A., Tamura, M., Mbapila, J.C., 2004. Rice improvement and production
in Tanzania. JICA Seminar on Promotion and Dissemination in Africa AIAD Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Nairobi, pp. 55–90.
Luzi-Kihupi, A., Mlozi, M.R.S., Nchimbi-Msolla, S., 2007. Cooking and eating quality
of rice yellow mottle virus resistant rice mutants: its implications for the future
breeding work. Tanzania J. Agric. Sci. 8, 193–202.
Luzi-Kihupi, A., Zakayo, J.A., Tusekelege, H., Mkuya, M., Kibanda, N.J.M., Khatib, K.J.,
Kaerere, A., 2009. Mutation breeding for rice improvement in Tanzania. In: Shu,
Q.Y. (Ed.), Induced Plant Mutations in the Genomics Era Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 385–387.
Mafongoya, P.L., Bationo, A., Kihara, J., Waswa, B.S., 2006. Appropriate technologies
to replenish soil fertility in Southern Africa. Nut. Cyc. Agroecosys. 76, 137–151.
Makoye, J.J., Winge, N.J., 1996. Field activities in Shinyanga Region 1994/95. Kilimo/
FAO Plant Nutrition Programme, URT/FAO, Dar es Salaam.
 N. Nhamo et al. / Agricultural Systems 131 (2014) 45–55
McCartney, M.P., Houghton-Carr, H.A., 2009. Working wetlands potential: an index
to guide the sustainable development of African wetlands. Nat. Resources
Forum 33, 99–110.
Meertens, H.C.C., Roling, N.G., 2000. Non-adoption of rice fertilizer technology
based on a farming systems research-extension methodology in Sukumaland,
Tanzania: a search for reasons. J. Extension Syst. 16, 1–22.
Meertens, H.C.C., Ndege, L.J., Lupeja, P.M., 1999. Cultivation of rainfed, lowland rice
in Sukumaland, Tanzania. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 76, 31–45.
Meertens, H.C.C., Kajiru, G.J., Ndege, L.J., Enserink, H.J., Brouwer, J., 2003. Evaluation
of on-farm soil fertility research in the rainfed lowland rice fields of
Sukumaland, Tanxania. Exp. Agr. 39, 65–79.
Menete, M.Y.L., van Es, H.M., Brito, R.M.L., DeGloria, S.D., Famba, S., 2008. Evaluation
of System of Rice Intensification (SRI) component practices and their synergies
on salt-affected soils. Field Crops Res. 109, 34–44.
Mghase, J.J., Shiwachi, H., Nakasone, K., Takahashi, H., 2010. Agronomic and socio-
economic constraints to high yield of upland rice in Tanzania. Afr. J. Agric. Res.
5, 150–158.
Moser, C.M., Barrett, C.B., 2003. The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield
increasing, low external-input technology: the case of SRI in Madagascar. Agri.
Syst. 76, 1085–1100.
Msomba, S.W., Kibanda, J.M., Penza, H., Tusekelege, H., Mkuya, M., Kafiriti, E.,
Mbapila, J.C., Kanyeka, Z.K., 2004. TXD306 – a high-yielding and medium-
maturity aromatic rice for the rainfed lowland and irrigated ecosystems in
Tanzania. Int. Rice Res. News 29, 29–30.
Mulwafu, W.O., Nkhoma, B.G., 2002. The use and management of water in the
Likangala irrigation scheme complex in southern Malawi. Phys. Chem. Earth 27,
839–844.
Munene, J.T., Kinyamario, J.I., Holst, N., Mworia, J.K., 2008. Competition between
cultivated rice (Oryza sativa) and wild rice (Oryza punctata) in Kenya. Afr. J.
Agric. Res. 3, 605–611.
Mwaseba, D.L., Kaarhus, R., Johnsen, F.H., Mvena, Z.S.K., Mattee, A.Z., 2006. Beyond
adoption/rejection of agricultural innovations: empirical evidence from
smallholder rice farmers in Tanzania. Outlook Agri. 35, 263–272.
Nakano, Y., Kajisa, K., 2012 The determinants of technology adoption: A case of the
rice sector in Tanzania. In: Proceedings of International Association of
Agricultural Economists Conference, 18–24 August 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil.
Nandwa, S.M., Bekunda, M.A., 1998. Research on nutrient flows and balances in East
and Southern Africa: state-of-the-art. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 71, 5–18.
Nhamo, N., Sithole, T., Dhliwayo, D.K.C., Mupangwa, W., Gatsi, T., Chikazunga, D.,
Nemasasi, H., 2002. The prospects of smallholder farmers utilizing organic
materials as soil fertility amendments in Murewa and Mvuma, Zimbabwe. A
Soil Fertility Network Research Results Working Paper No. 9 International
Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Harare.
Nkonya, E., Kaizzi, C., Pender, J., 2005. Determinant of nutrient balances in a maize
farming system in eastern Uganda. Agri. Syst. 85, 155–182.
Noltze, M., Schwarze, S., Qaim, M., 2012. Understanding the adoption of system
technologies in smallholder agriculture: the System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
in Timor Leste. Agri. Syst. 108, 64–73.
NPA, 2007. Marketing of Rice based on Building a Strong Value-Chain for the Rice
Industry in Uganda. National Planning Authority, Kampala, pp. 1–93.
Oicha, T., Cornelis, W.M., Verplancke, H., Nyssen, J., Govaerts, B., Behailu, M., Haile,
M., Deckers, J., 2010. Short-term effects of conservation agriculture on Vertisols
under tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) in the northern Ethiopian highlands.
Soil Till. Res. 106, 294–302.
Okalebo, J.R., Othieno, C.O., Woomer, P.L., Karanja, N.K., Semoka, J.R.M., Bekunda,
M.A., Mugendi, D.N., Muasya, R.M., Bationo, A., Mukhwana, E.J., 2006. Available
technologies to replenish soil fertility in East Africa. Nut. Cyc. Agroecosys. 76,
153–170.
Otsuka, K., Kalirajan, K.P., 2005. An overview and prospects for a green revolution in
Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Agric. Dev. Econ. 2, 1–6.
Otsyina, R., Asenga, D., Mumba, M., 1995. Annual Progress Report 1995. Tanzania/
ICRAF Agroforestry Research Project Shinyanga, Shinyanga.
Perret, S.R., Stevens, J.B., 2006. Socio-economic reasons for the low adoption of
water conservation technologies by smallholder farmers in Southern Africa: a
review of the literature. Dev. Southern Africa 23, 461–476.
Piha, M.I., 1993. Optimizing fertilizer use and practical rainfall capture in a semi-
arid environment with variable rainfall. Exp. Agr. 29, 405–415.
Poulton, C., Kydd, J., Dorward, A., 2006. Increasing Fertilizer use in Africa: What have
we Learned? Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 25. The
World Bank, Washington.
Rabbinge, R., 1993. The Ecological Background to Food Production. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, pp. 2–29.
Raes, D., Kafiriti, E.M., Wellens, J., Deckers, J., Maertens, A., Mugogo, S., Dondeyne, S.,
Descheemaeker, K., 2007. Can soil unds increase the production of rain-fed
lowland rice in south eastern Tanzania. Agri. Water Manage. 89, 229–235.
Renkow, M., Byerlee, D., 2010. The impacts of CGIAR research: a review of recent
evidence. Food Policy 35, 391–402.
55
Riches, C.R., Mbwaga, A.M., Mbapila, J., Ahmed, G.J.U., 2005. Improved weed
management delivers increased productivity and farm incomes from rice in
Bangladesh and Tanzania. Asp. Appl. Biol. 75, 127–138.
Rodenburg, J., Demont, M., 2009. Potential of herbicide-resistant rice technologies
for Sub-Saharan Africa. AgBioForum 12, 313–325.
Rodenburg, J., Johnson, D.E., 2009. Weed management in rice-based cropping
systems in Africa. Adv. Agron. 103, 149–218.
Rodenburg, J., Saito, K., Kakai, R.G., Toure, A., 2009. Weed competitiveness of the
lowland rice varieties of NERICA in the southern Guinea Savanna. Field Crops
Res. 114, 411–418.
Rodenburg, J., Riches, C.R., Kayeke, J.M., 2010. Addressing current and future
problems of parasitic weeds in rice. Crop Prot. 92, 210–221.
Rodenburg, J., Meinke, H., Johnson, D.E., 2011. Challenges for weed management in
African rice systems in a changing climate. J. Agric. Sci. 149, 427–435.
Rodenburg, J., Zwart, S.J., Kiepe, P., Narteh, L.T., Dogbe, W., Wopereis, M.C.S., 2014.
Sustainable rice production in African inland valleys: seizing regional potentials
through local approaches. Agri. Syst. 123, 1–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.agsy.2013.09.004.
Rugumamu, C.P., 2014. Empowering smallholder rice farmers in Tanzania to
increase productivity for promoting food security in Eastern and Southern
Africa. Agric. Food Security 3 (7), 1–8.
Sakane, N., Alvarez, M., Becker, M., Bohme, B., Handa, C., Kamiri, H.W.,
Langensiepen, M., Menz, G., Misana, S., Mogha, N.G., Moseler, B.M., Mwita,
E.J., Oyieke, H.A., van Wijk, M.T., 2011. Classification, characterization and use of
small wetlands in East Africa. Wetlands 31, 1103–1116.
Scopel, E., Triomphe, B., Affholder, F., Da Silva, F.A.M., Corbeels, M., Xavier, J.H.V.,
Lahmar, R., Recous, S., Bernoux, M., Blanchart, E., Mendes, I.C., De Tourdonnet, S.,
2012. Conservation agriculture cropping systems in temperate and tropical
conditions, performances and impacts. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0106-9.
Seck, P.A., Tollens, E., Wopereis, M.C.S., Diagne, A., Bamba, I., 2010. Rising trends and
variability of rice prices: threats and opportunities for Sub-Saharan Africa. Food
Policy 355, 403–411.
Seck, P.A., Diagne, A., Mohanty, S., Wopereis, M.C.S., 2012. Crops that feed the world:
rice. Food Policy 4, 7–24.
Shayo, B.H., Mamiro, P., Nyaruhucha, C.N.M., Mambolea, T., 2006. Physico-chemical
characteristics of selected rice cultivars grown in Morogoro. Tanz. J. Sci. 32 (1),
29–35.
Singh, A.K., 2006. Exploring water nutrient synergies – a must for evergreen
revolution. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 54, 396–407.
Sistani, K.R., Reddy, K.C., Kanyika, W., Savant, N.K., 1998. Integration of rice crop
residue into sustainable rice production system. J. Plant Nutr. 21, 1855–
1866.
Sseguya, H., Semana, A.R., Bekunda, M.A., 1999. Soil fertility management in the
banana based agriculture of central Uganda: farmers constraints and opinions.
Afr. Crop Sci. J. 7, 559–567.
Stoop, W.A., Uphoff, N., Kassam, A., 2002. A review of agricultural research issues
raised by the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) from Madagascar:
opportunities of improving farming systems for resource poor farmers. Agri.
Syst. 71, 249–274.
Stoop, W.A., Adam, A., Kassam, A., 2009. Comparing rice production systems: a
challenge for agronomic research and for the dissemination of knowledge-
intensive farming practices. Agri. Water Manage. 96, 1491–1501.
Styger, E., Ag Atter, M., Guindo, H., Ibriham, H., Diaty, M., Abba, I., Traore, M., 2011.
Application of System of Rice Intensification practices in the arid environment
of the Timbuktu region in Mali. Paddy Water Environ. 9, 137–144.
Toure, A., Becker, M., Johnson, D.E., Kone, B., Kossou, D.K., Kiepe, P., 2009. Response
of lowland rice to agronomic management under different hydrological regimes
in an inland valley of Ivory Cost. Field Crops Res. 114, 304–310.
Tran, D., 2004. Rice and Narrowing the Yield Gap. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
Tsujimoto, Y., Horie, T., Randriamihary, H., Shiraiwa, T., Homma, K., 2009. Soil
management: the key factor for higher productivity in the fields utilizing the
System of Rice Intensification SRI in the central highlands of Madagascar. Agri.
Syst. 100, 61–71.
van der Heyden, C.J., New, M.G., 2003. The role of a dambo in the hydrology of a
catchment and the river network downstream. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc. 7, 339–
357.
Verhoeven, J.T.A., Setter, T.L., 2010. Agricultural use of wetlands: opportunities and
limitations. Annu. Bot. 105, 155–163.
Wopereis, M.C.S., Donovan, C., Nebie, B., Guindo, D., N’-Diaye, M.K., 1999. Soil
fertility management in irrigated rice systems in the Sahel and Savanna regions
of West Africa. Part I. Agronomic analysis. Field Crops. Res., 125–145.
Wopereis, M.C.S., Diagne, A., Rodenburg, J., Sie, M., Somado, E.A., 2008. Whu NERICA
is a successful innovation for African farmers: a response to Orr. et al. from
Africa Rice Center. Outlook Agri. 37, 169–176.
Zimdhal, R.L., 2007. Fundamentals of Weed Science. Elsevier Inc., London.