Conservation Agriculture in Zambia: Effects on Selected Soil Properties and Biological Nitrogen Fixation in Soya Beans (Glycine max (L.) Merr)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation agriculture has been promoted in Zambia as a strategy to mitigate some of the negative effects arising from conventional tillage practices. Conservation agriculture offers several potential benefits on soil properties. However, these benefits and impacts vary across agro ecological regions and management practices. This study investigated changes, over time, associated with the practice of conservation agriculture in selected soil chemical, physical and biological properties, including an assessment of the effects on soil respiration, nodulation and biological nitrogen fixation in soya beans (Glycine max (L.) Merr). Six paired soil samples were collected from conservation agriculture and conventional tillage fields. Fields under conservation agriculture were 4, 7 and 16 years old while those under conventional tillage had been cultivated for over 18 years. Changes in soil properties due to conservation agriculture practice were determined using published laboratory procedures and compared using the paired t-test at 95% confidence level. The results indicated significantly higher soil pH, soil organic carbon, nodulation and biological nitrogen fixation under conservation agriculture than conventional tillage after seven years of practice. The study also showed significantly higher total porosity, soil microbial biomass, soil respiration and lower soil bulk density after sixteen years of practice. Based on these results, the practice of conservation agriculture has potential to improve crop productivity by improving the different aspects of soil fertility, the length of time before this is realized notwithstanding. Further studies that compare several conservation agriculture systems are recommended in other agro-ecological zones of the country to validate these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".